View Poll Results: What Do You Think The Verdict Will Be

Voters
28. This poll is closed
  • Guilty

    4 14.29%
  • Not Guilty

    5 17.86%
  • Hung Jury-Meaning All Jurors Couldnt Agree Or Come To A Decision

    11 39.29%
  • I'm Not Sure

    8 28.57%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

R. Kelly Trial: Did Defense Cast Doubt On Sex Tape's Validity?

This is a discussion on R. Kelly Trial: Did Defense Cast Doubt On Sex Tape's Validity? within the R. Kelly Polls forums, part of the R. Kelly Music Chat category; a good wrap up of the defense's case... Kelly's lawyers hoped to show that singer might not be the man ...

  1. #1
    Veteran Member kellzfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    04-21-2013 @ 05:58 PM
    Location
    The District, Maryland, Virginia
    Posts
    6,780
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    05:39 PM
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quoted
    8 Post(s)

    Default R. Kelly Trial: Did Defense Cast Doubt On Sex Tape's Validity?

    a good wrap up of the defense's case...


    Kelly's lawyers hoped to show that singer might not be the man on the video, girl wasn't underage.

    CHICAGO — After just two days of testimony from 12 witnesses, the defense rested in R. Kelly's child-pornography trial, with only rebuttal and closing arguments to go.

    Anyone expecting the R&B singer or the girl in question to take the stand was sorely disappointed. Compared to the explosive testimony of Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards or "threesome woman" Lisa Van Allen, there was no star witness for the defense — no one whose credibility could make or break the case. Instead, the singer's defense team focused on poking holes in the prosecution's case wherever it could — even at the risk of underdeveloping its own case.

    Here's what the defense focused on and how Kelly's lawyers will piece it together in closing arguments, his last chance to convince the jury to acquit him:

    Is R. Kelly the man on the tape?

    Kelly's team has been steadfast in denying that the singer is on the tape. So who was it? They've suggested the man is a look-alike who lacks one of Kelly's distinguishing marks: a large mole on the lower left of his back. The prosecution's forensic video analyst slowed down a half-second's worth of footage from the sex tape and showed that the mole was visible, but then the defense's expert testified that this dark mark on the man's back was no mole, since it came and went, making it a possible artifact of electronic noise. Expect the prosecution's expert to take the stand Tuesday to rebut this assessment.

    But whoever this look-alike is — and Kelly's team provided no suggestions as to the man's identity — he (or his cohorts) must have had access to the singer's home, this much the defense conceded. Though Kelly's lawyers alluded to the singer's rigorous tour schedule, they did not present his frequent out-of-town dates for an alibi. Nor did his lawyers present any evidence or witnesses regarding the room where the tape was shot, to demonstrate who else may have had access.

    Instead, the defense talked about conspiracy theories, suggesting that there are many people who would want to set Kelly up. First and foremost on the list would be former mistress Van Allen, who testified that she had a threesome with the singer and the girl in question. Rather than present a string of character witnesses to testify that Kelly is not the type of man to do such a thing, the defense had a string of impeachment witnesses to testify that Van Allen is the type of person who would lie and steal to get what she wants and, in this case, get money in order not to testify. Since Van Allen was granted immunity, it would have been easy for her to admit that she did try to extort money from Kelly with an authentic tape of their sexual encounter. By denying that, she made herself (and her fiance, Yul Brown) an easy target for the defense, which dismantled her motives with three witnesses. (Three more were planned but never took the stand.)

    Next on the conspiracy-theory hit list would be former protιgι Sparkle, former manager Barry Hankerson, and Chicago Sun-Times reporter Jim DeRogatis. But the defense didn't develop these three as fall guys as much as they did Van Allen. With Sparkle, Kelly lawyer Ed Genson insinuated during cross-examination that she was still bitter over being dropped from Kelly's record label and that she had some business dealings with Hankerson, but the jury never heard from Hankerson — nor did they hear who Hankerson was or why he might be out to get Kelly. Same for DeRogatis, who took the Fifth when he took the stand, outside the presence of the jury. Any conspiracy theory involving these three will have to be made via argument, not evidence.

    Was the girl on the tape underage?

    To counter the dozen people — four relatives, three childhood friends (along with three of their parents) and two basketball coaches — who identified the girl on the tape, the defense presented three separate relatives who denied it was their loved one. Plus, the relatives that the defense presented were well-spoken and didn't contradict themselves — unlike the prosecution's witnesses, whose memories were a little fuzzy, especially for the uncle arrested for crack cocaine possession. This helped spread confusion: If there's no consensus in the family, there might be no consensus in the jury room.

    Only aunts, uncles and cousins took the stand, but no immediate family. So where was the girl herself? Or her parents? Defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. made a big point in his opening argument that if this terrible thing had indeed happened to this young woman, why wasn't her mother there demanding justice? With no victim, there must be no crime, he implied. If there had been a crime, wouldn't the girl have told one of her friends or relatives or coaches, two of whom were cops? Since there was no outcry, since no one — save Sparkle, and only in hindsight — saw anything inappropriate between Kelly and his goddaughter, there's no proof of molestation, they say. Plus, like Kelly, the girl traveled a lot during the time frame prosecutors say the tape was made: her eighth-grade year.

    To counteract all the people who so earnestly believe it is their friend or relative on the tape, the defense suggested that it is her head — but not her body — on the tape, which must have been doctored. That way, the defense doesn't have to attack crying mothers on the stand; they're not lying, just mistaken.

    Could the tape have been fabricated?

    The defense team's forensic video expert made a version of the tape in which he put a background of the log-cabin room in Kelly's home on a loop, then placed the man and the girl on the tape in a superimposed layer, and then made their heads disappear while they were having sex. This, he said, only took a few hours of work over a few afternoons and showed how a tape could be faked. Still, he conceded, there would be evidence of fakery.

    The defense argues that the tape must be a fake and that the people in it must be paid actors or prostitutes. But two experts — one from the FBI — countered that the tape is authentic. For the jury, it becomes a battle of the experts. Which one do they believe: The prosecution expert, who really seemed to know what he was talking about and showed them how the mole, upon close inspection, was visible, or the defense expert, who wasn't as credentialed but showed them headless sex worthy of Washington Irving? If the jury buys the "Little Man" defense — which even Shawn Wayans doesn't give much credence to — then Kelly has a shot.

    Kelly's team has to pull all this into a convincing argument — one that ties together all the loose ends and shows that certain inconsistencies in state witnesses' testimony were a product of conspiracies, not just faulty memories thanks to the trial's delay. For Kelly to go free, this jury needs to believe that there's been an elaborate scheme to "get him" — that he's the victim here, not the girl who didn't even bother to show up.

    http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/158.../kelly_r.jhtml
    [CENTER]
    [/CENTER]

  2. #2
    my brain is tired KARMA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    13,380
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    02:39 PM
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    112 Post(s)

    Default

    they created enough reasonable doubt for him to be found not guilty.

    nobody proved who the female was.


    Psychopaths have a Hidden Content and grossly inflated view of their own Hidden Content and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement, and see themselves as the center of the universe, justified in living according to their own rules.

    Psychopaths show a stunning lack of concern for the effects their actions have on others, no matter how devastating these might be. They may appear completely forthright about the matter, calmly stating that they have no sense of guilt, are not sorry for the ensuing pain, and that there is no reason now to be concerned.

    Many of the characteristics displayed by psychopaths are closely associated with a profound lack of empathy and inability to construct a mental and emotional "facsimile" of another person.

    Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. At times they appear to be cold and unemotional while nevertheless being prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling.
    Obligations and commitments mean nothing to psychopaths.

    But here is the crux: Psychopaths don't feel they have psychological or emotional problems, and they see no reason to change their behavior to conform with societal standards they do not agree with.







  3. #3
    There Can Only Be 1 Me redemption08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    08-01-2017 @ 09:48 AM
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,994
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    05:39 PM
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quoted
    46 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chelle View Post
    they created enough reasonable doubt for him to be found not guilty.

    nobody proved who the female was.

    So true! I pray that the jury recognizes this point.

  4. #4
    Senior Member lilmorsel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    11-12-2012 @ 06:57 PM
    Posts
    2,277
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    09:39 PM
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    The prosecution's forensic expert suggests that the spot seen on a couple of frames of the video is the "mole", but it fades in and out so that's not conclusive evidence. I would think it's hard to convict on such a low standard of proof. This is not a fingerprint or dna case and a disappearing "mole" just seems like stretching it.

  5. #5
    Member BluDiamondDLight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    03-08-2011 @ 03:00 AM
    Location
    Greenville, MS
    Posts
    2,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    03:39 PM
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chelle View Post
    they created enough reasonable doubt for him to be found not guilty.

    nobody proved who the female was.

    True dat 'cause there was NO proof whatsoever.
    R. Kelly is the [B]KING[/B] of all Kings of R&B. [B]PERIOD!!!![/B]

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Mista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    3,234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    04:39 PM
    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Quoted
    39 Post(s)

    Default

    Good article. Thanks. I think reasonable doubt has been created, especially since you don't have a victim, nor proof of her age.

    But I do think the prosecution had better witnesses on the tape itself. The defenses expert did concede that if it was fake, there would be 'evidence of fakery'. Where did the defense prove this 'fakery?' Because the 'headless sex' scene didn't do it, especially since the defense expert said there would be evidence of fakery if the heads/tape had been altered.

    I think Rob's team wasn't prepared enough on the video, Sam Adam Jr should had NEVER said the man on the tape has no mole during opening arguments, whoops, then there it is, and from the news reports, they were clearly bummed to see the frozen frames of it. Don't tell me something isn't there when I can see it with my own two eyes.

    Rob has the money and power to get the absolute best experts, and I'm disappointed they could only get this goof with no credentials.

    I think the defense created more reasonable doubt in the unclear Identification of her, her age, she denies it, family says its not her. etc, than they did in proving the tape was fake. The jurors will make up their own mind using their own eyes and what and who they saw.
    Last edited by Mista; 06-09-2008 at 09:13 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Ms.Applebottom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    09-13-2008 @ 02:14 AM
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    11:39 AM
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Idk what to think, but I have some issues with the defense team...... 1st is the whole mole incident, 2nd why didn't they call the guy who came forward with evidence that could dispute the prosecution's star witness(her ex boyfriend) and 3rd why didn't they at least call the girls parents, i mean who would know their own child better than her parents. I'm just so anxious to hear Not Guilty that I'm about to explode. one thing we can't deny is both sides wanted to get this over wit quick fast and in hurry lol. I guess we all can't wait to tell the haterz to get da f**k on!

  8. #8
    Senior Member tjl0375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    10-06-2010 @ 09:41 PM
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    812
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    04:39 PM
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I believe that the defense created resonable doubt, but I believe it will boil down to what the jury believe they see or don't see (the mole) on the tape. I pray that they will see the holes in the case and make the right decision.
    *[SIZE=4]T[/SIZE]*

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    08-17-2016 @ 06:44 PM
    Location
    Greenwich, CT
    Posts
    2,615
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    05:39 PM
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    the defense has completely created reasonable doubt. the mole isn't there, the police officer who saw the tape with her niece (allegedly) in it but she didn't report it until a month afterwards, the fact that Jim DeFatAss wouldn't testify, etc.... it all adds up to a shady picture of people trying to hurt Kells.
    "'Let me remind you that I am the king of R&B.' It's an unnecessary boast: Who could possibly argue, or forget?" - Kelefa Sanneh; ​The New York Times; 2007

  10. #10
    Senior Member mistermaxxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    08-07-2017 @ 12:50 AM
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    6,464
    Post Thanks / Like
    Local Date
    08-16-2017
    Local Time
    09:39 PM
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    55 Post(s)

    Default

    all you have to do is create doubt and you have done your job and as someone else pointed out you don't need to be dragging it on. stay direct and it will speak for itself.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •