memyselfni
Proud Member
I think its gonna be a hung jury. I don't see all 12 jurors coming to a agreement with each other.
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
The Official R. Kelly Trial Thread
- Thread starter Bee.
- Start date
I think its gonna be a hung jury. I don't see all 12 jurors coming to a agreement with each other.
Datsymay
Proud Member
I am thinking a conviction. His defence was so pathetic, that he was begging to bre convicted.
June 12, 2008 1:15 PM: In prosecutors' closing, it's all about the tape
As it began, so it ended, with the prosecution's closing arguments in the R. Kelly child pornography trial focusing on the sex tape at the center of the case.
In the last moments of their hourlong closings, prosecutors replayed segments of the tape and, in somewhat painful detail, pointed out every instance where they say Kelly racked up his 14 counts of child pornography charges.
The state began, however, by highlighting their greatest hits. Assistant State's Att. Robert Heilengoetter started with what, to our minds, was among the most colorful exhibitions of courtroom drama in the whole 5-week trial: the testimony of singer Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards.
Edwards told the jury how she introduced the alleged victim, a relative, to Kelly when the girl was just 12.
"She was my heart," Edwards testified at the time.
"You can imagine the feelings of betrayal that [Edwards] she felt toward the defendant," Heilengoetter said. "You could feel her outrage, couldn't you, during the course of her testimony," he asked the jury. "You could feel her disappointment."
Heilengoetter went on to fine-tune that sentiment: "[The alleged victim] was a young girl under the age of 18 who didn't know how to divert the desires of an adult male."
Who was that adult male? "Her godfather, Robert Kelly," Heilengoetter said.
Then in short order, Heilengoetter listed the ways in which the prosecution believes it had connected the tape to Kelly, starting with his former home, where prosecutors said the alleged incident took place.
In that home, in what was called the Log Cabin room (so dubbed for its Lincoln-esque appearance), prosecutors said the sex tape was filmed with the alleged underage victim.
Heilengoetter said that the pictures snapped by the police of the room in Kelly's home matched the images from the sex tape.
Specifically: "The corresponding seven light fixtures" and "the towel racks around the sauna room area" and the "slats in the ceiling."
Then there was the tape itself: His voice, his body and his face. The alleged victim's voice, her body and her face. They were clearly Kelly and the alleged victim, Heilengoetter said.
This was buttressed by the 14 people, among them relatives and close friends, who came before the court to identify the alleged victim in the tape, Heilengoetter said.
Heilengoetter also reminded jurors of the testimony of Lisa Van Allen, who said she met Kelly during a video shoot in Atlanta, where they had their first sexual encounter. Van Allen testified that she would go on stage and simulate sex with the R&B star, but these weren't her only performances, Heilengoetter said.
Kelly also had her perform in sex tapes, some of which were recorded with the alleged underage victim, Heilengoetter said.
"She spoke of how it was the defendant who operated the camera … [And] told everybody what to do during the course of the sexual encounter," Heilengoetter said.
Heilengoetter then went through the tape, numbering each count of child pornography the state believes Kelly committed.
After six years, he told jurors, "This is finally the day ... the opportunity to hold the defendant criminally responsible for this tape has finally come today. The opportunity will never come again."
...
June 12, 2008 2:40 PM: Defense's closing focuses on sex-tape questions
At the start of his closing arguments in the R. Kelly trial, defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. zeroed in on the emotions that the jury might have been left with after the state's show-and-tell presentation of the sex tape at the heart of the case.
The state witnesses, who were shown the tape before they testified, had been emotionally manipulated the same way, Adam said.
"You see what they did? They sit you down for four and a half weeks, they stick this video in your face…[The prosecution] put you in the same place that he put every single witness that was supposed to identify [the victim]," Adam said. "Put yourselves in the witnesses' place, with the pressure and the prosecutor in your face telling you that they need you to make an ID."
For nearly an hour, Adam put on a little show of his own, a theatrical, and at times comical, tale of a vast conspiracy among liars who were all trying to extort R. Kelly.
Among them was Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards, a former Kelly protégé who is a relative of the alleged victim. Edwards testified that she introduced Kelly to the girl and identified them both as participants on the tape. Edwards said she was heartbroken by the tape and the devastation it caused her family.
But Adam said that Edwards and her family, which included a Chicago police officer, were more interested in money than justice. Rather than call the cops, Adam said, they called a lawyer.
"Let's face facts. You know what this was. It was her meal ticket," Adam said.
After all, Adam said, if the family was really outraged at what they saw on the tape they would have taken a much different approach.
"Any solid man or woman would have gone over and broken his legs. They would have beat the crap out of him," Adam said. "That's real. That's practical. That's family."
Adam went on to inquire about the whereabouts of the alleged victim and why the state didn't call her since she "lives right down the street." He said that while the defense could have chosen to call her on their own, they did not want to "mess that girl's life up" any further.
Instead, he reminded the jury of the girl's prior grand jury testimony in which she denied that she was the person on the video. Adam said if it was her, she would have testified. And, Adam asked, if it was her, wouldn't someone have known about it?
Wouldn't a 13-year-old girl blab to her friends about having sex with a star like Kelly?
"She is a 13 year-old-girl having raunchy, dirty, nasty sex …with a superstar who's won Grammy Awards and she tells no one?" Adam said. "You couldn't keep a 13-year-old girl's mouth quiet about having Hannah Montana tickets."
This is especially true of a girl like the alleged victim, Adam said, who by the state's own account was a sweet, wholesome girl. He showed the jury pictures of the girl when she was younger. She did not look like the kind of person who would get sex for money, Adam said. If she were that kind of girl, people would know, Adam said.
"[Prosecutors] want you to convict him because that girl may look like the girl in the video. How is that beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Adam told the jury that the state had not met its burden to prove that the participants on the tape are Kelly and the alleged victim. He said the best the state could do was to tell the jury to "look at this picture that might be" them on a "fifth-generation tape that the state can't even get to work here today."
During the state's closing arguments, prosecutors had difficulty running the tape, which skipped and had pixelated lines running through it at different points.
Adam asked the jury if they could tell if the alleged victim was in the gallery right now. If they couldn't, how could they tell whether it was her on the tape?
One by one, Adam picked away at claims made by state's witnesses, including those of Lisa Van Allen, who testified that she had a sex with Kelly and the alleged victim. According to Adam, Van Allen was a co-conspirator who helped hatch the plan to frame his client.
Van Allen testified that Kelly walked around with a duffel bag full of homemade porn tapes. "We are supposed to believe that he goes around with a bag of porn tapes everywhere he goes like some Porno Santa Clause," Adam said. "It didn't happen because Robert doesn't carry around porn videos."
The defense has said that Kelly has a prominent mole that would be visible if he were on the tape.
Adam showed jurors a split screen of Kelly's back, where a mole was visible and the back of the man in the video. The latter did not have a visible mole.
"The truth be told, there is no mole. It's that simple," Adam said. "It ain't him and if it ain't him you can't convict him."
It's also not her, Adam said. With a picture of the young girl on the screen, Adam told the jury that "the world is watching you" and that in order to find Kelly guilty they would have to call the alleged victim a prostitute 14 times.
Kelly is charged with 14 counts of child pornography.
"You're going to have to say this girl, before the world, is a whore," Adam said. "My momma used to tell me if you ain't got nothing nice to say don't say it at all."
...
Judge puts case in jury's hands
The jury began to deliberate R. Kelly's fate at about 2:30 p.m. after hearing closing arguments and legal instructions.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-r-kelly-trial-closing-jun12,0,6924207.story
As it began, so it ended, with the prosecution's closing arguments in the R. Kelly child pornography trial focusing on the sex tape at the center of the case.
In the last moments of their hourlong closings, prosecutors replayed segments of the tape and, in somewhat painful detail, pointed out every instance where they say Kelly racked up his 14 counts of child pornography charges.
The state began, however, by highlighting their greatest hits. Assistant State's Att. Robert Heilengoetter started with what, to our minds, was among the most colorful exhibitions of courtroom drama in the whole 5-week trial: the testimony of singer Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards.
Edwards told the jury how she introduced the alleged victim, a relative, to Kelly when the girl was just 12.
"She was my heart," Edwards testified at the time.
"You can imagine the feelings of betrayal that [Edwards] she felt toward the defendant," Heilengoetter said. "You could feel her outrage, couldn't you, during the course of her testimony," he asked the jury. "You could feel her disappointment."
Heilengoetter went on to fine-tune that sentiment: "[The alleged victim] was a young girl under the age of 18 who didn't know how to divert the desires of an adult male."
Who was that adult male? "Her godfather, Robert Kelly," Heilengoetter said.
Then in short order, Heilengoetter listed the ways in which the prosecution believes it had connected the tape to Kelly, starting with his former home, where prosecutors said the alleged incident took place.
In that home, in what was called the Log Cabin room (so dubbed for its Lincoln-esque appearance), prosecutors said the sex tape was filmed with the alleged underage victim.
Heilengoetter said that the pictures snapped by the police of the room in Kelly's home matched the images from the sex tape.
Specifically: "The corresponding seven light fixtures" and "the towel racks around the sauna room area" and the "slats in the ceiling."
Then there was the tape itself: His voice, his body and his face. The alleged victim's voice, her body and her face. They were clearly Kelly and the alleged victim, Heilengoetter said.
This was buttressed by the 14 people, among them relatives and close friends, who came before the court to identify the alleged victim in the tape, Heilengoetter said.
Heilengoetter also reminded jurors of the testimony of Lisa Van Allen, who said she met Kelly during a video shoot in Atlanta, where they had their first sexual encounter. Van Allen testified that she would go on stage and simulate sex with the R&B star, but these weren't her only performances, Heilengoetter said.
Kelly also had her perform in sex tapes, some of which were recorded with the alleged underage victim, Heilengoetter said.
"She spoke of how it was the defendant who operated the camera … [And] told everybody what to do during the course of the sexual encounter," Heilengoetter said.
Heilengoetter then went through the tape, numbering each count of child pornography the state believes Kelly committed.
After six years, he told jurors, "This is finally the day ... the opportunity to hold the defendant criminally responsible for this tape has finally come today. The opportunity will never come again."
...
June 12, 2008 2:40 PM: Defense's closing focuses on sex-tape questions
At the start of his closing arguments in the R. Kelly trial, defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. zeroed in on the emotions that the jury might have been left with after the state's show-and-tell presentation of the sex tape at the heart of the case.
The state witnesses, who were shown the tape before they testified, had been emotionally manipulated the same way, Adam said.
"You see what they did? They sit you down for four and a half weeks, they stick this video in your face…[The prosecution] put you in the same place that he put every single witness that was supposed to identify [the victim]," Adam said. "Put yourselves in the witnesses' place, with the pressure and the prosecutor in your face telling you that they need you to make an ID."
For nearly an hour, Adam put on a little show of his own, a theatrical, and at times comical, tale of a vast conspiracy among liars who were all trying to extort R. Kelly.
Among them was Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards, a former Kelly protégé who is a relative of the alleged victim. Edwards testified that she introduced Kelly to the girl and identified them both as participants on the tape. Edwards said she was heartbroken by the tape and the devastation it caused her family.
But Adam said that Edwards and her family, which included a Chicago police officer, were more interested in money than justice. Rather than call the cops, Adam said, they called a lawyer.
"Let's face facts. You know what this was. It was her meal ticket," Adam said.
After all, Adam said, if the family was really outraged at what they saw on the tape they would have taken a much different approach.
"Any solid man or woman would have gone over and broken his legs. They would have beat the crap out of him," Adam said. "That's real. That's practical. That's family."
Adam went on to inquire about the whereabouts of the alleged victim and why the state didn't call her since she "lives right down the street." He said that while the defense could have chosen to call her on their own, they did not want to "mess that girl's life up" any further.
Instead, he reminded the jury of the girl's prior grand jury testimony in which she denied that she was the person on the video. Adam said if it was her, she would have testified. And, Adam asked, if it was her, wouldn't someone have known about it?
Wouldn't a 13-year-old girl blab to her friends about having sex with a star like Kelly?
"She is a 13 year-old-girl having raunchy, dirty, nasty sex …with a superstar who's won Grammy Awards and she tells no one?" Adam said. "You couldn't keep a 13-year-old girl's mouth quiet about having Hannah Montana tickets."
This is especially true of a girl like the alleged victim, Adam said, who by the state's own account was a sweet, wholesome girl. He showed the jury pictures of the girl when she was younger. She did not look like the kind of person who would get sex for money, Adam said. If she were that kind of girl, people would know, Adam said.
"[Prosecutors] want you to convict him because that girl may look like the girl in the video. How is that beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Adam told the jury that the state had not met its burden to prove that the participants on the tape are Kelly and the alleged victim. He said the best the state could do was to tell the jury to "look at this picture that might be" them on a "fifth-generation tape that the state can't even get to work here today."
During the state's closing arguments, prosecutors had difficulty running the tape, which skipped and had pixelated lines running through it at different points.
Adam asked the jury if they could tell if the alleged victim was in the gallery right now. If they couldn't, how could they tell whether it was her on the tape?
One by one, Adam picked away at claims made by state's witnesses, including those of Lisa Van Allen, who testified that she had a sex with Kelly and the alleged victim. According to Adam, Van Allen was a co-conspirator who helped hatch the plan to frame his client.
Van Allen testified that Kelly walked around with a duffel bag full of homemade porn tapes. "We are supposed to believe that he goes around with a bag of porn tapes everywhere he goes like some Porno Santa Clause," Adam said. "It didn't happen because Robert doesn't carry around porn videos."
The defense has said that Kelly has a prominent mole that would be visible if he were on the tape.
Adam showed jurors a split screen of Kelly's back, where a mole was visible and the back of the man in the video. The latter did not have a visible mole.
"The truth be told, there is no mole. It's that simple," Adam said. "It ain't him and if it ain't him you can't convict him."
It's also not her, Adam said. With a picture of the young girl on the screen, Adam told the jury that "the world is watching you" and that in order to find Kelly guilty they would have to call the alleged victim a prostitute 14 times.
Kelly is charged with 14 counts of child pornography.
"You're going to have to say this girl, before the world, is a whore," Adam said. "My momma used to tell me if you ain't got nothing nice to say don't say it at all."
...
Judge puts case in jury's hands
The jury began to deliberate R. Kelly's fate at about 2:30 p.m. after hearing closing arguments and legal instructions.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-r-kelly-trial-closing-jun12,0,6924207.story
mjfan4ever2009
Proud Member
I think he's going to be convicted. His defence was shaky at best. And they kept changing tack. If he gets vindicated, I'll be surprised.
Carmour260
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 532
- Points
- 28
Well, I didn't follow the trial, but whatever happens, the music will always prevail. I will say that things are pretty...crazy. I think that's the right word to describe it.
BONGANI
Proud Member
Both the state and the defence have flaky cases, it could go either way..
benscarr
Proud Member
I don't have an opinion of if R.Kelly is guilty or not. Though the prosecution team only appear to have weak evidence against him. R.Kelly's defence teams evidence seems even weaker.
I think because R.Kelly has such a weak evidence as to why it's not him in the video. I think he'll be sleeping in a cell for a long time. I'll be surprised if he's vindicated, the best chance of freedom that he has is a hung jury. But that means this case is still in his live and nothing has been resolved even if his lawyers manage the get this complex case thrown out of court.
I think because R.Kelly has such a weak evidence as to why it's not him in the video. I think he'll be sleeping in a cell for a long time. I'll be surprised if he's vindicated, the best chance of freedom that he has is a hung jury. But that means this case is still in his live and nothing has been resolved even if his lawyers manage the get this complex case thrown out of court.
Last edited:
Datsymay
Proud Member
I agree. The case was very weak from the start and had mre questioning why it was brought in the first place, but that defence was so pathetic, it was almost suicidal. I believe that there could be a conviction, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did appeal and he could win. I am not quite sure what he was charged for though, since the girl in question said it wasn't her on the tape.
Datsymay
Proud Member
In interest lev el isn't there, not even in America. There is no money to be made from the kelly case.
Yeezy
Proud Member
Has a girl come forward and admitted it was her on the tape?
Are there any pics of Kelly from the trial recently????
Shame if he gets sent down, i really like his music and was lookin forward to a new album, but if its him in the tape, im glad he gets sent down tbh.
Are there any pics of Kelly from the trial recently????
Shame if he gets sent down, i really like his music and was lookin forward to a new album, but if its him in the tape, im glad he gets sent down tbh.
Last edited:
Datsymay
Proud Member
No, nobody is claiming to be the one on the tape., I heard that the girl in the tape is obviously under age. If that is true, he would be sent down anyway, for having underage porn in his posession. So he will be guilty of something. We will have to wait and see what the verdict is.
Yeezy
Proud Member
Is there a deadline for a verdict?
Datsymay
Proud Member
I'm not aware of any but the pathetic defence only took 2 days so I don't think there is a lot of material for them to pour over.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
u only tend to get deadlines if the jury has been out for ages and tells the judge they cant come to a decesion. he may then give them a deadline.but the jury have only just gone out so that a longway down the road. considering how little evidence there is both pros and defence i only see this dragging on if its a hung jury
bgz
Guests
NOT GUILTY on all counts, just being reported by all major news stations in U.S.
SexyMamaJo
Proud Member
Not Guilty on all counts.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
not surprised. the trial was to wishy washy and more like a bad B movie to have someone convicted even if he was on tape doing it.they messed up to much especially with the photos from the florida raid not been allowed in. maybe kelly might learn to keep it in his pants from now on
Last edited:
memyselfni
Proud Member
not guilty on all counts.....:clapping:
Datsymay
Proud Member
I'm surprised, but then I still ask the question, why was he in court in the first place. These DA's really do need something to do.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
thats what happen when these type of officasl are elected. they are always trying to make a nane for themselves or please their backers. as we all know
Bee.
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,111
- Points
- 0
I heard about the verdict on Inside Edition just a few minutes ago. I totally disagree with the verdict and I am angry that a sicko is running around in the streets. I could care less if many of you disagree with me, but that is how I feel. I will never listen to an Kels record EVER again. It is so ironic that a verdict was reached the same date three years ago that a verdict for the MJ case was reached - June 13th. Blah....
Justthefacts
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,072
- Points
- 0
I will only say this. If R Kelly has a problem with youg girls then he needs to get help. Becaue there will be a next time and that time there will be no saving him
elusive moonwalker
Guests
yeah and u can bet the media will run with that once they work it out.
Datsymay
Proud Member
The moment the girl said it wasn't her they should have dropped the case. There was never any case without the victim. Kelly probably paid her and her mother off.
I hope kelly will learn his lesson now and turn over a new leaf. I am slightly disappointed that he was found innocent, cause the clip I saw on the news clearly showed Kelly and the defence was disappointing, but I suppose if they have no victim, they have no case.
I hope kelly will learn his lesson now and turn over a new leaf. I am slightly disappointed that he was found innocent, cause the clip I saw on the news clearly showed Kelly and the defence was disappointing, but I suppose if they have no victim, they have no case.
Svanhilda
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30
- Points
- 0
Well... Part of me wished he would be found guilty, just so ppl couldnt compar him to MJ.
But...
If the girl says it isnt her, and the DA cant prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is her or R. Kelly then the verdict is right.
It is no secret that R. Kelly likes young girls, but that doesnt mean he is guilty of this case!
But...
If the girl says it isnt her, and the DA cant prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is her or R. Kelly then the verdict is right.
It is no secret that R. Kelly likes young girls, but that doesnt mean he is guilty of this case!
elusive moonwalker
Guests
the fact you have some family saying yeah its her and some saying not is enough in my book to show doubt. even if you dont think that it shows you that the case is nothing more than a transcript for a dodgy day time movie.so would you really wanna convict over something as bizarre as that? maybe it would have been different if the florida pics were allowed. id have like to have seen the defence for why he had them and how he got them. but like dats said. the "victim" said it wasnt her at the GJ and thats always gonna be in the backs of the minds. if the "victim" doesnt want to even testify and says it didnt happen would you convict?
Bee.
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,111
- Points
- 0
Oh, yeah, they will. I can imagine it now. I don't wanna keep chatting about MJ on here, but MJ was on trial for being himself. Kels was on trial for the obvious - that something is not right with him and "supposed" criminal activity. I am curious to know what the jurors think because how can they vindicate someone with these type of sick tendencies?