R. Kelly Jury Shown Sex Tape

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

MICHAEL TARM | May 20, 2008 11:05 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
R&B musician R. Kelly arrives at the Cook County building in Chicago, Ill., for the first day of opening arguments for his child pornography trial Tuesday, May 20, 2008. The singer, who has pleaded not guilty, faces up to 15 years if convicted. Kelly won a Grammy Award in 1997 for the gospel-tinged "I Believe I Can Fly." (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)

CHICAGO — Prosecutors played the sex tape at the center of R. Kelly's child pornography trial in open court Tuesday, just hours after opening statements in which they accused the R&B singer of choreographing and starring in a video featuring "vile, disturbing and disgusting sex acts" with an underage girl.

The jurors, who took feverish notes during opening statements, sat motionless while the video played. Their eyes fixed on a 4-by-4-foot monitor just outside the jury box. In the courtroom, the lights were dimmed and blinds drawn across windows. There were several other monitors in the room, including one facing the crowded gallery.

A grim, intent Kelly watched the whole video on a small monitor placed on the defense table, only occasionally averting his eyes. At times, the 41-year-old rocked in his chair or rested his chin in his hand.

Before putting the tape into a videocassette player, a prosecutor walked across the stately courtroom, held it out for the defense team to see and entered it into the record as "People's Exhibit No. 1."

The roughly 27-minute homemade video shows a man having sex with a young female, who is naked for most of the recording _ except for a necklace with a cross dangling from it.

At the start of the videotape, the man hands the female money and she mouths the words, "Thank you." She is often blank-faced, impassive. The man speaks to the female in a hushed, monotone voice, and she calls him "Daddy."

Songs from the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys blare from a radio. The female dances _ the man out of view. Back in view, he has sex with her. The man walks up to the camera to adjust it a few times, but his face is often obscured.

As she dances, the female urinates on the floor. Near the end of the video, the man urinates on the female.

Prosecutors say the man in the video is Kelly, and that the female is a girl who was as young as 13 years old when the tape was made between Jan. 1, 1998, and Nov. 1, 2000.

The singer, who has pleaded not guilty, faces up to 15 years if convicted.

During opening statements in the long-delayed trial, Cook County prosecutor Shauna Boliker warned jurors they would have to watch shocking video and that "the case will unfold before you frame by disgusting frame."

"You will see the sex acts he commands her to do," said Boliker, who referred to Kelly by his birth name of Robert Kelly. "Acts you have never seen before. Vile, disturbing and disgusting sex acts, actions that were choreographed, produced and starred in by Robert Kelly."

Kelly often looked strained, even worried during opening statements, his mouth drawn tight as he hunched forward on a leather-backed chair _ frequently appearing to study jurors' faces.

Minutes after Boliker concluded, defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. paced the room and often raised his voice in his opening statements, telling jurors with emphasis that Kelly was not the man on the tape. He also called the video's origins into question and said the female who authorities allege is depicted on the tape is not that person at all.

"You know what they have to connect Mr. Kelly to this tape?" he asked the jurors, pausing. "Nothing."

The 23-year-old woman prosecutors say was a minor at the time of the taping also denies that she's the person on the video.

The trial has been delayed repeatedly since the tape was mailed to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2002. The newspaper turned it over to authorities, and Kelly was indicted later that year.

Boliker alleged the singer took advantage of the inherent trust children place in adults, and the female on the tape performed acts that Kelly "commanded" her to perform.

Boliker told jurors the state will not call the alleged victim to the stand, but she did not explain why.

Adam addressed that issue forcefully as he faced jurors during his opening statement, asking them why prosecutors wouldn't call the female as a witness.

"One answer," he said. "One: It's not her on that tape."

Adam also tried to raise questions about the tape itself, saying no one knows where it originated before it showed up at the Sun-Times. The videotape in evidence, he said, is "at best a copy of a copy of a copy." He also said the FBI, which compiled a report on the tape, could not identify the man in it as Kelly.

Adam did make it clear what he wanted jurors doing when they watched videotape: Looking for a mole on the man's back.

The defense displayed a photo of Kelly's back with a mole smaller than the size of a dime. Adam said jurors wouldn't find the mole on the back of the man in the videotape.

"There is no mole on his back," Adam said. "Robert isn't that man on the tape."

Adam also told jurors the female that prosecutors claim is depicted on the video "is not a victim because she is not the girl on that tape." Instead, he suggested the woman in the video is a "professional prostitute" because the man in the video hands her money.

Kelly, with an entourage in tow, arrived at the Cook County Criminal Courthouse about 90 minutes before opening statements were to begin. He wore a navy pinstriped suit and blue and orange striped tie, and his hair was in corn rows.

When he stepped into the hall during a short recess Tuesday, several teenage girls shrieked in delight at the sight of the award-winning singer.

Kelly won a Grammy in 1997 for the gospel-tinged "I Believe I Can Fly," and is also known for such songs as "Bump N' Grind," "Ignition," and "Trapped in the Closet," a multipart saga about the sexual secrets of a lively and ever-expanding cast of characters.

Also Tuesday, jurors heard from retired Chicago police investigator Dan Everett, who said he and his partner were sent to the Sun-Times building in February 2002 after a reporter received a VHS videotape the newspaper wanted to turn over to police.

Everett told jurors what he and his partner witnessed on the sex tape, but he also testified that he knew the female depicted in it was an underage girl because he had interviewed her as part of an earlier investigation.

At that point, Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan called a sidebar outside the jury's presence and threatened to declare a mistrial because Everett had been instructed not to use the word "investigation."

Everett did not say what the previous investigation involved.

Gaughan scolded Everett, saying he'd made an egregious mistake that violated the judge's court order and said he would declare a mistrial if the word was used again in reference to the earlier interview.

Everett told the jury when it returned that he had interviewed the young female on Dec. 5, 2000, 14 months before he began investigating the videotape.

Jury selection finished last week with prosecutors and defense attorneys accusing each other of trying to stack the panel along racial lines. Eight of the seated jurors were white and four were black, and that remained the jury's racial makeup after a white female juror was replaced Tuesday morning by one of four alternates, a white male.

___

Associated Press Writer Don Babwin in Chicago contributed to this report.

 
 

Comments
29
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

why did it take this long to get this piece of garbage into a court room?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:32 AM on 05/23/2008

Look , it probably was him but we have no way of knowing if it is the girl or not. The alleged victim says it is not her. They have to not only prove it was R. Kelly but that was the girl as well. She is not on trial so she has nothing to lose saying it was her. Infact she could probably make money off of it. Also if they are not even going to call the "alleged victim" to the stand (who is now an adult), what case do they have. Forget proving it was R. Kelly how can they prove it was the girl. Otherwise no case at all

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 05/22/2008

I love the line: "When he stepped into the hall during a short recess Tuesday, several teenage girls shrieked in delight at the sight of the award-winning singer."

What does that say about the youth of this country? Even while a man is facing charges of defiling and defacing a young girl, other young girls are clamoring to be around him. Sad...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 05/22/2008

the alleged victim claims it isn't her in the video and the prosecutor won't call her to testify?that right there puts their case in jeopardy.the lead detective violates a judge's order not to discuss a prior investigation makes for even more trouble since it could suggest a vendetta by detectives.as for the bathroom,unless you can verify the exact date the video was made the perp could just as easily be a housesitter or member of R.Kelly's entourage.I have no idea whether or not R.Kelly is guilty of the crime of which he's accused but I do know that case as presented raises alot more questions than it can answer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 05/22/2008

the prosecution has no case. the girl purported to be on the tape says it isn't her and there's no definitive evidence kelly is the one on the grainy tape.

though i do believe it IS him on the tape.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 05/22/2008

"You will see the sex acts...Acts you have never seen before."

Um, hello, there's this thing called the internet. If he thinks people have never seen people peeing on people before (of legal age) he's crazy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:21 PM on 05/21/2008

I haven't. Why would I want to?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 05/21/2008

"Songs from the Spice Girls and Backstreet Boys blare from a radio"
Does this choice of music sound like it'd be a turn on to a rap star? Strikes me as odd.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 AM on 05/21/2008

They were from a TV in the background that was tuned to MTV, not a radio. I would assume he would turn on that channel, because what else would a 13yo girl like to watch? He's a perp.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:23 PM on 05/21/2008

No, this isn't R. Kelly at all. Just like it wasn't R. Kelly with all the other underage girls (six, IIRC) he was able to sweep under the rug.

Be that as it may, I don't see prosecution winning this case - and if they do, it's going to get turned over on appeal. Like it or not, the prosecution basically has nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:07 AM on 05/21/2008

Whoever the girl is she should admit it publicly. She could make a fortune from magazines, porno, etc. She needs a good manager like, say, R. Kelly. That's it. They could go on tour. The public pays good money for trash. What's one more set of low lives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 AM on 05/21/2008

You hit the nail on the head.
http://sethandray.wordpress.com

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 PM on 05/21/2008

Well, another thing, left out of the article, is that the room the tape was made in, is a very unique room. It was a bathroom made to look like a stylized log cabin. There is no other room like it in the world. After the tape was made, R. Kelly put the house on market, and the marketing photos showed the bathroom ... the exact one in the tape. ..... so a man that resembles R. Kelly is having sex with a girl in R. Kelly's bathroom?

Also, the mole argument sucks. You're saying that you cant make out the facial features of a person on the tape, but you can discern a mole on the small of the back of a black man as dark as R. Kelly?

I'm sure there are more scientific ways to figure out the man on the tape. Is it possible to sharpen the image? Use facial imaging to measure the face of the man on the tape, with R. Kelly's face? Much like they do in casinos. Can they measure the height of the man in the tape, against R. Kelly's real height?

Can they measure his manhood............. nevermind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 PM on 05/20/2008

"Also, the mole argument sucks. You're saying that you cant make out the facial features of a person on the tape, but you can discern a mole on the small of the back of a black man as dark as R. Kelly?"

Are you kidding me, westbrooks01? R. Kelly is NOT coal black! He has the brown skin tone of a lot of black people. Most black people who have moles, the moles are really black (not brown or dark brown) and very visible. One would think a mole "smaller than the size of a dime" - but larger than a pimple would be visible.

Also the defense showed a picture of the mole to the jury. Either it's on his back or it's not.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:39 PM on 05/21/2008

Link please?

Because IF that is the case, then that would seem to be a slam dunk, BUT this is the first I have ever heard of this.

Link?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 AM on 05/21/2008

"The room, with its log-cabin walls, looks a lot like the "Colorado Room" in a mansion Kelly once owned on Chicago's North Side."

http://www.vibe.com/news/cover_stories/2007/06/r_kelly_may_07/

IIRC, he did a story w/VIBE years ago and they took pictures of that exact same room, which was why so many people recognized it - including me, and I have only seen stills of the tape.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 AM on 05/21/2008

The room, with its log-cabin walls, looks a lot like the "Colorado Room"

Please note the words LOOKS A LOT LIKE.

Do you think prosecutors would have not already been there, taken photos and then shown how the room is the exact same room?

As far as being ONE OF A KIND. I see NOTHING in that article stating such. And perhaps YOU can prove there is no other such room in the entire world?

The SCOTUS has already struck down laws that use those same words. In the eyes of the law it can't "look like"; is has to be exactly what it is purported to be.

Pretty amazing statement to make if you think about it. THE ENTIRE WORLD??

Sorry but LOOKS LIKE and ARE the same room are two entirely different things in court and wouldn't hold up unless an absolute showing of identical features were proven.

As to another statement about "sharpening the features". That is only on TV which always ticks me off because there is NO such thing as being able to take a fuzzy video and turning it into a sharp pristine picture.

Can't be done and those movies and TV shows that show this are just proving they have poor writing skills when they have to resort to something that has no possibility of every existing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 05/21/2008

This is beginning to look more and more like a losing case for the prosecution.

The mole thing is of great importance AS is the fact no one can actually prove it's him. It's just the prosecution trying to use the kiddie porn angle to enrage the jury into ignoring the "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" and get a conviction.

Blurry tape, no mole, questions about who the victim really is, who is a witness and who isn't, where did the tape come from and on and on.

There is a current porn star who is 23, has a kid and looks like she is 12. No boobs, is Asian and looks like you could go to jail just for looking at her. She's got her own website, fan base and has made tons of movies but you'd look at her and swear she is 12 years old.

So without definitive proof, he walks and right now I see no sign of definitive proof, just a D.A. hoping that the kiddie porn angle will make the jury angry. Sort of like how Chimpy McFlightsuit used America's anger about 9/11 to cloud their judgement about Iraq and not question it heavily.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 PM on 05/20/2008

What's the name of the asian actress?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:08 AM on 05/21/2008

Put this nut in jail already.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 05/20/2008

It's him in that tape and in a few others that are out there. He married the singer Aaliyah when she was 16, dude got a problem. Why do you think he could sit in court and watch the entire thing, while rocking back and forth?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 05/20/2008

If the girl the prosecution says is the girl in the video says she's NOT, and it is not clear,that Kelly is the man in the video,where's the case? And why did it take 6 years to get to trial?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 05/20/2008

I am not sure if they have a strong case, but there are people who know the girl and are will to testify it is the girl who is underage. As for the delay, the defendant kept requesting to have the case pushed back.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 05/20/2008

Then, the judge fell off of a ladder, someone had appendicitis - don't recall the other reasons for the delay.............

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 PM on 05/20/2008

i'm kind of curious as to what denotes an "underage child" vs. an "of age child" or an "overaged child."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 05/20/2008

Certainly a 13-year old girl can be defined as "underaged," especially in regards to a man who has sex with her.
Disgusting!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 05/20/2008

The aged one would be McBush and the overaged child would be the shrub himself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 PM on 05/20/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com