golfmom
Former Member
In depth juror's description can be found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-r-kelly-trial-jurors-may15,0,5198424.story
IL/NY - Singer R. Kelly, multiple counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault, Feb 2019 *Guilty NY - appeal 2023* *charges dropped in IL*
- Thread starter Casshew
- Start date
New Posts
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Charlot123
golfmom
Former Member
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-r-kelly-trial-lisa-van-allen-june02,0,6156161.story
.....................
Judge Vincent Gaughan admonished the witness, Lisa Van Allen, that some of her testimony could be self-incriminating, but did not specify what he was referring to. Van Allen will be the prosecution's first witness this morning, and direct examination is expected to take about 30 minutes, prosecutors said in court.
Kelly's attorneys are expected to accuse her of offering to switch her testimony for a jaw-dropping price. The defense team has described it as an extortion attempt, and unsuccessfully petitioned Gaughan to compel the prosecution to file criminal charges against her.
................. MORE AT LINK
.....................
Judge Vincent Gaughan admonished the witness, Lisa Van Allen, that some of her testimony could be self-incriminating, but did not specify what he was referring to. Van Allen will be the prosecution's first witness this morning, and direct examination is expected to take about 30 minutes, prosecutors said in court.
Kelly's attorneys are expected to accuse her of offering to switch her testimony for a jaw-dropping price. The defense team has described it as an extortion attempt, and unsuccessfully petitioned Gaughan to compel the prosecution to file criminal charges against her.
................. MORE AT LINK
golfmom
Former Member
Oh this is just sickening .....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...n-allen-june02,0,6156161.story?page=2&cnn=yes
The prosecution's key witness in the trial of singer R. Kelly on child *advertiser censored* charges told jurors about three sexual encounters she had with Kelly and the alleged victim in the case.
In just under one hour of testimony, Lisa Van Allen, 27, also identified Kelly and the alleged victim on the videotape that is the central piece of evidence in the trial.
Van Allen, who was 17 when she first met Kelly, testified to a sexual encounter with the underage girl in 1998, 1999 and in 2000. Two of those encounters were videotaped, she said, though neither tape is the one at the center of the prosecution's case.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...n-allen-june02,0,6156161.story?page=2&cnn=yes
The prosecution's key witness in the trial of singer R. Kelly on child *advertiser censored* charges told jurors about three sexual encounters she had with Kelly and the alleged victim in the case.
In just under one hour of testimony, Lisa Van Allen, 27, also identified Kelly and the alleged victim on the videotape that is the central piece of evidence in the trial.
Van Allen, who was 17 when she first met Kelly, testified to a sexual encounter with the underage girl in 1998, 1999 and in 2000. Two of those encounters were videotaped, she said, though neither tape is the one at the center of the prosecution's case.
golfmom
Former Member
Girl's family members are denying it's her in the tape:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...trial-critic-defense-webjun04,0,5115602.story
Defense attorneys for R. Kelly have called in quick succession several of the alleged victim's family members to declare that the woman in the sex tape is not the alleged victim.
The cross-examinations by the prosecution have been less lacerating than those of the defense attorneys, who attempted to pummel witness after witness during the prosecution's case. The prosecution asked a few pointed questions of the defense's witnesses but did not launch aggressive challenges of the witnesses' credibility.
One interesting admission during cross-examination came when a relative of the alleged victim admitted that the case had created a division in the family that left some members not speaking to others.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/enter...trial-critic-defense-webjun04,0,5115602.story
Defense attorneys for R. Kelly have called in quick succession several of the alleged victim's family members to declare that the woman in the sex tape is not the alleged victim.
The cross-examinations by the prosecution have been less lacerating than those of the defense attorneys, who attempted to pummel witness after witness during the prosecution's case. The prosecution asked a few pointed questions of the defense's witnesses but did not launch aggressive challenges of the witnesses' credibility.
One interesting admission during cross-examination came when a relative of the alleged victim admitted that the case had created a division in the family that left some members not speaking to others.
golfmom
Former Member
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-r-kelly-trial-tape-web-jun09,0,6602241.story
June 9, 2008 12:28 PM: Much to everyone's surprise, the defense rests
Much to the surprise of the courtroom gallery, R. Kelly's lawyers rested their case Monday morning after three days of testimony in defense of the R&B singer.
golfmom
Former Member
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-watersports_thinkjun08,0,4029310.story
The elephant in the room at the ongoing child *advertiser censored* trial of R&B icon R. Kelly is the fact that the man shown in the amateur sex videothe prosecution's key piece of evidenceseems to take pleasure in urinating on his sex partner.
Tearing away from the heinous possibility that the girl in the video may be underage, a question on the minds of many who have followed Kelly's case is: Who on earth would want to urinate on someone else, or be urinated on themselves?
The elephant in the room at the ongoing child *advertiser censored* trial of R&B icon R. Kelly is the fact that the man shown in the amateur sex videothe prosecution's key piece of evidenceseems to take pleasure in urinating on his sex partner.
Tearing away from the heinous possibility that the girl in the video may be underage, a question on the minds of many who have followed Kelly's case is: Who on earth would want to urinate on someone else, or be urinated on themselves?
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/10/alleged.victim.ap/index.html
from the trial
he is not going to testify
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/10/rkelly.trial.ap/index.html
from the trial
he is not going to testify
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/10/rkelly.trial.ap/index.html
I hate to say it but with the girl's family saying that girl isn't her in the video...I don't see the jury convicting.
Isn't urinating on someone a fetish called a "golden shower"? I don't get it either! I think it's very demeaning and messy! lol What do they do with the sheet and mattress and even the floor? Who has to clean that up?!
We need the Glitch-signal (like Batman's signal in the sky) alerted! She knows about this stuff.
Isn't urinating on someone a fetish called a "golden shower"? I don't get it either! I think it's very demeaning and messy! lol What do they do with the sheet and mattress and even the floor? Who has to clean that up?!
We need the Glitch-signal (like Batman's signal in the sky) alerted! She knows about this stuff.
golfmom
Former Member
The problem is that the family is split. Many identify her as the girl in the video and many deny it's her. She's adamant that it isn't her.
I dated a guy from Atlanta who was involved in the music scene and he used to tell me stories about R. Kelly liking the young girls. He told me a story about an apartment R. had with a secret door in a closet, so he could sneak girls out through there. I have no idea if this is the truth or a rumor though. He also told me that it was common knowledge that the girl and her family was given a substantial sum of money to disappear and deny these allegations. My ex claimed this was part of the reason why it took so long to go to trial.
golfmom
Former Member
So what's the websleuths verdict?
Do you think he's innocent, guilty or the prosecution hasn't proven their case?
Do you think he's innocent, guilty or the prosecution hasn't proven their case?
