Somebody's having having sex in R Kelly's house on the video. Is there still a question as to who?????The defense team for the R&B star opened its case Wednesday with relatives of the alleged victim testifying that she is not the female on the video that prosecutors say shows the Grammy winner having sex with an underage 13-year-old girl.
A defense witness on Wednesday also accused a key prosecution witness who testified earlier this week of soliciting $300,000 fromthe R&B singer in exchange for her silence.
To date, seven of the alleged victim's family members have testified -- four for the prosecution telling jurors they recognized the female as their relative, and three taking the stand insisting it's not her.
Shonna Edwards, 27, the first of the three relatives to testify for the defense, responded promptly, "It definitely wasn't her," claiming the female's body in the tape was too developed to be her relative at that time.
Edwards having just seen the tape for the first time several days ago in a lawyer's office, added that the man in the sex tape "did not appear" to be Kelly.
During cross-examination, prosecutors displayed two photos on asplit screen -- one of the female in the tape and one of the allegedvictim -- and asked Edwards if it was at least possible they werethe same person.
"Not at all," Edwards said without hesitating.
Other family members of the alleged victim, Charlotte Edwards and Leroy Edwards Jr., provided similar testimony on Wednesday.Their statements contradict other family members who testified for the prosecution.
Also Wednesday, the defense sought to discredit the testimony of witness, Lisa Van Allen, who told jurors Monday that she engaged in three-way sex with Kelly and the alleged victim.
A law clerk for the defense team, Jason Wallace, told jurors that Van Allen's fiance, Yul Brown, sought $300,000 from Kelly in return for a promise not to testify against him."Lisa doesn't have to testify in court if things are made right," Wallace quoted Brown as saying during a meeting with a Kelly attorney in Georgia last month, according to Wallace.
Van Allen was at the meeting in a hotel lobby, Wallace said, but Brown did all the speaking. But Wallace said Van Allen kept nodding her head in agreement.
Reporter Refuses To Answer Questions At R. Kelly Trial
Earlier Wednesday, a Chicago Sun-Times reporter declined to answer questions at the trial.
After he was sworn in, Jim DeRogatis cited an Illinois law that governs reporters' rights and the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution in refusing to answer questions.
DeRogatis read the statement more than a dozen times in response to questions, including to whether he once made a copy of the sex tape at the heart of the trial.
Defense attorneys have said that copying the tape would have been a crime.
After DeRogatis spent 10 minutes on the stand, Judge Vincent Gaughan said reporters' privileges don't apply. But he ruled that DeRogatis doesn't have to testify based on his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
DeRogatis attorney Damon Dunn argued that reporters have an obligation to pursue facts and that "they shouldn't be put in this type of position by defendants."
He also said that DeRogatis continued to cover the R. Kelly case.
"Mr. DeRogatis is a reporter who is reporting on this case until today. ... It is up to the reporter to pursue the facts wherever they go."
Dunn said covering child pornography has "higher societal goals." He also argued that if forced to testify DeRogatis won'tbe able to guarantee to sources in the future that he would nothave to reveal their names.
But defense attorney Mark Martin said the defense didn't intend to ask DeRogatis about his sources.
"So reporters' privilege does not apply. ... Being a reporter does not give a reporter rights to commit criminal offenses," Martin said. Source