Trial Forecaster: R. Kelly’s Former Assistant Drops Bomb

|

r-kelly-courthouse-512x.jpg

(The VH1 Blog knows very little about the law. So we’ve solicited Mark Muro, a founder of the California law firm Muro & Lampe, Inc., to keep a running tab on which side has the advantage in the R. Kelly child pornography trial. Check back daily for updates.)

Week two started off with a bang for the prosecution as Lindsey Perryman, a former assistant to R. Kelly, testified that the alleged victim once showed up at Kelly’s studio with a “pillow and overnight bag.” (What? He didn’t have a spare pillow?) According to Perryman, this was not an isolated incident, but the alleged victim would come by the studio a couple of time’s a week. On one occasion, Perryman even claims to have driven the girl to Kelly’s home. Perryman identified both the alleged victim and Kelly as the ones in the tape. This eye witness is particularly damaging to the defense because she has no apparent ax to grind with Kelly.
+1 for the prosecution.

Late Friday, sparks flew in the courtroom as Stephanie “Sparkles” Edwards took the stand. A former protege of Kelly, Edwards testified that she introduced the alleged victim (her niece) to Kelly. She also testified that she saw the sex tape in 2001 and recognized her niece, and she described how the existence of the tape divided her family, which, in a poor choice of words, she described as being “as thick as thieves.” In cross examination, defense attorney Ed Genson tried to piece together his conspiracy theory by accusing Edwards of having a vendetta against Kelly because of a music deal gone wrong. Genson even accused her of conspiring against Kelly with his former manager, Barry Hankerson. Edwards did not miss a beat in denying these allegations: “Of Course not,” she said. Edwards claimed that there is no bad blood between she and Kelly, and even refered to him as “my homeboy.” If the defense expects the jury to buy their conspiracy theory, they better have more cards than they’ve played so far. The defense will need more than innuendos to convince the jury that the tape is part of an elaborate scheme to exact revenge against Kelly or extort him for money. Sparkles stood up against cross-examination and I don’t think the defense delivered as promised.
-1 for the defense.

In the latest twist to the trial, the defense fought back by claiming that the alleged victim wore braces at the time the prosecution claims the tape was made. The defense showed the jury a photo of the alleged victim with braces in her mouth during the cross-examination of Tjada Burnett, yet another acquaintance of the alleged victim who identified her as the girl in the tape. When pressed about the braces, Burnett acknowledged that the alleged victim wore braces in the late 1990s, but could not provide a useful time frame. It does not appear that the defense has proven that the alleged victim had braces at the time the prosecution contends the tape was made, but the alleged victim’s orthodontic records should be available to provide definite evidence in this regard. Until the defense shows more of their hand on the braces front, no points. — Mark Muro, Attorney

Overall Score:
Defense: 0
Prosecution: +3

p.s. Remember to send your shirtless pics of R. Kelly to the VH1 Blog.

related stories
you might like
Powered By Zergnet
  1. hollow says:

    I think rkelly is a sick individual who needs to admit what he obviously did and move on hopefully he doesn’t receive the max sentence but a punishment should def be handed out

  2. THE TRUTH says:

    soooo sooo stupid

    p.s the girl wanted it it was’nt his fault what man is going to turn down some booty look at her

  3. YawnWhatEvuh says:

    @THE TRUTH, Dude she was 14 at the time. I hope the authorities see this and come after you too. You are one sick (%^( k for that comment.

  4. Quanna says:

    For any man or woman to say,”Oh she wanted it.So what was he suppose to do,say no?” Hell muthaf*ckin yes! It’s sick!(@the booty comment) Who would lay down with a girl who ain’t even old enough to get a driver’s permit just cause she wants to have sex? Only a sick person would. It doesn’t matter if she wanted it. Kelly is a grown ~$+ man,and I’m sure he can get women is age. He old enough and mature enough to know it’s not f*ckin okay to have sex with minors. Did anybody see the Mtv Special on the trial called,”When the Gavel Drops”? They made it clear that this wasn’t the first time R.Kelly has been in court for having sex with minors.And in those cases ended in settlements! And he married a 15 year old when he was in his 20s,and thats normal? Don’t think so,if he done it once then he can do it again. If R.Kelly can’t say no to a 13 or 15 year old coming on to him,then he needs to either get some pyschiatric treatment,or simply go to jail.

  5. choc0lite says:

    I think he should be punished just like any other guy. The sad part is older guys r messin with young girls everyday. Now they dont even care if they young or not as long as they willin to open those legs they feel as if they old enough to sleep with. I hope people realize just because these young girls carry themselves like their grown that dosent make them grown. Hopefully R.Kelly learns his lesson from this ordeal no matter if he goes to jail or not.