Since the Little Man scenario didn't go over too well, the defense has another trick up its sleeve. Dental records!!!
The defense is hoping that braces will help prove the identity of the girl on the tape. According to Kelly's lawyers, the alleged victim had braces at the time the tape was made (sometime in the late 90's) but the girl on the tape did not.
Tjada Burnett, a family friend of the alleged victim, testified she could identify the female participant on the tape by her "cheeks, her nose, her facial structure."
The defense accused Burnett of lying to aid the prosecution because when asked whether her friend wore braces she said the braces could have been put on after 1999.
OMG -- could that be a hole in a testimony? A measley 1 point by the skin of thier teeth for the defense, but the prosecutors STILL scored as a former empolyee of R Kelly identified him on the tape.
According to the Associated Press, Lindsey Perryman, said she worked as a record producer and personal assistant to Kelly on and off from 2000-2007 and testified she was "110 percent sure" he was the male on the tape. After being approached by prosecutors in December 2007, Perryman said it was at this time she first viewed the tape.
Perryman told jurors she looked at an album cover before viewing the tape and did not want to believe it was her former boss on the video because he was "very, very good to me."
"I was in shock and I wanted to be 110 percent sure," she said. Perryman along with two other witnesses also identified the female participant as the same woman denying partaking in the video. According to the Associated Press, Lindsey Perryman, said she worked as a record producer and personal assistant to Kelly on and off from 2000-2007 and testified she was "110 percent sure" he was the male on the tape.
Perryman along with two other witnesses also identified the female participant as the same woman denying partaking in the video. (source)
As time progresses, this whole "that is not me on the tape, it's video special effects" defense is getting a bit trifling. First, a mole R Kelly has on his back was not in the video and now the alleged victim supposedly had braces when the tape was made but the girl in the video does not. U think that provides enough resonable doubt to free R Kelly?
The defense is hoping that braces will help prove the identity of the girl on the tape. According to Kelly's lawyers, the alleged victim had braces at the time the tape was made (sometime in the late 90's) but the girl on the tape did not.
Tjada Burnett, a family friend of the alleged victim, testified she could identify the female participant on the tape by her "cheeks, her nose, her facial structure."
The defense accused Burnett of lying to aid the prosecution because when asked whether her friend wore braces she said the braces could have been put on after 1999.
OMG -- could that be a hole in a testimony? A measley 1 point by the skin of thier teeth for the defense, but the prosecutors STILL scored as a former empolyee of R Kelly identified him on the tape.
According to the Associated Press, Lindsey Perryman, said she worked as a record producer and personal assistant to Kelly on and off from 2000-2007 and testified she was "110 percent sure" he was the male on the tape. After being approached by prosecutors in December 2007, Perryman said it was at this time she first viewed the tape.
Perryman told jurors she looked at an album cover before viewing the tape and did not want to believe it was her former boss on the video because he was "very, very good to me."
"I was in shock and I wanted to be 110 percent sure," she said. Perryman along with two other witnesses also identified the female participant as the same woman denying partaking in the video. According to the Associated Press, Lindsey Perryman, said she worked as a record producer and personal assistant to Kelly on and off from 2000-2007 and testified she was "110 percent sure" he was the male on the tape.
Perryman along with two other witnesses also identified the female participant as the same woman denying partaking in the video. (source)
As time progresses, this whole "that is not me on the tape, it's video special effects" defense is getting a bit trifling. First, a mole R Kelly has on his back was not in the video and now the alleged victim supposedly had braces when the tape was made but the girl in the video does not. U think that provides enough resonable doubt to free R Kelly?
For more info on the case, click here
***
Flava reppin' the global Hip Hop movement!
Posted by Nikki Strong
No comments:
Post a Comment