Jurors view alleged R. Kelly sex tape

Prosecutors first warned jurors that what they were going to see was “vile, disturbing, disgusting,” then wasted no time showing jurors the homemade sexually explicit videotape that is the hub of the their child pornography case against urban music superstar R. Kelly.

The jurors sat motionless and expressionless as they watched the 27-minute video of whom prosecutors said is Kelly, whose real name is Robert S. Kelly and an underage girl performing sex acts.

The tape begins with a man wearing a white t-shirt and red jogging pants sitting in front of the camera before a female walks in. Once she is in the camera's view, the man presents her with an undisclosed amount of money. The female responds, “Thank you.” The remainder of the video showed the duo having oral and vaginal sex, the female dancing nude, to which the man said, “Dance faster, baby,” while music from the Backstreet Boys and the Spice Girls played in the background. The video ended as it began, with money being handed to the female.

Kelly, 41, dressed in a navy suit with a navy and red diagonal-stripped tie, stared on a small monitor at the defense table and often conferred with one of his attorneys.

Lead prosecutor Shauna Boliker called Kelly a “pornographer” in her opening statement and told jurors that the female depicted in the video is a child who Kelly took advantage of and whom he “commanded” to do things in the video. She said several witnesses will testify that the female in the tape was under age 18 at the time it was made.

Kelly is on trial for allegedly filming himself between Jan. 1, 1998 and Nov. 1, 2000 having sex with a girl in her early teens. He had pleaded not guilty. If convicted he could serve between four and 15 years in prison.

“A child doesn't choose to be violated and placed on a videotape, a videotape that will live on forever, long after this child becomes an adult,” she said.

Kelly basically is stamping a guilty verdict on himself, according to Boliker, because “child pornography that was created, staged, produced and starred in by the defendant that sits before you, Robert Kelly.”

“The case is laid out for you frame by ugly frame, frame by disgusting frame. You don't have to put the pieces together because he already has done that for you,” she said.

Wrong, Sam Adam (cq) Jr., one of Kelly's defense attorneys, said during opening arguments.

The alleged victim, along with her parents, testified before a grand jury in 2002 that she is not the female on the videotape and she will not be a witness in the trial. Kelly is also not showcased in the tape. The prosecution's entire case is “suspect,” he said. To further refute the prosecution's allegations, Adam said the female in the video is a “prostitute” because she is getting paid for her services, as seen in the videotape.

“The tape, at best, is a copy of a copy of a copy of the original,” Adam said, adding that it has gone through several editing processes and the FBI even examined the tape and according to their report, could not identify Kelly in the video because of the poor quality.

Also at issue is a birthmark or “significant” mole -- about three centimeters in diameter -- that is on the lower portion of Kelly's back, a mark that has existed since he was a child.

Adam said that the man in the video does not have a mark on his back as Kelly does, and the man's back in the video is clearly illuminated in the video.

“Either Robert isn't the man on the tape, or he is some kind of magician,” Adam told the jury before they were shown the video and at least 48 pictures taken at a Chicago police station of Kelly's exposed back with the mark and other marks or scars on his upper body. The photos were taken after his arrest in 2002 on the child pornography charges.

When the tape was played, no marks or a mole on the lower back could be seen on the man's body.

The jurors did hear from one witness Tuesday, retired Chicago Police detective Dan Everett.

Everett said he and his partner were sent to the Chicago Sun-Times in February 2002 to get a VHS videotape from a reporter who it was sent to anonymously. Once he viewed it, he knew the female in it was a minor because he questioned her about two years prior for another investigation.

The word “investigation” rubbed Cook County Circuit Judge Vincent Gaughan the wrong way, and a mistrial was threatened.

Gaughan sent the jury out of the courtroom and called a sidebar because Everett was warned by prosecutors to not use the word “investigation” during the trial. Calling it an “egregious mistake,” the judge said he would declare a mistrial if he heard the word again.

Ed Genson, lead counsel for Kelly, had Everett admit that there were instances throughout his career as a police officer who investigated child abusephysical and sexual where teens looked older than they appeared and adult women looked younger than they appeared.

Genson also took the retired detective to task for not knowing if the tape that was given to the reporter was the same tape that was turned over to Everett.

Separately, last-minute surprises arose before opening statements began.

The defense filed a motion to get the videotape tossed out, but it was denied.

One of the jurors also was excused.

A rape survivor who was selected as a juror called the judge's office Friday to inform him that she would not be able to continue due to the financial burden a lengthy trial would impose.

On her jury questionnaire the woman stated that she has only been on her job for a few months and would have to use her vacation time to continue serving as a juror.

When questioned by the judge before she was excused, she said the $17.50 per day she would receive for jury duty would not be enough to satisfy her mortgage payment, nor her other financial obligations.

The first alternate juror, a white man who appears to be in his 20s, is serving in her place.

Testimony resumes Wednesday.

Kathy Chaney can be reached via e-mail at kchaney@chicagodefender.com.

______

Copyright 2008 Chicago Defender. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.