R. Kelly Faces Another Retrial Of 2008 Child Pornography

There's one big difference: This time, prosecutors say, she will testify.

R. Kelly Faces Another Retrial Of 2008 Child Pornography

is about to re-enter another trial in Chicago, a re-trial of his 2008 state child pornography trial, which resulted in him being acquitted on charges that he produced a video of himself around age 30 having sex with a girl who was no older than 14.

There’s one big difference: This time, prosecutors say, she will testify.

Kelly has already been sentenced by a New York federal judge to a 30-year prison term for sexually abusing other young fans, as he used his fame to lure them in.

One of the most serious allegations against the Grammy winner involves paying off and threatening the victim during a 2008 trial to ensure they did not testify.

The woman who was abused by Kelly will be fighting the company in her 30s, and testified to the charges against him. He is accused of enticement of minors for sex, where the woman will testify to what happened to her. He is also charged with having sexual relations with four other accusers and they will all testify as well.

Kelly is appealing his conviction, since a New York sentence could add decades to his already lengthy sentence in Chicago. If convicted again, Kelly will be near 80 years old before he could qualify for early release.

Prosecutors plan to play the VHS tape that was introduced today at the 2008 trial. It will be entered into evidence alongside three other videos from 2017.

Prosecutors say Kelly shot the video of Minor 1 in a log cabin-themed room at his North Side home between 1998 and 2000 when she was as young as 13. In it, the girl is heard calling the man “daddy.” Federal prosecutors say that she and Kelly had sex hundreds of times over the years in his homes, recording studios and tour buses.

Before the 2008 trial, Kelly carried a duffle bag full of sex tapes everywhere he went for years, but some tapes later went missing, according to court filings. In the 2000s, bootleg copies of some videos appeared on street corners across the U.S.

Kelly—a famous singer, songwriter, and producer on Chicago’s South Side—knew that a 2008 conviction would stop him from performing as he knew it.

On June 13, 2008, Kelly shut his eyes tight and bowed his head as jurors returned from deliberations. As a court official read the jury’s decision and it became clear Kelly would be acquitted on all counts, tears streamed down his cheeks and he said over and over, “Thank you, Jesus.”

Two associates of Kelly, Derrel McDavid and Milton Brown, are co-defendants in Chicago. Thay they have also denied any wrongdoing.

According to double jeopardy rules, you cannot be prosecuted for the same crimes as acquitted. However, this case is different because prosecutors are alleging different crimes related to Minor 1.

Minor 1’s first interaction with Kelly was when she tagged along with her aunt, a professional singer. After that meeting, Minor 1 told her parents that Kelly would be her godfather.

In the early 2000s, the aunt showed the parents a copy of a video she said depicted their daughter having sex with Kelly. When they confronted Kelly, he told them, “You’re with me or against me,” a government filing says.

The parents took it as a threat.

Minor 1’s mother apparently wanted to go up against Kelly’s power, money, and influence by just following what he said.

The parents and Minor 1 had to leave Chicago, with Kelly paying for them to go to the Bahamas and Cancun. Kelly then sought to isolate Minor 1 by moving her around different hotels.

When Minor 1, her father and mother were called before the state grand jury to discuss the video, they all denied that she was in it. Prosecutors say that an attorney for Kelly who sat in on their testimony reported back to him what they said.

Prosecutors from Cook County’s State Attorney’s Office pushed ahead with the case, even with the knowledge that they couldn’t call the girl and be successful because of the existence of a video evidence.

Kelly’s chances of beating similar charges were probably dashed when he found out that Minor 1 decided to cooperate with the government. The federal prosecutors also boast a conviction rate of 90% over 65% for their state counterparts.

In 2008, his lawyers attempted to prove he was not in the video by showing jurors that he has a mole and proving it did not exist on the man in the video.

One of Kelly’s attorneys, Sam Adam Jr., told jurors during closings: “No mole on his back means one thing: It ain’t him. And if it ain’t him, you can’t convict.”

You stated earlier in your report that some jurors didn’t believe the girl in the video was an adolescent.

The court proceeding should not be a problem. The prosecution plans to have the 11-year-old testify and her parents are also going to testify as well.

The defense Kelly’s legal team is presenting isn’t clear.

The defense is likely to say Kelly’s accusers are misrepresenting the facts. Kelly was more blunt in an interview last year, stating: ‘All of them are lying.’


Join our Telegram Group

Follow talkGlitz on Instagram TalkGlitz on Twitter

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More