Defense Begins In R. Kelly Child Porn Trial -- Three Family Members Called

Wednesday - June 4, 2008
By: Allen Starbury

The defense began in R. Kelly child pornography trial on Wednesday (June 4), their first day since the prosecution rested at the start of the week.

The defense started their first day out strong bringing to the stand three family members -- an aunt, uncle and cousin -- who all testified that the girl on the sex tape is not their family member.

The members were called upon to discredit the testimony of the prosecution's star witness, Lisa Van Allen, who testified that she had partook in a threesome with both Kelly and the alleged victim on videotape.

No one of them had watched the tape in full, they said according to reports, only bits and pieces. They did say, however, they were certain it's not her, even when shown a side profile photo of their relative juxtaposed with a side profile image of the girl on the tape.

"No, that definitely wasn't her," cousin Shonna Edwards said. And when asked to identify the girl's body, "Not even close."

"No, that does not look like my niece," aunt Charlotte Edwards said.

"They're not the same," uncle Leroy Edwards said.

During questioning Kelly's attorney Ed Genson asked all three about a specific way the girl on the tape and their relative had their hair parted. Their relative had it partner in the center in a photo, while the girl in the video had her hair be parted to the left. All three family members agreed.

Later, Jason Wallace was called to the stand. He is a sports agent and law clerk, and said he had met with Van Allen, her fiancé Yul Brown and defense attorney Sam Adam Jr. on in early May. The purpose, he said, was to interview Van Allen about her upcoming testimony in the trial, but that Van Allen didn't say one word in the meeting, instead deferring to Brown.

Wallace reportedly claimed that Brown implied that if Kelly offered them money -- around $350,000.

During cross-examination, however, Wallace said there is no recording of the conversation and that his written summary is not exact, admitting he also left out things such as Brown's responses.

GO BACK TO SITE