Prosecutors say ‘the truth is out’ in child pornography and obstruction of justice case

0

Beau Brindley, attorney for Kelly’s co-defendant Derrel McDavid, told jurors in closing argument that the case hinged on the involvement of four people: Kelly’s attorneys Gerry Margolis, Ed Genson and John Touhy ; and private detective Jack Palladino. He said the four men should have risked their own careers and reputations to cover up child pornography for Kelly.

“Would they ever do that?” he said.

Brindley noted that jurors must find defendants guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict them, and said prosecutors failed to provide enough evidence to prove it, leaving the jury with one truth: for that McDavid is guilty, Margolis, Genson, Palladino and Touhy must also be guilty.

Brindley also argued that in order for the jury to convict McDavid, they must be able to say that prosecution witnesses Chuck Freeman and Lisa Van Allen were trustworthy beyond a reasonable doubt, claiming that the only evidence that McDavid did something wrong lies in their testimony.

He said if jurors have reason to doubt Van Allen and Freeman, they must acquit McDavid.

Brindley also claimed that the prosecution case suffered from a statute of limitations problem, saying that if a conspiracy ended more than five years before a defendant was charged, the defendant could not be found guilty. . He claimed that if there was a conspiracy, it ended when Kelly’s 2008 child pornography trial ended in a conviction.

Regarding payments Kelly’s team made to star prosecution witness “Jane,” who accused Kelly of sexually abusing her hundreds of times from the age of 14 and of having recorded some of their sexual encounters on video, Brindley said prosecutors had failed to prove that the payments were related to her sexual abuse allegations.

Regarding a settlement Kelly paid McDavid after the pair split in 2013, Brindley countered any suggestion that the settlement had anything to do with the criminal case, saying McDavid sued Kelly for the money owed for his work as the singer’s business manager. While the settlement included a confidentiality clause that would have required McDavid to pay Kelly $100,000 if he breached it, Brindley argued that if the settlement had anything to do with illegal behavior, the damages would have been great. higher.

“There is no evidence of a secret deal,” Brindley said.

Brindley also pointed to apparent inconsistencies regarding a meeting at an Oak Park hotel, where Jane testified that Kelly admitted to her parents that he had sex with her when she was just a girl. , claiming that Jane’s account of the reunion did not match her mother, and calling the prosecution’s focus on the reunion a “red herring”.

Referring to Kelly’s former manager, Barry Hankerson, Brindley said Hankerson was known to have hated Kelly after their relationship ended, and suggested Hankerson pay the women money to accuse Kelly of sexual abuse.

“They were paying people to lie,” he said.

Brindley said the same day the Sun-Times contacted Kelly’s team about a video they had obtained showing him sexually abusing a girl, Hankerson also called about a video, making McDavid suspicious of any claims.

“Anyone in his position” would feel that was illegitimate, Brindley argued.

Brindley said McDavid – whose defense hinges in part on his claims that he believed Kelly’s sexual abuse denials at the time of the alleged conspiracy – had no reason to doubt Jane’s denials that Kelly l had mistreated. But he said McDavid had plenty of reason to doubt Charles Freeman, who testified that Kelly’s team hired him to retrieve incriminating sex tapes, calling Freeman a “talentless and tactless T-shirt salesman ‘, asking jurors why Kelly’s team would hire Freeman to recover. anything when they had already hired private detective Jack Palladino.

Brindley said Freeman was unable to keep his story clear regarding his claims that he was hired to find those tapes.

“His own words betray him again and again,” Brindley said.

As for the prosecution’s argument that jurors don’t have to like Freeman to believe him, Brindley said the jury doesn’t have to believe him because he’s a liar.

“How much more do we have to show?” He asked.

Brindley also sought to cast doubt on Lisa Van Allen’s testimony that she took a tape from R. Kelly showing the two having sex with Jane, and that Kelly’s team offered to pay her for the retrieve. Brindley noted that Van Allen said she gave the tape to her friend Keith Murrell, and Murrell said that Van Allen never told her there was a girl on the tape.

“She treated it like a regular threesome tape which was exciting because it had a super star on it,” Brindley said, adding that while Van Allen was really worried about what was on the tape, she would have destroyed it, not tried to get money for it.

“It was always about the money.” Brindley added. “Enough. She lied.”

Brindley concluded his closing argument by telling jurors that prosecutors in their opening statement had promised clear proof that Kelly, McDavid and Brown were guilty, but said all they had against McDavid was “guilt by association”.

“They didn’t give you what they promised. Use your verdict. Say it, please,” he said.

Share.

Comments are closed.