An uncomfortable encounter with two girls I have dubbed the "Court Watchers" has inspired me to write this today.

I have had second thoughts, but I believe readers should know what I'm up against.

If you recall from an earlier blog, two young ladies named Jerhonda Johnson and Keyonia Jones are in attendance every day here at their hero's child pornography trial.

Jerhonda is 18, she neither works nor goes to school, and she takes the Metra here every day from Elgin.

Keyonia is 23 and has named her baby Robert after R. Kelly himself. (Her son is with her at the court house today, sporting cornrows just like you-know-who.) Keyonia had told me she was to begin classes last week at Harold Washington College, but judging by her attendance record here in Courtroom 500- it appears that she hasn't.

I greeted them on the elevator Thursday evening, and got a mouthful of colorful vocabulary in return- I must say it was impressive language considering the college-aged ladies' lapses in higher learning.

"I ain't talking to you," Jerhonda shouted. "I think you're a (insert vulgarity)!"

"Excuse me?" I asked, shocked and taken aback.

"You heard me," Jerhonda yelled, "You're a (repeat vulgarity), and I don't like what you wrote. You know I read it!"

Kudos.

"Was there a problem? I quoted you directly, I'm sure. Please correct me if I'm wrong- " I asked, eager to ease her ire.

"No you didn't quote me wrong, but I'm mad you (even more vulgarity). How do you know I wait in Douglas Park everyday for Kelly....you're not there!"

No Jerhonda, I thought to myself. I'm not there. But I drive past you daily on my way to WORK- a word it seems with which your able-bodied self is not familiar.

What I actually said? "No but I see you, and my colleagues do too. A lot of people are watching you, Jerhonda."

"You don't know what you see," she snapped, explaining that if my vision were correct, I would know that some days she takes the bus from the park to court.

"That's what you're mad about? I'm sorry," I said, but I could hardly get it out before she shouted obscenities again, this time with television news crews rolling on her outburst.

Sheriff's deputies escorted her off the property, still shouting- but she's back again today.

She hasn't talked to me, and for that I am thankful.

But I'm watching my back, and she should remember that others are watching her.

There's a lesson she doesn't even have to go to school to learn.

Randi Belisomo, covering the R. Kelly Trial

I never thought I would be blogging about Biblical banter at a child pornography trial, but leave it to this one to surprise.

During closing arguments, defense attorney Sam Adam, Jr. turned twice to Scripture- using the Good Book often relied on for answers to instead raise "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury.

The first righteous reference he pulled out early- referring to the "Old Proverb 22." To be specific, it's Proverbs 22:6, and in keeping with Adam, Jr.'s love for language- I'll quote my King James Version: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

Why such precepts on parenting? Adam, Jr. pressed the Proverb in praise of the alleged victim's mother and dad, folks he described as upstanding people who raised a "sweet and lovely girl." Translation: NOT the so-called "whore" Adam, Jr. pointed out who took money on the sex tape for "dirty, raunchy sex."

The second scriptural selection was actually used to slander Lisa Van Allen- a teaching from the New Testament twisted to taint the woman who is thought to be the prosecution's star witness. The verse? It's from the Second Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 14. "And no marvel," St. Paul writes, "for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

There's been a lot said in this case about the motives of Van Allen and her fiance, Yul Brown- but Adam, Jr. dipped to deepest levels of fiery hell for this one....and I'm wondering if for it, he will have to pay his penance.

Van Allen testified to engaging in three-way sex sessions with both R. Kelly and the alleged victim in the case. But by labeling her as the devil herself, Adam, Jr. seemed to be poking holes in his own argument- in front of self-described Christians on the jury panel, including one wife of a Baptist preacher.

To close, he instructed the jury that if they were to convict R. Kelly, they would be calling that young girl on the tape a whore. He then drove the point deeper with the use of an adage he said he learned from his mother: "If you ain't got nothing to nice to say about somebody, don't say anything at all."

Last I checked, he was the only one calling anyone the devil.

He walks past me every day, but something about this stroll stood out.

Each morning court session starts the same way- with me seated in my usual spot, perched on the right-end seat of the second media bench. At around 10 a.m., R. Kelly arrives, taking his route to the defendant's chair right down my row. And each morning he carries off his entrance with courtesy, whispering an "excuse me" in my direction.

But "excuse me," was what I should have said at one point this week, when his strong, masculine musk made me look twice.

It was simply delicious, and I wasn't the only one who thought so. All three woman and even one male media member seated in my row looked at other with delight.

"Wow," I said. "Does anyone know what that is?"

"It's not Old Spice," remarked one colleague who shall remain nameless.

We even asked Kelly's attorney, Sam Adam, Jr., to inquire in the defendant's direction.

"I can't do that in court!" Adam, Jr. blushed, promising he'll instruct an assistant to ask.

Producer Brendan Greeley, who is covering the trial for 104.3 JACK F.M. was so floored by the fragrance, he headed to Macy's directly from court for a little smell test of his own.

The closest cologne?

It was one by fellow R & B singer Usher, Greeley informed me. Usher joined with Kelly for the 2007 duet "Same Girl," and perhaps now they sport the same scent.

Bottom line- after all this is over, and if Kelly walks free.... I would appreciate another walk in my direction.

To round it out, I've broken down the remaining six:

Juror #44
This 30-something, goatee-wearing, white male appears to be a blank slate. Due to his vague answers in jury selection, we know little about him- other than he knows little about R. Kelly. When asked for his view on the criminal justice system, 44 responded: "I have no opinion one way or another." Blank slate has been in court before regarding a child custody case- an experience that appears to have left no lasting impressions of justice.

Juror #61
He's one of the most animated members of this panel, and he appears to be the happiest to be on it. The 68-year old Romanian immigrant has lived in this country for more than 30 years, and they seem to be the three decades of delight in the American system. "The U.S. is a unique country," 61 said. "in our country, we don't have the same rights." As far as the defendant's celebrity status goes, 61 is unfazed. "He's a human being like the rest of us, and he should be treated like everyone else." He promised not to discuss the case at home, acknowledging that if he spoke of it to his wife, she would just go and tell her sister- an in-law implied to be problematic. Regarding how seriously he takes this job, 61 said: "When I go to bed, I want to have a clear conscience. I'm probably not the smartest guy but I will do what is best and fair." He perhaps is in need of a civics lesson, however, because when asked how he would respond should the defendant not testify, 61 said simply, "that's because the prosecutor didn't prove her case." If he hasn't learned any differently, R. Kelly has a true ally here.

Juror #66
He was an alternate, but he's now bumped up to a voting member since one juror backed out due to financial hardship. This well-dressed, white 20-something has an uncle who was convicted of child pornography, so his will be a vote to watch once deliberations begin. He described prosecutors to be honest and defense attorneys to be hardworking- an adjective that can be used on both sides of this case.

Juror #69
This young, white, father of two is an executive-type- a vice-president of national accounts, to be exact. During questioning, 69 said, "civic duty trumps work, I see that, but this is a detriment to my career." It's the parenthood thing Team Kelly should be worried about, though. 69 wrote in his questionnaire, "I have two little kids and child pornography is as low as it can get." He said he believes R. Kelly to be guilty based on prior press coverage, but 69 promised to put his feelings aside.

Juror #6
This middle-aged black woman could be the most fascinating selection in the case. Not only is she the wife of a Baptist preacher, but she resides in the same place R. Kelly makes his home- south suburban Olympia Fields. Well-dressed and a diligent note-taker, 6 said she believes the justice system to be "fair in most instances." She promised to judge Kelly by the laws of man, not the laws of God.

Juror #9
This black male in his late 50's describes himself as a Christian and has a brother who was murdered in 1983. 9 said he doesn't know much about R. Kelly, other than "I Believe I Can Fly." He works in telecommunications, and though he watches CNN, he said his opinion on the media is that "it's somebody else's opinion." 9 said he's in regular attendance at what he called a Christian Life Center,

With closing arguments scheduled for Thursday, I thought a profile of those who will determine R. Kelly's fate is in order. Here's a breakdown of the jury, delivered in two parts.

Juror #21
This young, white, criminal justice student is in her element within the walls of Courtroom 500. When other jurors' eyes glaze over after an hour or two of video-technological testimony, 21 is tuned in. We learned from jury selection that her boyfriend aspires to the police force and her dad works as a security guard, so if there were ever a "law and order" juror that defense teams loathe, 21 is it. When asked her view on the justice system, 21 wrote, "I like it, and think it is a fair system and done properly- and I will always do my best to make sure it is." She doesn't seem too impressed by R. Kelly's celebrity, either. When asked what she knew of the R & B singer's career, she retorted, "All I know is that it is very old stuff."

Juror #22
The media has dubbed this middle-aged white guy as "the professional juror." This case marks 22's third tour of jury duty- he served on two panels in civil cases tried at the Daley Center, both of which reached a verdict. During selection, he seemed to express a genuine interest in joining the jury- and being a pro, he knew how to answer any questions the judge threw his way. He did fess up to being a Sun-Times reader when lunching in the workplace cafeteria- a newspaper Kelly's defense attorneys wish would flat-out fold. But for the last month, 22 has had to turn away from the tabloids.

Juror #23
Wrinkled, ruffled, and with the uncanny ability to appear as if it's been three days since his last shave seemingly every day- this white guy in his 30's looks like that old friend who simply refuses to grow up. Despite his grown-up job as compliance officer at a downtown financial firm, 23 expressed the concerns of starvation and possible homelessness should he be picked for $17.40 per day jury service. Maybe that's why he looks so scruffy. During questioning, 23 spoke of attending gay events and said he was the victim of an attack after the White Sox won the 2005 World Series. When asked if the attack was a hate crime, 23 said "I don't know." Despite reservations about his newfound civic position, 23 promised: "I would hold myself to a very high standard."

Juror #32
This young black teacher's assistant was a surprise selection for several reasons- her place of employment being the first and foremost. She has worked for the past nine years at St. Agatha Catholic Academy- once known as Our Lady of the West Side Elementary. That was home to Rev. Daniel McCormack, who is now serving a five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to five counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. 32 also confessed to being arrested while a passenger in a stolen car, and she told the judge she believed the justice system is "made to be as scary as possible." Another surprise? On her juror questionnaire, 32 circled the name of Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards as being a person she knew- Sparkle is considered one of the star witnesses in this case.

Juror #40
This middle-aged black man is currently enrolled in a culinary arts certificate program, and he has a wife who works with the mentally handicapped. He's followed the criminal troubles of rapper T.I. and actor Wesley Snipes, but said he knew little of this child pornography case. Whatever he does know, 40 promised to "absolutely" put it aside- and Team Kelly couldn't be happier. During selection, they had expressed frustration with the State for using its peremptory challenges for allegedly ridding the panel of black jurors.

Juror #48
What we know of this preppy white man's age is that he said he was too young to remember O.J.'s trial, but he had been following the canine criminal case of another NFL star- Michael Vick. He's a recent graduate of the University of Kansas, where he was arrested for possession of marijuana and spent five days in jail. In a separate incident, he was also charged with underage drinking and was forced to pay a $400 fine. Will his own legal battles solicit sympathy for the defendant?

Strike up another loss for Team Kelly today, in the midst of a week that doesn't appear to be going so well.

Defense lawyer Sam Adam, Sr. argued valiantly that the jury should be prohibited from viewing the sex tape within the deliberation room, but it was an argument Judge Vincent Gaughan struck down with sizable force.

"They have every right to see it," Adam, Sr. said in an early morning proceeding. "What we object to is the jury taking the tape back and screening it in the jury room."

Adam, Sr. suggested if jurors wished for another look at what's now known as "People's Exhibit Number One," they do it in open court.

Why the argument?

Adam, Sr. cited the wide-ranging and sometimes far-afield potential problems that could pop up with private screening.

1) the tape could somehow break
2) a negligent juror could erase its salacious sexual content
3) a savvy juror could tamper with it, and somehow alter the appearance of the players involved

What it really boils down to, however, is overemphasis.

Sam Adam, Sr. doesn't want jurors playing it and replaying it- seeing if they can see that mole for themselves.

"People's Exhibit One is the actual nucleus of the case," prosecutor Shauna Boliker argued.

Judge Gaughan wasted no time.

"It will go back to the jury room," Gaughan informed a disappointed Adam, Sr.

He then appointed a sheriff's deputy to handle what Gaughan called "the mechanical and electrical operation" of the V.C.R.

Will the private screening be a blow to Team Kelly?

It looks like the prosecution team has produced yet another witness the defense just flat-out doesn't like.

The state has indicated it will call Robert Wolf, an assistant district attorney from Atlanta, during its rebuttal Tuesday, despite defense lawyer Sam Adam, Sr.'s best efforts to keep him from the stand.

"There's nothing that the district of attorney of Atlanta, Georgia can offer that can rebut anything," Adam, Sr. argued in late housekeeping matters after the jury had been dismissed.

Not from prosecutors' perspective.

"There was a strong inference made that there was some deal between Lisa Van Allen and the state," assistant state's attorney Shauna Boliker said. "There was no deal."

Van Allen reached out to prosecutors this March, just a month after a police raid on her fiance's home turned up a loaded AK-47 and drugs. Even though that fiance is a felon, a judge just gave him probation- a gift the defense implies came courtesy of the Fulton County district attorney's office.

Team Kelly calls Wolf's testimony irrelevant.

"What was in her mind at the time she contacted the state's attorney's office?" Adam, Sr. rhetorically asked the court. "The issue is the credibility and reliability of Miss Lisa Van Allen."

It will soon be up to the jury to decide both.

Do you think Wolf's testimony will tip the jurors to the side of the state?

The defense rested its case abruptly Monday. That means R Kelly's defense ends with the testimony of a video consultant- testimony the state will work to discredit during its rebuttal.

We've heard from relatives who said the girl on the tape was not the alleged victim. We've also heard from those who said she is. We've even heard from a woman who claims she had three-ways with the alleged victim and R. Kelly....but we never heard from the alleged victim herself.

Reasonable doubt?

Jury consultant Bill Healy of Decisionquest thinks so.

"You do not have a victim who is available and present identifying the actual defendant in a case, so it cannot be underestimated," Healy said.

If this now 23-year old woman says the girl on the tape is not her.... why didn't she take the stand? It would seem that such testimony would be the most powerful the defense could present.

If she is indeed telling the truth, she'd have nothing to lose.

If she's not, she could crack under cross-examination- perhaps opening herself up to perjury charges.

Jury consultant Healy breaks it down.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high hurdle, and it is even higher when you do not have a victim present," Healy said. "But obviously in cases like a murder case where the victim is not present to testify, jurors are willing to make that leap. They're willing to say the prosecution had enough evidence but they will only do that if they take the bricks and create a whole wall that says, 'yes, this is him.'"

I would like to know your thoughts. Should she have been called? Why didn't they call her? How do you think her absence will affect the jury?

I made two new friends today. I had been wanting to talk to them for weeks now, and I finally got my chance.

The logistics proved difficult because, as you know, Judge Vincent Gaughan's eleven-page court decorum order prevents me the media from talking to anyone else from anywhere else within the confines of Courtroom 500.

But today, the chase paid off. I caught 18-year old Jerhonda Johnson and 23-year old Keyonia Jones before they caught their respective busses on California Ave.

Johnson and Jones have been at every court proceeding since day one of this trial. All day, each day, they sit in the back spectator rows and stare down the defendant in solidarity and in silence. They tell me he is innocent, and even if a jury proves otherwise- at least they have found each other. A friendship has blossomed from their fandom.

Johnson lives in Elgin and makes the 40-mile commute each day via Metra and the CTA. After the trip in, she waits in Douglas Park, where she knows she can catch a glimpse of Kelly as his tour bus parks. She will watch as he proceeds to hop in his black SUV for the seven block drive to the courthouse.

Johnson walks.

Jones joins her each day around nine. She doesn't know what she's going to do Monday though, when she is scheduled to start her fourth semester at Harold Washington College.

Jones travels north about 40 blocks from her parents' home. Though her trip is shorter, her devotion is just as strong. She leaves her two-year old son Robert (named after....yes, you guessed it) with her mother so she can be here. What does that mother think of all this?

"My mom thinks he's innocent," Jones laughed, assuring me this case would have never existed if it were not for Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards. She's the aunt of the alleged victim in the case as well as a professional singer, who was once on Kelly's record label.

Johnson agrees.

"I think she is behind the whole thing," she said- telling me Sparkle was the source of the now-infamous sex tape.

And what about that tape?

"I thought it was a bunch of B.S.," Johnson said before running for her bus.

"Are you headed to your parents' house?" I call after her.

"Yeah," she responds, explaining how she was neither enrolled in school nor seeking a job.

"I ain't got nothing else to do," she laughed. "Might as well spend my money on something."

During Wednesday's testimony, the court heard from Jason Wallace, an investigator of sorts for the defense team as well as attorney Sam Adam, Jr.'s half-brother.

Wallace took the stand as part of the defense's strategy to impeach Lisa Van Allen as a witness- remember, she was the one who testified to engaging in three three-way sexual encounters with both R. Kelly and the alleged victim.

Wallace told of his trip to Buckhead, Georgia with both Sam Adam, Jr. and Adam, Jr.'s fiancee- a trip he described as taken with the intent of interviewing Van Allen prior to her taking the stand.

But Wallace said Van Allen didn't utter a word in the lobby of the Ritz Carlton that Saturday. According to Wallace, her fiance Yul Brown handled all the talking for her.

Here's a list of some of the things Yul Brown said, according to Wallace. The first is in response to a damning Sun-Times headline.

-"Don't worry about that, it can be handled."

-"R. Kelly has had three opportunities to rectify this situation so Lisa would not have had to go to the authorities."

-"She is pregnant and we have to look out for our family."

-"Time is of the utmost importance because time is running out on this."

-"Lisa does not have to testify in court if things are made right."

-"I'm not going to put a price on this right now, but they know what is right."

-"Lisa has been offered a $350,000 book deal about herself and R. Kelly."

Keep in mind, Van Allen said on the stand that she had no recollection of any of the above comments. She said she has come forward because "it's the right thing to do."

What do you think of Van Allen? Is she a compelling witness or a cash-hungry wench?

Send your thoughts my way.

Jim DeRogatis has been ordered to testify as a "material witness to a crime," but Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn has argued in three hearings since this trial's inception that the music critic should instead be viewed as a reporter.

DeRogatis received the now-infamous sex tape from an anonymous source in 2002, and he was the one who handed it over to police. The prosecution has said that they would not have a case if it were not for that tape.

That's why Kelly's defense team is so desperate for him to testify. But should he be required to do so?

"If he were to testify as a reporter, it would be a serious violation of his statutory rights, of his constitutional rights," Dunn argued in Tuesday's hearing.

So, Gaughan said that will not be the hat DeRogatis will wear on the witness stand.

"You're protecting something no one is after," Gaughan told Dunn- assuring him yet again that his client will not have to answer any questions regarding his source, or whether or not he kept a copy of the tape. (If he did, he could be charged with possession of child pornography).

According to Gaughan, the "reporter's privilege" does not apply here.

Do you think DeRogatis should be forced to testify?

Here's something else to ponder......does this ruling make you even less comfortable talking to reporters?

As a criminal court judge, Vincent Gaughan may be sworn to a high level of judicial propriety, but as we saw Tuesday- he lags when it comes to achieving the most basic standard of political correctness.

During a hearing regarding the testimony of Sun-Times music critic Jim DeRogatis, attorneys huddled near his bench. When defense lawyer Sam Adam, Sr. saw that the proceedings were going to take awhile, he brought over a chair- presumably for colleague Eddie Genson, who suffers from a neuromuscular condition.

"Oh no, this ain't the A.D.A. here," Gaughan barked- stopping Adam, Sr. dead in his tracks.

Genson spent the remainder of the hearing seated at the defense table next to his client- a spot often out of earshot of the mumblings from the north side of Courtroom 500.

Apparently in Gaughan's court, the justice stops short of protecting those with disabilities.

She said she's had three three-ways with R. Kelly and the alleged victim in this case, two of which were captured on tape. He said her testimony is all about money and that she is an extortionist.

The she I'm referring to is Lisa Van Allen, the 27-year old single mom from Atlanta who dropped the most damning allegations in this trial thus far. The he is Sam Adam, Sr. He's one of Kelly's defense attorneys who attempted to paint the witness as a money-grubbing former hanger-on.

What will jurors think of these two portraits?
You tell me.

She said she had intercourse with R. Kelly within minutes of their first meeting at a 1997 video shoot when she was only 17. He said five years later, Van Allen left a Swissotel room she shared with the defendant in Georgia with his $20,000 diamond Rolex watch.

She said she had sex with both Kelly and the alleged victim in the "log cabin room" of his former North Side home, an encounter she claimed the R & B star directed, produced, and captured on tape. He said she kept that tape to haunt Kelly years later, with a phone call early last year.

She said she called Kelly in 2007 because she knew his trial date was approaching. He said she picked up the phone because she had a plan, and that plan resulted in a promise of $250,000.

She said when she handed over the tape in the Presidential Suite of downtown Chicago's Sheraton Hotel, she received $20,000 in cash.
He said she got a raw deal and now she's back to get her $230,000.

She said the defense team's investigators tried to scare her and fiance Yul Brown upon meeting this March. He said during that meeting, Brown brought up an alleged $300,000 book deal- and suggested the defense could do even better.

She said when she met with Sam Adam, Jr. in the the lobby of the Ritz Carlton in Atlanta three weeks ago, the meeting was about finding the truth. He said during that meeting, she solicited a bribe, and told them her testimony could be prevented.

She said it's about doing the right thing. He said it's about money. What do you say? Let me know what you think.

I've mentioned many of the inconveniences that come with covering this trial, and I now conclude that our limited access to the facilities may be the greatest of them all.

But I'm not the only one whose bladder is being burdened.

During one of Judge Vincent Gaughan's short recesses Monday, I jetted to the john. Joining me in line was none other than lead prosecutor Shauna Boliker.

She, the state's star, must share two stalls with us- the mass of media and R. Kelly's hoard of hangers-on! What injustice!

I immediately offered up my place in line, because I figured her business to be more urgent than my own.

"Oh thanks, I'll be quick though," Boliker blushed. "I just have to go throw up."

Just moments before, Judge Gaughan had ruled to allow Damon Pryor to take the stand for the defense. He's the same man Kelly's attorneys say can discredit Lisa Van Allen's damning allegations of three-way sex with both the defendant and the alleged victim in this case.

Couldn't flush away the opportunity to fill you in.

He thought he had a shot at the big time, but he blew it.

An attorney who claims to manage- I quote here- "a Carlos Santana band" thought some face time with R. Kelly could help him cash in. Instead, he had the assistance of two sheriff's deputies in being escorted out into the rain.

I'll take this from the top.

Mike Roman walked into Courtroom 500 this morning, looking for a gig. He approached me after learning I was with CLTV, and asked to appear on our fine station.

"I'm not allowed to talk to you," I replied, citing the court decorum order that keeps the press from speaking with anyone other than ourselves while proceedings are underway.

He didn't get it.

"But they're really good," he pressed.

"Carlos Santana you mean? Sir, you don't have to tell me that," I said, and then did my best to duck.

He knew his time was ticking fast, so like many approaching the end, he hurled a hail mary.

Mike Roman approached the defense table, and asked R. Kelly himself to give his 15-dollar C.D. a listen.

Kelly laughed and waved his hands as if to say no. As did I, Kelly told Roman he could not engage in conversation.

There was no time to talk.

Roman was immediately flanked by two sheriff's deputies who walked him down the stairs and out onto California Ave.

Having chased the dismissal, I was ready for Roman now- but he would have nothing of it.

"You would not talk to me earlier so why do you want to talk to me now," he barked, looking as if he were about to cry.

A little bird told this blogger that defense attorneys had previously requested him to get out, or "Go Step in the Name of Love!" they said- for us all.

When Judge Vincent Gaughan noted that the defense team was using their strikes on white males during jury selection, attorney Eddie Genson quipped, "I don't look at people like that, I see one color."

They say justice is blind, and today it seemed as if one witness for the prosecution- like Genson- is colorblind too.

When Pastor Jacques Conway took the stand this morning to testify about the year he coached the alleged victim on the Oak Park and River Forest sophomore basketball squad, he was asked to point out the defendant in the courtroom.

He gestured towards R. Kelly, who was flanked by attorneys Eddie Genson and Sam Adam, Jr.

"He's the African-American man, seated between the two white gentleman," Conway said.

Adam, Jr. chuckled.

Adam, Jr., the son of legendary defense lawyer Sam Adam, Sr., is of mixed race.

"I mean, he's seated next to one white gentleman," Conway quickly retorted.

When it came time for Adam, Jr.'s cross-examination, the attorney came across characteristically cordial.

"Good morning, Pastor," he said to Conway, a former Oak Park police officer.

"I'm sorry for the misidentification," Conway said sheepishly.

"Not at all, Sergeant," Adam, Jr. replied.

Is it a bob, or is it a mullet?

That seemed to be the question of the day, centering on the alleged victim's hairstyle sported in the now-infamous sex tape.

For the past week, witness after witness has testified they know the female by the distinctive "mullet" she wore during the summer before she entered high school.

It all started with Simha "Punky" Jamison, the alleged victim's best friend until the two were about 18-years old.

"I kind of know her like the back of my hand, but mainly because of the haircut she has," Jamison testified, going on to describe the so-called "mullet" as short on the top and long in the back.

Longtime basketball teammate Aubrey Hampton continued along that "strand," pointing to that distinctive 'do the alleged victim donned "around the age of 13 or 14."

Even her aunt, Stephanie "Sparkle" Edwards, cited the mullet in her blockbuster-worthy witnessing, testifying: "You know your blood. She's my niece. I know her face. I know her hairdo. There's no denying it."

So it was settled. A mullet it remained, until today.

That brings us to the testimony of Tjada Burnett, a longtime friend of the alleged victim's family. She described the female's style as being a "bob."

"Round you know, like a mushroom," she told defense attorney Sam Adam, Jr., who along with the rest of Courtroom 500, showed visible signs of confusion.

"So it is not, you say, a mullet?" Adam asked.

"I never said anything about a mullet. I said it was a bob," Burnett quipped.

So what is it?

I've long thought of a mullet, as have many of you, as a man's style- "business in the front, party in the back," I believe the saying goes. I've seen it sported by many a Tennessee trailer park resident, a number of players in the NHL, as well as by pinstripe-law firm Winston and Strawn's Tim Rooney- he helped defend Gov. George Ryan.

Merriam-Webster defines a mullet as "a hairstyle in which the hair is short on the sides and top and long at the back."

As for the bob, I think I've had a few. Perky, young, and preppy- I've thought of it as a woman-only coif, carried off by not only many a carpool-driving mom, but by Katie Holmes, Anne Hathaway, Madonna, and surely every 1920's flapper.

Merriam-Webster makes it clear, calling it "a short haircut on a woman or child."

So can a woman wear a mullet?

Let's "cut" to some debate. Let me know what you think.

She did it, and sure enough, it worked.

Tribune sketch artist Cheryl Cook sent an apology letter to Judge Vincent Gaughan to say she regrets depicting jurors in too much detail on the cover of last Wednesday's paper.

Now Cook is back where she belongs, on bench two in Courtroom 500.

Gaughan called her actions a violation of his eleven page court decorum order, as well as an unfair advantage over other sitting artists.

"I read your letter, and I was impressed by it," Gaughan told Cook, who was present for this morning's hearing. The judge had expressed concern over the fact that she didn't show for the last.

"The security, the safety, and the privacy of the jury are very paramount," Gaughan warned, reminding her that jury service is the only one to which American citizens can be drafted.

But after two weeks in the former Army lieutenant's courtroom, it feels like we've all been through Basic Training.

Randi Belisomo, CLTV reporter covering the R. Kelly trial

As Kelly's defense team continues its pursuit of Sun-Times music critic Jim DeRogatis as a key witness, they threw a real curveball this morning.

They called for DeRo to be charged with a felony.

"This is a man who decides to take a tape to police, keeps a copy, and then writes articles about it," said Marc Martin, who has so far been unsuccessful in placing him on the stand.

DeRogatis is responsible for breaking the story after receiving the now infamous sex tape from an anonymous source in 2002.

"What happened to that videotape in the time prior is critical to our defense," Martin argued, who will likely continue on that strain in hopes of causing jurors to wonder if DeRo could or would have altered it in any way.

"I don't know what they're arguing," said Sun-Times attorney Damon Dunn. "It seems like they're arguing whatever is convenient."

If DeRo should be charged with possession of kiddie porn, that makes the female on the tape a kid, right?

"It's an oxymoron," Dunn responded when asked about the defense team's strategy. "They would much rather try a reporter than their own defendant."

Dunn said he believes DeRo's actions should be privileged under the first amendment.

Judge Vincent Gaughan will rule on the motion for DeRo to testify on May 30th.

What do you think?

In Gaughan's court, it's apparent you have to grovel.

Yesterday, you read here that the judge permanently revoked Chicago Tribune sketch artist Cheryl Cook's media credentials after she depicted jurors in too much detail to fall within the boundaries of Gaughan's eleven-page court order.

Attorney Samuel Fifer appeared today in Courtroom 500 on Cook's behalf, arguing before the judge that her drawing was "an inadvertent slip." Fifer cited Cook's newness to the proceedings and asked Gaughan to give her a second chance.

"The privacy of the jury was compromised," Gaughan said, citing the first of many issues surrounding the situation that upset him.

Before the trial began, Gaughan held a series of meetings with members of the media in order to discuss his rules. He said that among those in attendance was Tribune associate subject editor Matt O'Connor- a "talented" one at that, Gaughan added, "who didn't get there by a favor."

Gaughan also cited young Tribune reporter Azam Ahmed, whose press credentials were stripped last week for 36 hours after he was spotted interviewing a member of the public in the courtroom. That's a goof-up, as far as Gaughan goes.

But, Ahmed got his credentials back, something it doesn't appear Cook will be able to do.

Why?

Ahmed said he was sorry.

"I haven't seen any personal responsibility taken in writing or anything by Ms. Cook," Gaughan told Fifer, who appeared sans client.

Gaughan commands contrition. Looks like Cook should paint herself sorry.

So who caught the cover of this morning's Chicago Tribune? If you did, you saw a courtroom sketch by artist Cheryl Cook, a drawing that apparently depicted jurors in too much detail for Judge Vincent Gaughan.

He permanently revoked Cook's press credentials before proceedings began this morning, citing the 11-page court decorum order. That's the one we the media signed off on, promising to abide by Gaughan's carefully-crafted, celebrity trial rules.

"No sketch artist shall capture the image of any juror summoned for jury duty or selected for jury duty," the order reads.

Did Cook go too far? Could you identify those on the cover of today's paper as friends, colleagues, or neighbors?

Let me know what you think.

Listen up all you R Kelly fans....and curious court-goers. It's about to get a lot easier to watch this celebrity trial unfold. Judge Vincent Gaughan asked the media personally if we could pass the following along to you.

Starting next week, all you have to do to enter the spectator lottery is show up at the Criminal Courthouse at 9 a.m. the day you wish to attend. Previous rules required you attend a lottery at 1 p.m. the day before.

Court starts every day at 11 a.m.....so you'll have two hours to anticipate the star of this show's arrival.

It's now been said in open court and it's mentioned 14 times in R Kelly's 14-count indictment.
I'm talking about the name of the girl allegedly involved in the now infamous sex tape- the name of the girl who says it's not her.

We in the media typically don't reveal the names of rape victims, or children involved in cases such as this, for that matter. But the girl who prosecutors say is on the tape has now grown into a young woman, 23 years of age. This young woman says she was never filmed with R Kelly, and it now appears she won't be testifying for either side in this trial.

My question to readers is: should we continue to protect her identity? The woman says she's not a victim, and she denies any involvement in the actions filmed on the 27-minute video.

Defense attorney Sam Adam, Jr. had this to say in court Tuesday regarding the female named in the indictment:

"{Name here} is as sweet, as nice, and as lovely a person as there is," Adam said, going on to describe the South Side resident as petite and often-smiling.

That's all those outside the courtroom know....do you think you should know more?

I sat through four days of juror questioning and will have witnessed opening statements in the trial first-hand. So, if there's anything you would like to know about the action inside the R and B superstar's court proceedings, feel free to fire away.

I'll be on hand to take your questions along with our own Sean Lewis Tuesday at 7:30 p.m.,
as I like to say, after all the shoutin's over.

Call in at (630) 575- TALK......we'll get to just as many as we can.

Remember, you can always email me at rbelisomo@tribune.com

We've spent the weekend waiting and now we're almost there. It will have been five days since Judge Vincent Gaughan has seated his jury, and prosecutor Shauna Boliker and defense attorney Eddie Genson are now set to square off.

Opening statments in this kiddie porn trial will begin at 11 a.m. Tuesday in Courtroom 500.

"That will be among the most important parts of this trial," said jury consultant Steven Merican. "It's when the jury will hear for the first time what the expected evidence will be, and they will hold the lawyers to their word on what the evidence is going to show."

That said, here are three things to expect from the two attorneys, well-seasoned in the art of persuasion.

1) Short and sweet
Though the average adult's attention span may stretch to 20 minutes max, mix in a straightbacked chair and a dark, gloomy courtroom and the mind is sure to wander.

"That's why you see a lot of lawyers going to shorter statements, trying to spice up what they show jurors with all types of demonstrative aids," Merican said.

Given the nature of this case, I don't know how demonstrative those aids need to be...but they certainly could attract our attention.

2) No overpromising
Jurors will hold attorneys to the case they lay out in openings, so if either side fails to meet expectations, that failure could equal disaster.

"If the lawyer says we expect the evidence will be A, B and C, and after three or four weeks of trial they don't come back with A, B and C, that's going to be a real negative when the jury goes back and deliberates," Merican said.

Defense attorney Joe Lopez, who represented mob hitman Frank Calabrese, Sr. in the "Family Secrets" trial, sets the bar even lower.

"I don't think Mr. Kelly's attorneys are going to promise the jury anything," he said.

3) Straight talk
Don't look for any lawyer-ese here, because you won't find it. As opening statements are often seen as a "roadmap" for the remainder of the trial, that roadmap must be relayed in the language of the jurors.

"It's the old Abe Lincoln saying," Merican said. "Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em, tell 'em, and then 'tell em what you told em."

(Kinda reminds me of TV reporter talk!)

Yesterday I showed you seven ways to shun jury duty.

Now I'd like to share a scenario in more detail- the story of one young man who didn't get selected for the trial.

The following has been edited in length and recounts the questioning and dismissal of one prospective juror who allegedly listed "pot smoking" as a hobby.

Yours truly and a colleague from Entertainment Weekly observered this exchange as designated "pool reporters," (Judge Vincent Gaughan allows only two in the jury room) and we then shared our notes with the rest of the waiting media.

The action begins as the young, white, scruffy male strolls into the questioning area. Hands in his jeans, sweatshirt drooping, he plops down into his seat.

Juror #75: "Hey."

Gaughan: "Hello number 75, we're going to call you by your number, we don't mean to be rude, it's to protect your anonymity."

#75: "k."

Gaughan: "We see here on question 110A, you wrote you have seen the sex tape involved in this case."

#75: "Yeah, I saw the video, or parts of it, on the internet."

Gaughan: "Well, what we need to know is if you can remain impartial on a case involving child pornography."

#75: "Yeah."

Gaughan: "Well, do you have any opinion on the innocence or guilt of Mr. Kelly?"

#75: "He's innocent."

Gaughan: "Now why do you say that?"

#75:"The female in the video is one year younger than I am, and at that age I was well aware of my sexuality."

Gaughan: "We don't need any details, sir, but you do understand that's not the issue here? If you're selected for this case, you're not allowed to absorb any media coverage of it. But here on your questionnaire, I see you have a problem with that."

#75: "Yeah, if I can remember to."

Gaughan: "So you're forgetful, are you?"

#75 "Yeah, like in school and stuff."

Gaughan: "Do you have any physical condition that may be to blame?"

#75: "Nah, just forgetful."

Gaughan: "Well do you have any reservations serving on this jury?"

#75: "I think the trial would be unfair no matter what happens, because of the media."

Gaughan chuckles and darts a look at CLTV reporter with eyebrows raised, then

Gaughan: "There's nothing I can do, believe me, to keep the media out. Nothing. I swear to god."

#75: "If it was a Joe Blow this would have a stronger chance not be a trial and not be reported."

Guaghan: "Well, I see that you're unemployed."

#75: "It would be difficult to get here, and I'd be running out of money."

Gaughan: "Do you have an automobile?"

#75: "No sir, so it takes me two to three hours to get here."

Gaughan: "I see you wrote 'I would have to walk many miles to a train station to get downtown, where I am unfamiliar.'"

#75: "If I got a ride everyday to the train, it would be easier."

Gaughan: "Um hum. I see here on your questionnaire that you have a problem with the race issue."

#75: "Yes. I've had a lot of mistrust with different races."

Gaughan: "Could you elaborate?"

#75: "Some of my friends are of a certain race and some are of another and the ones of another I just can't trust what they say."

Gaughan: "Not to create any malice, but what races are you talking about?"

#75: "Mexicans, Irish, Italians, blacks, and Hawaiians."

Gaughan: "Hawaiians?"

#75: "Yeah."

Prosecutor Shauna Boliker signals defense attorney Eddie Genson and shouts , "Eddie!"

"Oh, Oh," Genson replied. "I thought you liked him." (jokingly) The exchange prompts Gaughan that no progress was made in adding to the jury pool here, and dismisses the young man.

Gaughan: "Sir you're now excused, why don't you go sit in the jurors box for the time being and have yourself one of our snacks. Have a bottle of water, and since you're not working, take a couple bottles of water."

#75: "Thanks."

Closing arguments begin Tuesday. Stay tuned.

Until then, Randi Belisomo, CLTV reporter covering the R. Kelly trial

It's almost as certain as death and taxes.

It's jury duty, a civic duty they say, and tell the truth.......that duty has never ranked too high on your "to do" list.

So here are some sure fire ways to get off, taken from actual interviews with potential jurors this week behind the closed doors of Judge Vincent Gaughan's rear chambers.

Read them once, read them twice, whatever you do- commit them to memory. They're direct routes to dismissal.

1) You know too much
Familiarity with the subject matter is deadly to both defense and prosecution teams alike. This young lady could choose the express delivery option back to her position at the post office: "I know R Kelly is the Pied Piper," she responded when asked what she knows about the R & B singer's music. Just for emphasis, the expert knew to add: "He and Jay-Z don't get along."
Looks like attorneys will be getting along without her.

2) You know too little
This man never had a chance, but added levity at the end of another long day. "R Kelly might have led the Taliban to attacking the U.S. on 9/11 but you can't prove it," he offered near the top of his questioning.
He's outta here.

3) You're a know it all
In a fit of honesty, one tough guy blurted, "better lawyers will go where the money is, the others go to the state." Ace prosecutor Shauna Bolliker blushed, apparently prompting Slick to add, "no offense to you guys."
Not real smooth, but he's sailing home.

4) You don't know what you know
Sometimes your confusion can make others uncomfortable. When asked his opinion on child porn, one member of the jury pool pondered, "sometimes the age difference, it gets kind of muddy when it comes to what's right or what's wrong........like when they're in love."
He now has plenty of time to think that one through.

5) You don't know when to shut up
One woman in her late 60's regarding her opinion on pornography: "I know men like it. I know when I got married my husband (now 76) liked it."
Ahem, next.

6) You know an attorney
One woman wrote the following on her questionnaire: "I believe Mr. Kelly is guilty of the charges due to what I have read in the paper, and the fact that he was indicted by a grand jury further validates my belief."
Who came up with that????

7) You know God
Claim you're a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's an automatic out, as the religion prevents members from passing judgement.

More to come after today's proceedings. Who knows what can happen.

Randi Belisomo, CLTV reporter at the R, Kelly trial

Though Judge Vincent Gaughan's eleven-page decorum order details dozens of don'ts for we the mischievous media, I can't find anything in there about donuts. But that didn"t stop one sheriff's deputy from threatening WJMK's Brendan Greeley with the revocation of his court credentials, after what was intended as only a "kind gesture" by the young reporter early this morning.

Here's how it all went down.

This sad saga started yesterday when one deputy was kind enough to alert Greeley of R Kelly's imminent arrival. Greeley, who works for the Steve Dahl show, told his boss how nice everyone here at "two six" was treating the press.

Dahl suggested that, as a thank you, he should bring Dunkin' Donuts to the deputies today.

"So we sent over a cute intern," Greeley recounted, "with about two dozen....glazed, chocolate, powdered, and peanut."

Sounds like a nice mix, right?

Not so fast.

When Greeley offered them to those working outside of this jailhouse of a courtroom, only one employee took him up on the breakfast treat.

Another responded with this: "You're distracting the officers. This is your warning. Next time you'll get your credentials taken away."

Word in the courthouse corridors is that someone in the higher-ups (Sheriff Tom Dart perhaps?) heard the banter during the morning drive over the airwaves, and wanted to squash the possibility of any stunts.

Looks like there could be a "hole" in the reasoning.

Randi Belisomo, CLTV reporter at the R. Kelly Trial

No one believed it would be easy, but the logistics of covering this trial are sending some reporters over the edge.

"It's simply maddening," said ABC 7's Sarah Schulte of Judge Vincent Gaughan's eleven page court order, one we the media signed off on - promising to behave. He's long known this trial could spiral into a media circus, and he's determined to control the chaos.

What does that mean for me? Lots.

Let's start from the beginning.

Walking into the courtroom after two rounds of security checks, I carry only four pens and two pads of paper. Where you ask, is the TV reporter's requisite kit of blackberry, brush, lipstick and liner? Packed by the pound in my oversized purse, stuffed as discreetly as possible under the passenger seat of my car.

Nothing- not even a jacket is allowed into the iceberg that is Courtroom 500, a manifestation of Cook County's storied waste in its overpowering use of air conditioning on a morning where temperatures hovered in the 40s.

"Sit up straight! No leaning!" admonishes a sheriff's deputy to a colleague slouched in our church-like bench. I've been more comfortable in a pew while attending High Mass in Vatican City. At least at St. Peter's, you're allowed a trip to the restroom. No such luxury here, where those visits are confined to our lunchbreak, 20 minutes in all.

That leaves little time to sprint to my sport utility vehicle, in which I rise to Olympic status with my speed in scarfing down a turkey sandwich.

Back to court, back to the rules

Randi Belisomo, CLTV reporter at the R. Kelly trial