Court abruptly let out this afternoon. There’s a new defense witness who needs to be interviewed. According to one source, this witness will impeach the testimony of a woman who was supposed to testify today that she had a three-way sexual encounter with Kelly and the alleged victim. ** I kind of found an answer to question that has been bugging me. The alleged victim gave grand jury testimony in 2002, saying she is not the person on the sex tape. In opening statements, the prosecutor said the alleged victim will not be testifying in the trial; she did NOT respond to a subpoena.* Since when can a person not respond to a subpoena? The Cook County State’s Attorney’s office would not comment. Gag order. This morning I talked to David Yellen, law school dean at Loyola University. He said people cannot ignore subpoenas, but prosecutors do choose sometimes not to prosecute. Yellen says perhaps they have not gone after this young woman because it might not look good to prosecute someone the state considers the victim of a serious crime. Yellen says it’s not often the prosecution and defense want the same witness, which could be the case in the Kelly trial. If the alleged victim says it’s not her on the tape, the defense has a solid case. But during cross examination, the prosecution could bring out other facts.