The R Kelly trial moved onto forensics yesterday, and it was all about a mole.
You may remember that at the start of the trial the defence presented the court with a photo of R Kelly's back, and pointed out a small mole on it. That mole, they said, could not be seen on the man in the sex tape at the heart of this trial, proving it wasn't the R&B star in it. But the mole came back to haunt Kelly's legal team yesterday when the prosecution presented a forensics expert who has been looking at the sex video in particular detail, and who claims the mole can, in fact, be seen. Showing the jury a photo of Kelly's back taken after his original arrest in 2002, and then frames from the video, Grant Fredericks said: "There is a mark on the man's back in the exact same position". Kelly's lawyers, cross-examining the expert, suggested the spot on the tape wasn't in the same place as the mole on their client's back, and also that the mark could be down to a technical imperfection on the tape. But the defence team were reportedly looking quite stressed about the testimony, which can probably be seen as a result for the prosecution.
Earlier the prosecution had brought forward another expert to discuss the video in technical terms. George Skaluba was wheeled in to deal with claims by the defence that the video may have been set up or tampered with in a bid to frame Kelly – by employing a look-alike or doing clever technical tricks. But Skaluba said that there was no sign of any clever editing or technical effects being employed in the tape, which was "real people in a real environment". He added that using computer-generated images to make this tape would have been "very, very time consuming and very hard to do". Although ruling out technical wizardry, the expert admitted he couldn't comment on whether or not a look-alike had been used.
Kelly is accused of recording himself engaging in sex acts with a minor, and faces fifteen years in jail if found guilty. He pleads innocence, claiming that the man in the sex tape at the heart of the case is not him, and disputing the alleged identity of the girl also. His lawyers said yesterday that they needed more time to question a new witness who came forward on Wednesday. That witness is believed to be related to have information about one of the prosecution's most controversial witnesses – a woman who claims to have had a threesome with Kelly and the alleged victim, while the victim was underage. It had been thought that witness would take to the stand yesterday, but her testimony has presumably been delayed while the new witness is questioned.