(The VH1 Blog knows very little about the law. So we’ve solicited Mark Muro, a founder of the California law firm Muro & Lampe, Inc. to keep a running tab on which side has the advantage in the R. Kelly child pornography trial. Check back daily for updates.)
Though hardly as intriguing as the heavily anticipated “threesome” testimony, the prosecution made headway towards undermining the mole defense with video forensics expert Grant Fredericks. Fredericks showed the jury several frozen frames where a dark spot was visible on the man’s back — in the same location as R. Kelly’s mole. Defense attorneys sparred with Fredericks over whether the mole was in fact in the same spot. We’re betting the jurors can figure that one out for themselves.
In even drier, yet effective, testimony, FBI forensic expert George Skaluba explained to jurors that the sex tape was not computer generated or altered, but instead depicted “real people in a real environment.” I anticipate that the defense will have its own forensic experts. But it’s possible that R. Kelly’s mole could turn out to be cancerous to his case.
Prosecution gets another point. Overall score: Defense: 0; Prosecution: +4.