Back To The Mole: R Kelly Trial

R Kelly

So, there were some behind the scenes matters to deal with at the R Kelly child porn trial in Chicago yesterday, the defence having closed their case after just two days on Monday.

First, Kelly confirmed to the judge that he was exercising his right to not testify during the trial - something we presumably already knew, given that the defence chose not to call him to the witness stand, but a stand out moment in that it was the first time during the trial the R&B star had spoken in the court room.

Second, Judge Vincent Gaughan ruled the jury could review the sex tape at the heart of the trial while deliberating. The defence didn't want the jury to have access to the tape in the jury room, fearing that their deliberations will consist mainly of staring at the tape intently trying to figure out if it is Kelly and the alleged victim we see having sex on the tape, rather than considering rationally the evidence presented during the case. But Gaughan agreed with the prosecution that the tape was so crucial to the case the jury should be able to review it, though he said he'd stress that jurors should not put too much emphasis on the tape alone when considering the case.

Back to the trial proper, and a prosecution witness took to the stand for the second time to rebut claims made during the defence's presentation to court. The issue once again was that mole that can be found on R Kelly's back and which does or does not appear on the man in the sex tape, depending on who you believe. Both the prosecution and defence presented witnesses to discuss the quality of the tape itself, with the defence's expert saying that a mark that can be seen on the back of the sex tape man was a smudge on the tape, which was of such bad quality it was hard to see anything. But the prosecution claim that the defence presented a different version of the tape which is much poorer quality than their copy, and that on their copy it is quite clear the "smudge" is a mole. To that end they wheeled back in their video expert, Grant Fredericks, to say so. This led to an argument between defence and prosecution about who had made what copies of the tape, the implication of which, I think, is that the prosecution had prevented the defence from seeing the higher quality copy so to undermine their case, though I might have that wrong.

Anyway, the case continues. Closing arguments are expected to be delivered tomorrow.