One interesting perspective I’ve heard about the R. Kelly trial is that Kelly, unusual for a rich defendant, doesn’t have a top flight legal defense team and may go to jail because of it. It always pays to bet on the rich guy getting off, of course. But from the vantage point of following the daily coverage of the trial in three or four places, the defense has not come off well.

It started with a ringing declaration in the opening statement that Kelly has a distinctive mole on his back—and that the man in the video in question didn’t. Except … when a video expert played the tape slowly for the jury, it sure looked like the guy in the video did.

The defense rested today, on its third day. Wrote the Chicago Tribune:

It was not the defense courthouse observers expected in the high-profile proceeding. There were no surprise witnesses, no gotcha moments, no explanation of how the raunchy video came into existence. During opening statements and the prosecution’s case, the defense offered many theories that it didn’t follow up.

Instead, Kelly’s attorneys seemed content to tether the singer’s fate to their intense cross-examinations of state witnesses, a now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t mole and the alleged victim’s absence. It may not be the stuff of courtroom movie scenes, but effective, real-life defenses rarely are.

The “victim’s absence” referred to in that second paragraph is another confusing thing. The girl police say is on the tape has denied it is she. But the Chicago Sun-Times reported something today that either I hadn’t noticed before or hadn’t been reported before:

Jurors know the alleged victim refused to be a prosecution witness. They’ve also learned she told a grand jury it’s not her on the notorious sex tape at the center of the case.

In other words, if the story is correct, rather than leaving the girl on a tape a mystery, jurors know she denies she’s on the tape—but the prosecution hasn’t been allowed to offer reasons why. That may or may not affect the case. Jurors are allowed to use common sense, and there are many obvious reasons the girl, now a woman, wouldn’t testify or even deny her involvement.

Something the papers haven’t really examined is how that will leverage against the specific charges in this case, which involves child pornography, not child sex per se. Assuming that the jury isn’t swayed by the defense’s fumbling attempts to prove it’s not Kelly, the only question is whether the jury thinks the girl in the tape is under-age or not.

After the prosecution wrangled nearly a dozen witnesses who placed the girl on the tape, the defense brought in three family members who said they didn’t recognize her. The prosecution countered with what news reports said was a pretty effective ploy—finding a photo of the girl that bore an eerie resemblance to a pose she was allegedly in on the sex tape. The prosecution made each defense witness identify the girl in one but claim it was not she in the other.

The Sun-Times also noted, however, that the defense can do anything—even put the girl on the stand at the last minute—until it rests its case. The prosecution has a day or two to bring back a couple of witnesses; the papers say closing arguments may come Thursday. Details on that are here.

———–

The Daily Swarm is also following the R. Kelly case closely.

———–

Slate’s two weeks’ worth of coverage is here.

———–

Earlier in Hitsville:

Everything you need to know about the R. Kelly case

R. Kelly Sexfacts™ IV: The Quantum of Solace! The complete prosecution case!

The Godfather Who Shagged Me: The complete R. Kelly SexFacts™, Parts I, II & III—Every barfy thing you ever wanted to know about the origins of the R. Kelly case

Targeting Jim DeRogatis—literally

More on L’affaire DeRogatis

The DeRogatis ruling

Bad craziness at the R. Kelly trial?

At the R. Kelly trial, they do things they don’t do on Broadway!

Ever hear the one about the guy convicted of murdering his parents who asked for mercy because he was a orphan?

The NYT and R. Kelly: Curiouser and curiouser

The NYT finally notices R. Kelly isn’t a nice guy

R. Kelly and the NYT: The Freaky Defense

Tribune, Sun-Times protest closed hearings in R. Kelly case

Secret hearings in the R. Kelly case

R. Kelly’s Publicist: He slept with my daughter!