R Kelly trial hears 'birthmark' evidence

By Iain Mackenzie
Newsbeat US reporter

The singer's hits include She's Got That Vibe and I Believe I Can Fly

A birthmark on R Kelly's back could be the key to proving whether or not he had sex with an underage girl.

Prosecution lawyers allege a video of a man having sex with a girl, who was as young as 13 when it was filmed, is R Kelly.

His defence lawyers claim he's not the man in the video.

They point to the fact that R Kelly has a mole on his back while the person seen on screen, they say, does not.

The claim was made as a court in Chicago began hearing evidence about the origins of the tape which first appeared in 2002 when it was handed anonymously to a local newspaper.

Jurors were shown the 27-minute film, which depicts graphic sex scenes.

Missing mole

Prosecutor Shauna Boliker described it as "vile and disgusting".

R Kelly's defence lawyer Sam Adam Jr asked the jury to look out for the missing mole.

The strategy is reminiscent of the famous defence in the OJ Simpson trial in 1995 where lawyer Jonnie Cochran stated: "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit".

He was referring to a leather glove said to have been worn by the killer.

In R Kelly's case, the suggestion seemed to be - somewhat less poetically - if the mole isn't there, you must acquit.

The defence also attacked the quality of the video tape, describing it as a "copy of a copy of a copy" and that it was impossible to identify the individuals shown in it.

The hearing's first day also saw the introduction of several photographs, showing scars and moles on the star's body.

Photo evidence

The prosecution also chose to focus on photographic evidence. In their case, images taken of R Kelly's Chicago home by police investigators.

According to one witness, child protection investigator Dan Everett, the images appeared to show the "same area as in the video".

The scene was set for a trial which will centre around images, both still and video.

The list of upcoming witnesses includes friends and family of the young girl said to appear in the film.

Crucially the teenager herself, now in her twenties, will not appear for the prosecution.