R. Kelly: Mole or No Mole?

|

r-kelly-mole-on-head.jpg

(The VH1 Blog knows very little about the law. So we’ve solicited Ross Lampe and Mark Muro, founders 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 for updates.)

Yesterday, R. Kelly’s attorney Sam Adam Jr. suggested that the sex tape is fake by asking a key witness for the prosecution (Simha Jamison) whether she’d seen the Wayans Brothers‘ movie Little Man. “They took the head of Marlon Wayans and put it on a midget, and it looked real,” said Adam. “Didn’t it?”

Well, human bodies can also be manipulated. Has the prosecutor considered the possibility that R. Kelly’s current mole is a cosmetic surgery prop? (Note the photoshoped mole on R. Kelly’s forehead above.) If I were the prosecutor, I would want to examine the mole immediately. If the Michael Jackson prosecution team was allowed to examine his penis for evidence of distinctive marks after being accused by a boy of sexual impropriety, then surely a back exam to determine the legitimacy of a mole is fair game. With tax-payer money no object, the prosecution may want to consider hiring a top notch cosmetic surgery expert to examine the mole. Such an examination is risky, though. If the mole is found to be legit, then the prosecution’s case could be doomed (insert your own catchy rhyme here).

The prosecution should at least hire a team of investigators to scour archive photos and video of Mr. Kelly, sans shirt, to look for the present blemish. If anyone has a photo showing R. Kelly’s bare back, with or without moles, taken prior to 1998 (the earliest the tape is believed to have been made), e-mail it here. Court is not in session today. The score remains +1 for the defense and +2 for the prosecution. — Ross Lampe, Attorney.

related stories
you might like
Powered By Zergnet