The defense rested its case abruptly Monday. That means R Kelly's defense ends with the testimony of a video consultant- testimony the state will work to discredit during its rebuttal.

We've heard from relatives who said the girl on the tape was not the alleged victim. We've also heard from those who said she is. We've even heard from a woman who claims she had three-ways with the alleged victim and R. Kelly....but we never heard from the alleged victim herself.

Reasonable doubt?

Jury consultant Bill Healy of Decisionquest thinks so.

"You do not have a victim who is available and present identifying the actual defendant in a case, so it cannot be underestimated," Healy said.

If this now 23-year old woman says the girl on the tape is not her.... why didn't she take the stand? It would seem that such testimony would be the most powerful the defense could present.

If she is indeed telling the truth, she'd have nothing to lose.

If she's not, she could crack under cross-examination- perhaps opening herself up to perjury charges.

Jury consultant Healy breaks it down.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high hurdle, and it is even higher when you do not have a victim present," Healy said. "But obviously in cases like a murder case where the victim is not present to testify, jurors are willing to make that leap. They're willing to say the prosecution had enough evidence but they will only do that if they take the bricks and create a whole wall that says, 'yes, this is him.'"

I would like to know your thoughts. Should she have been called? Why didn't they call her? How do you think her absence will affect the jury?