• Latino man in his late 30s
• Black woman in her 60s
• White woman in her late 30s to early 40s
• White woman in her late 30s
• White man in his 40s
• Asian woman in her 30s
• White woman in her 60s
• White woman in her late 40s early 50s

David Mueller was the first witness. But let's back up a bit.

Former DJ Mueller is suing Taylor Swift, her mother (who is her manager) and her music director for lost income and interference with his job contract due to being fired from his radio show job at a country music station in Denver, after Swift accused him of grabbing her bare behind under her skirt during a pre-concert photo-op at a fan meet and greet right before her Pepsi Center concert on June 2, 2013. Taylor Swift has counter-sued for assault and battery, is asking for $1 (In her original filing, she said she would donate any proceeds to women's causes.) The case is being tried in federal court in Denver before Judge William Martinez, who ordered that both parties be present throughout the trial. No cameras or mobile devices are allowed in the courtroom, but there's an overflow courtroom where tweeting apparently is allowed.

The court is posting several significant orders in the case here.

During opening arguments today, her lawyer, Douglas Baldridge, told the jury Mueller had grabbed Taylor Swift's rear end asked what possible motive she would have to make up the story. He said she is taking a stand for all women. (Please -- leave us out of it. This is about nothing but Taylor Swift being sued and denying the allegations. I wish he'd keep the "all women" stuff out of this.)

Mueller's lawyer, McFarland told the jury:

"Let's be clear about something from the onset — inappropriate touching is offensive, it's wrong and should never be tolerated...Let's also be clear that falsely accusing someone of inappropriate touching is equally offensive, it's wrong and should not be tolerated"

First let's deal with the photo: I think the TMZ photo above is ambiguous because of the placement of the TMZ watermark right at the hip. I found this TMZ video with a screenshot of the photo that makes it a little clearer. TMZ didn't change the photo, it just cropped the upper half and moved its watermark ever so slightly, and to my eye, this version shows a slight bulge in Taylor Swift's dress right at the hip in front of Mueller's hand. As if something pushed the dress up slightly.

When I expand it to 200%, here's what I get:

The dress or skirt seems to have sloppy tailoring at the hip and that's not the image I have of Taylor Swift. I went to her instagram page where there are hundreds of photos of her from 2012 to 2107. I can report her clothes are impeccably tailored. Every pair of tiny shorts, every skin tight dress, every top -- there are no gaps, no bulges and with her never-ending legs, she cuts a perfectly sleek figure. From a fashion standpoint, she (or more likely her stylist) strikes me as a complete perfectionist. The hip bulge in the photo seems obvious to me, and I doubt her handlers would have let her go to the meet and greet without smoothing it out or telling her to change her dress. (I doubt they only brought one, she changed outfits 15 times on stage.)

Added: I just watched another TMZ video with the photo and it had no watermark. I blew it up a little and added two arrows -- not only is there the bulge, but you can see a sliver of his arm. His sleeves are rolled to a bit above his watch this shows his arm right below the cuff -- so his hand had to be much lower. Was it at the hemline?

So does this mean she got intentionally groped by Mueller? Not necessarily -- he could have brushed against her dress it bunched up a little.

Besides interpreting the photo, what's left for the jury to decide? Credibility. This is a He said-she said.

Taylor's version at her deposition (which both sides have marked as exhibits) (available on PACER):

BY MR_ MCFARLAND (Mueller's lawyer):
Q. Okay. And your contention is that during the
second meet-and-greet, Mr. Mueller took his hand
underneath your skirt and grabbed your butt?
MR. BALDRIDGE (Swift's lawyer): Objection. Form.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. MCFARLAND:
Q_ Did he ever grab your butt outside of your clothing?
A. No. It was underneath my clothing.
Q. Did he ever touch your butt outside of your clothing?
A_ It was all underneath my clothing.
Q. Do you contend that Mr. Mueller
inappropriately touched you in any other form or fashion?
MR. BALDRIDGE: Objection. Form.
THE WITNESS: He put his hand under my
dress and grabbed my bare ass.
THE WITNESS: As soon as he grabbed my
ass, I became shocked and withdrawn and was barely able to say "Thanks for coming," which is what I say to everybody. I was barely able to get the words out, and it was like somebody switched the lights off in my personality. So it was pretty quick that he was gone after that.

Later on, she is asked again:

Q_ Do you recall meeting Mr_ Mueller2 A. Yes.
Q. Tell me -- te11 me about that.
MR. BALDRIDGE: Objection. Form_
THE WITNESS: Mr. Mueller and his friend,
girlfriend -- he and a woman walked in. I said, "Hi, thank you for coming to my show," introduced myself. He was very adamant in letting me know
that he was with KYGO and that he was with radio. And I said, "Well, thank you so much for coming. Thanks for everything. Would you guys like to get a photo?" And so then we get in a photo formation with me in the middle, and that's when right as the moment came for us to pose for the photo, he took his hand and put it up my dress and grabbed onto my ass cheek, and no matter how much I scooted over it was still there. It was not an accident, it was completely intentional, and I have never been so sure of anything in my life.

Later, they drop all pretense of politeness when referring to her booty.

(McFarland): Q. You have seen the picture, right? A. Yes.
Q. Is it your position that Mr. Mueller has his
hand underneath your skirt and on your a*s in that picture?
MR_ BALDRIDGE: Objection. Form.
THE WITNESS. In that photo he is in
progress of lifting my skirt in order to grab my a*s underneath it.

On the photo's vagueness:

BY MR. MCFARLAND: Q. He's not physically touching you in the
photograph?
MR. BALDRIDGE: Objection. Form.
THE WITNESS. It's impossible for me to look at a photo and know that, but I was there, so I happened to have felt it as well.
Q. But at the time that picture was taken, his
hand was not on your a*s?
THE WITNESS: Like I said, when you look at a photo, it's impossible to know if that was the
moment before the moment of him grabbing it or the
moment when he was latched on and wouldn't let go even though I was squirming and obviously
lurching to the side towards his female companion because I was shocked and scared and stunned.
It's impossible to know if that was in the moment before or as he's grabbed on,
but I was there, so I felt it, so I didn`t just see it in a photo
afterward. I was also there - I experienced it. It
happened to me, so I'm positive that it did happen.

Mueller's lawyer makes her go through the whole thing one more time:

Q. When you looked at that photograph, you can't tell whether Mr. Mueller's hand was on your a*s at the exact moment that photograph was taken?
MR. BALDRIDGE: Objection. Asked and
answered. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: Do I go through this again?
MR. BALDRIDGE: Yeah, we're going to do
it one more time, I guess.
THE WITNESS: In looking at a photo, it's
impossible for me to definitively answer whether the moment captured on the photo is the moment directly before he grabbed my a*s, right when he grabbed onto my a*s cheek, or the moment when I was obviously squirming to the side because I was uncomfortable because a strange man's hand just lifted up my skirt and was either nearing my a*ss cheek, freshly grabbed onto or refusing to let go. But I was there, I felt it, I know it happened.

(Her lawyer thinks almost every question is asked in improper form. Lawyers always pepper depositions with objections like that and then the client is instructed to answer anyway. It seems like a pointless exercise. But in criminal law, we don't do many depositions, so maybe I'm missing something. It sure is annoying though when you are reading the transcript.)

Mueller's version is different. But his version has problems -- many problems. It's changed over time. First he denied touching her. Then he said if it happened, it had to be accidental. Then he said he didn't touch her bottom ever, and that in jostling to get into pose for the photo, their hands touched. Then he said she must be confusing him with his supervisor, who admitted to him that very night he had grabbed her bottom. (He's since modified that and today in his testimony backed off it.) Today he testified he only touched her rib.

Taylor Swift pooh-poohed all his versions and has been consistent in her version, which she reported to her mother in her dressing room as soon as the meet and greet was over. As to the hand-jostling theory:

Q. [McFarland] Do you remember, oh, kind of, you know, jostling with Mr_ Mueller's -- your hand and Mr. Mueller's hand kind of jostling as you kind of got into the photograph position? MR. BALDRIDGE: Objection_ Form.
THE WITNESS. That's not what happened at
a11.
Q. Your hands never touched – as you were getting into position for the photograph?
MR. BALDRIDGE: Same_
THE WITNESS. His hand grabbed my a*s, not my hand.

On whether she could have confused Mueller with his then supervisor, Eddie Haskell. (Eddie Haskell, as in Leave it To Beaver? Yes.) Only that's not his real name. Haskell's real name is Hershel Coomer. The pleadings refer to him as Hersel Coomer, PKA Eddie Haskell. I guess PKA (Publicly Known As) is a modern, less criminal-sounding version of an alias, which is AKA (Also Known As). It reminds me of the line in Glenn Frey's Smuggler's Blues: "Every name's an alias in case somebody squeals." That's not quite how a law-abiding music executive wants to be referred to, and some clever lawyer came up with PKA to use instead (probably before this lawsuit, but I don't follow enough celebrity lawsuits to know.)

Another problem with Mueller's "Eddie Haskell probably did it" theory, besides being late to the party. According to Taylor Swift, she knows Eddie Haskell quite well, having done business with him and met him numerous times over many years. And she's quite sure it wasn't Haskell who put his hand on her a*s.

There's also this problem with the Eddie Haskell theory. In a bit of "creative" testimony at his deposition, Mueller recounted Haskell's purported admission to him out of context. Mueller said Haskell told him that very night he had likely grabbed Taylor Swift's butt when he saw her that evening, that he was pretty sure she was wearing bicycle shorts under her skirt. According to Haskell's deposition, here's what the conversation really was:

Q So did you describe hugging Ms. Swift to Mr. Mueller? A I probably told him that she came up and said hi
and that we hugged.
Q Did you tell him that your hands were near her
rear?
A No.
Q Did you tell him that your hands touched her
rear?
A No.
Q Anything else that you can remember about that
communication?
A No. The only -- as we talked about it, I do recall we talked about the stage and that there was an area on the stage where Taylor would stand, the lights would go out, she would drop under the stage, do a complete wardrobe change and pop back up before the audience even stopped applauding. And I found it odd that she would be changing clothes in front of all of the stage hands and made the comment that she's got to be wearing bike shorts or something under her dresses, because she's changing right
there in public

That's quite a difference from Mueller's version which only included Haskell implied he grabbed her bottom and then said he thought she wore bicycle shorts underneath.

One last thing on the photo: Taylor Swift is reportedly (according to Haskell) 5'11 inches tall. How tall is Mueller? Can one of their lawyers ask both to stand up next to each other in front of the jury and have them turn around so the jury can see how long his arm is and how far down it would fall behind Taylor? If she's really taller than him, the hem of her skirt might have been just above where his hand falls naturally, making it easy to slip it up under her skirt. If she wasn't wearing underwear, and it sounds like she wasn't (although curiously, no one seems to have asked her that) it seems like it would be an easy maneuver to slide his hand up her skirt without lifting it and be right on her "cheek" as she puts it.

Mueller has other things working against him. His biggest problem may be that after lawfully but secretly recording a two hour long conversation with his two bosses the day after the concert, which he downloaded onto his cell phone and which was later transferred to up to four other devices (an external hard drive, two laptops, and an iPad or two) he now maintains that his phone and all four other devices had an accident, stopped working or were thrown away, leaving him without a copy. Before these devices met their maker or the trash bin, he had edited the call himself, sending parts to his lawyer. One device had coffee spilled on it, one had water spilled on it, one dropped to the floor and smashed into pieces, one was thrown away (his cell phone) and one, his external hard drive, stopped working for unknown reasons, was replaced and he doesn't know what happened to the first one. As a sanction for not preserving the recorded call, the Judge has ruled he can be questioned about not saving the evidence. Will a jury really believe him that not one, but four devices, experienced fatal problems? I'm skeptical.

Both sides have experts, whose testimony the Court has restricted, buy not excluded. Mueller's expert will testify about financial matters (trying to convince a jury that Team Swift is responsible for his incurring financial losses due to being fired as a result of the incident) and Team Swift is calling a professor in gender studies at C.U. Boulder to testify about sexual harassment victims and why they don't report it right away. I don't find the professor's opinion helpful. It seems like she's reducing Swift to a stereotype to make her seem like the "average" victim. In my view, stereotyping victims is as offensive as stereotyping alleged perpetrators of sex crimes. Everyone is different, has their own life experiences, their own triggers and their own emotional reactions. Juries don't need these experts. They have the ability to determine credibility based on the evidence and they can use their common sense.

If you are thinking of attending the trial, know that if you get into the courtroom, you can't leave until the Court takes a recess, which is usually close to two hours. (Shades of "You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.") But there's also an overflow courtroom where you can watch on a monitor, which is a more relaxed atmosphere and sometimes your view is better. Courtrooms aren't built like movie theaters with sloped seats. They are flat, which means if you're stuck behind someone who is tall or has big hair or a big head, you won't see much since the witness stand is at the same level. In the overflow rooms I've been in, the TV's are mounted higher, so you can see from everywhere.

For legal analysis of the lawsuit, here's an 11 minute video interview with veteran Denver criminal defense attorney Scott Robinson, who has been providing excellent legal analysis for KUSA, the local NBC affiliate, for more than a decade. I really couldn't improve on it, so I'll just send you all there.