and Defendant caused the pretrial procedures to become unduly suggestive, because Nelson had known Defendant for approximately twenty years. Defendant suggests this somehow attracted undue attention to his photograph. -Although the- police may not employ impermissibly suggestive means to highlight the' suspect’s photograph during the course of a photographic lineup, the law does not require the police to dilute or obfuscate the photograph of the suspect. State v. Floyd, 347 S.W.3d 115, 125 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (“Since only identical twins can be identical in a lineup and as long as no one individual clearly stands out in the lineup, the law does not require exact conformity to ensure untainted identification procedure.”) (internal citations omitted); see, e.g., Hunter, 43 S.W.3d at 341 (<HOLDING>); State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89, 93-94
holding that a photo array in which all of the men in the array were of similar age there was no striking difference in the amount of head hair each had and the skin color of the members of the array was not strikingly different was not impermissibly suggestive holding in a very similar underagesex case that a school photo of the victim taken three months after the alleged crime plainly was relevant to the defendants mistakenage defense and did not prejudice the defendant because he was free to challenge the weight of the photo evidence by arguing that it did not show the victim as she had appeared on the night in question holding that the admission of a photograph of a homicide victim for the purpose of identification was within the discretion of the district court and determining that a family photo excluded by the court as prejudicial that was inadvertently seen by two jurors was harmless error holding that the admission of a family photo was harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence in support of the conviction holding that the photo lineup was not unduly suggestive where the defendants photo was the only one that included his name