Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Man, that really pisses me off.
Look at the ass clown giving the award. I cannot wait to get rid of that son of a bitch.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Rittenhouse prosecution may be in DEEP SHIT
- Thread starter Remodeling Maidiac
- Start date
Look at the ass clown giving the award. I cannot wait to get rid of that son of a bitch.
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,050
- 3,901
- 315
The prosecution didn't give them the video until after the jury was deliberating.
It's a legal requirement that the defense receive all evidence long before the trial begins.
If what you said is true (which it definitely is not), then the quality of the video would not matter - it wouldn't influence the jury at all.
The defense's entire argument is that if they had received a high quality copy, they would have changed their strategy.
But keep on making idiotic assertions - I find them humorous.
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
A few of the people he falsely convicted actually forgave him rather than wish for his death......guess they took being a Christian more serious than others.....Man, that really pisses me off.
Look at the ass clown giving the award. I cannot wait to get rid of that son of a bitch.
I only brought the case up because I knew someone would say some goofy shit about "Democrats blah blah"
Most of us who know the history of the courts and police in this country know party labels don't mean shit
- Banned
- #24
"There is evidence that the prosecutors INTENTIONALLY altered the video"......................There is evidence that the prosecutors intentionally altered the video. That is a crime and a violation of the defendents constitutional rights if true.
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,050
- 3,901
- 315
They did not realize their video was different until Friday. Also, if it is dismissed with prejudice he can never be tried again.
Considering that the prosecution has repeatedly been playing the high quality video in court throughout the trial, the defense would have to be idiots not to notice the difference in quality long ago.
The defense has been holding this card intentionally for a while - a desperate attempt to get a mistrial if it started looking bad for them (which it is).
BTW - This would not qualify for a dismissal with prejudice. Rittenhouse will stand trial again.
The only hope Rittenhouse has (if the jury finds him guilty) is for the judge to go WAY out of bounds of any legal judicial practices. That would result in the end of this judge's carreer.
There is evidence that the prosecutors intentionally altered the video. That is a crime and a violation of the defendents constitutional rights if true.
Zooming in is not "altering" and if the defendant's rights were violated, it was by his own counsel for not objecting.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #27
You are CLEARLY uninformed on the subject.It's a legal requirement that the defense receive all evidence long before the trial begins.
If what you said is true (which it definitely is not), then the quality of the video would not matter - it wouldn't influence the jury at all.
The defense's entire argument is that if they had received a high quality copy, they would have changed their strategy.
But keep on making idiotic assertions - I find them humorous.
The state is REQUIRED BY LAW to give the defense the same evidence they possess.
1. They didn't give the video till this past Friday.
2. The video they gave the defense has a different file name than the original.
3. The version they gave the defense is only HALF the size of the original.
4. The version they gave the defense was blurry so it was useless in closing arguments while the original was high definition.
You are an idiot
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,050
- 3,901
- 315
You are CLEARLY uninformed on the subject.
The state is REQUIRED BY LAW to give the defense the same evidence they possess.
1. They didn't give the video till this past Friday.
2. The video they gave the defense has a different file name than the original.
3. The version they gave the defense is only HALF the size of the original.
4. The version they gave the defense was blurry so it was useless in closing arguments while the original was high definition.
You are an idiot
Link or STFU!
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
Zooming in would not result in a different file name or file size.Zooming in is not "altering" and if the defendant's rights were violated, it was by his own counsel for not objecting.
Get your facts instead of talking out of your ass
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #30
The link is the video in the op ya idiot. Watch it and get a clueLink or STFU!
Zooming in would not result in a different file name or file size.
Get your facts instead of talking out of your ass
There is no constitutional right to have the same file name on your copy. Stop making shit up.
Biff_Poindexter
Diamond Member
Kyle is going to be acquitted...that much isn't even in doubt...Considering that the prosecution has repeatedly been playing the high quality video in court throughout the trial, the defense would have to be idiots not to notice the difference in quality long ago.
The defense has been holding this card intentionally for a while - a desperate attempt to get a mistrial if it started looking bad for them (which it is).
BTW - This would not qualify for a dismissal with prejudice. Rittenhouse will stand trial again.
The only hope Rittenhouse has (if the jury finds him guilty) is for the judge to go WAY out of bounds of any legal judicial practices. That would result in the end of this judge's carreer.
The only reason the jury is deliberating for so long is because they are deciding on when they should throw Kyle a parade.....
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #33
They are required to give the SAME EVIDENCE to them.There is no constitutional right to have the same file name on your copy. Stop making shit up.
Different file name and only half the mb means the file HAS BEEN ALTERED
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,050
- 3,901
- 315
The link is the video in the op ya idiot. Watch it and get a clue
The video is the OP is blocked - may be my companies web filtering - but that means it's posted on an untrusted website.
Here's a video from YOUtube 7 NewsMAX where the defense's argument get completely debunked by the prosecution.
BTW - Even the defense says that they received the video way before last Friday. They just didn't view it on a large high quality screen until Friday.
Sounds like the defense is desperate - they were given the high quality video and created the low quality version in desperation.
BTW - This video was not given to the Defense directly by the prosecution. But you can listen to it and see what the process is.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
They gave the defense lawyer a manipulated, low resolution video so the defense lawyer would not be able to question the expert's faked manipulation of the HD video to show Rittenhouse's left arm to be a firearm.It's a legal requirement that the defense receive all evidence long before the trial begins.
If what you said is true (which it definitely is not), then the quality of the video would not matter - it wouldn't influence the jury at all.
The defense's entire argument is that if they had received a high quality copy, they would have changed their strategy.
But keep on making idiotic assertions - I find them humorous.
This is a serious crime.
Independentthinker
Diamond Member
- Oct 15, 2015
- 20,411
- 16,623
- 2,288
Not so sure about that in this case. I thought the case was a slam dunk for the defendant. I didn't expect the jury to be out for more than a few hours. The longer it goes on the more afraid the defense should get, which is why they are wanting a mistrial over the drone video. The defense is afraid this is going south on them.The prosecution is over but the longer the jury takes in deliberation, usually the better it is for the defendant.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Sounds like the defense is desperate - they were given the high quality video and created the low quality version in desperation.
Yeah. Go with that. Let's see how that pans out.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
This prosecutor is straight up LYING about altering and compressing.
The video in the OP shows exactly how.
The prosecutor sent the file with 2 different software manipulation app signatures, which is what changed the name of the file.
Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,716
- 27,674
- 2,430
The fact that the defense waited until the jury had been deliberating for so long indicates that they believe Rittenhouse will be found guilty.
The defense could have asked for a mistrial based on the poor quality of video long before this. They apparently feel that the long deliberations are not a good omen for them.
The real question is whether the lower quality video was so low that it really would have made a difference in the trial. None of us really know the answer to that.
If the judge declares a mistrial, then the whole fiasco will start all over again. In the long run, a new trial probably won't make a difference, but in the short run it's better than just accepting a guilty verdict.
Obviously you haven't been watching the broadcasts of the trial.
The 3rd lawyer for KR was given the raw footage by the prosecution and the refined footage after the deliberations were closed. Specifically a "Brady" violation.
Kyle Rittenhouse lawyers accuse prosecution of withholding crucial drone video
Rittenhouse’s defense team says they were given lower-quality video footage ahead of the trial, when the prosecution actually had better, high-quality footage that was played for jurors.
thehill.com
~~~~~~What do you mean "they're" Democrats??
Here is an example of both manufacturing evidence and prosecutors withholding evidence and outright lying....
One of the most BLATANT instances of police and prosecutor misconduct in modern history......you know, real CRT stuff...
Not a single prosecutor got punished....the racist cop who framed more than 30 people (some of them receiving 70 yr prison sentences) -- that guy got an award....but one thing he didn't get, was put in jail for doing what he did...
View attachment 565721
It wasn't until later -- thru the hard work of many people (including the current US Deputy Attorney General, Vanita Gupta) that these people were proven innocent and Governor Perry was forced to sign a bill to release these people.....
These prosecutors and cops were CLEARLY not liberals....did it upset you that they were never punished?? Nope....
Good chance you never heard about this case until I told you....
You're painting with a wide brush on law enforcement...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 383
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 576
- Replies
- 160
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 298
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 653
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8049
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-