Rittenhouse prosecution may be in DEEP SHIT

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What do you mean "they're" Democrats??

Here is an example of both manufacturing evidence and prosecutors withholding evidence and outright lying....

Racist arrests in Tulia, Texas | American Civil Liberties Union

In July of 1999, 10% of the African-American population in Tulia, Texas, a small town of 5,000 in the Texas Panhandle, was arrested on drug charges solely on the testimony of a single undercover officer. The arrests of 46 people, 39 of them black, resulted in 38 convictions for various drug...

www.aclu.org

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 people 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....

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.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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]

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.

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.....

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

 

[bodecea]

There is evidence that the prosecutors intentionally altered the video. That is a crime and a violation of the defendents constitutional rights if true.

"There is evidence that the prosecutors INTENTIONALLY altered the video"......................

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

 

[Dekster]

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.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

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

 

[Hum Dinger]

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!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Zooming in is not "altering" and if the defendant's rights were violated, it was by his own counsel for not objecting.

Zooming in would not result in a different file name or file size.

Get your facts instead of talking out of your ass

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Link or STFU!

The link is the video in the op ya idiot. Watch it and get a clue

 

[Dekster]

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]

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.

Kyle is going to be acquitted...that much isn't even in doubt...

The only reason the jury is deliberating for so long is because they are deciding on when they should throw Kyle a parade.....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There is no constitutional right to have the same file name on your copy. Stop making shit up.

They are required to give the SAME EVIDENCE to them.

Different file name and only half the mb means the file HAS BEEN ALTERED

 

[Hum Dinger]

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]

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.

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.

This is a serious crime.

 

[Independent thinker]

The prosecution is over but the longer the jury takes in deliberation, usually the better it is for the defendant.

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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]

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.

 

[Nostra]

The prosecution didn't give them the video until after the jury was deliberating.

Don't confuse Richard-H with facts.

 

[Doc7505]

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....

Racist arrests in Tulia, Texas | American Civil Liberties Union

In July of 1999, 10% of the African-American population in Tulia, Texas, a small town of 5,000 in the Texas Panhandle, was arrested on drug charges solely on the testimony of a single undercover officer. The arrests of 46 people, 39 of them black, resulted in 38 convictions for various drug...

www.aclu.org

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...