Rittenhouse prosecution may be in DEEP SHIT

What makes you think that the person that took the video was 'the left'? Would it surprise you to know that some right-wingers know how to make video recordings?

Right now, any disruption to this trial favors the defense.

The man caught video taping the jurors on the bus identified himself as a reporter and employee of MSNBC. Doubtful if he's a right winger...
Indeed, MSNBC is now barred from the courtroom.
 


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.


The video in the OP is inaccessible.

The prosecution didn't give the video to the defense. The prosecution gave it to the State crime Lab. The State crime lab gave a copy to the defense.

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

The video shown to the jury by the prosecution on Friday was enhanced by AI.

~~~~~~
Here I'll spoon feed you....
 
The video shown to the jury by the prosecution on Friday was enhanced by AI.


~~~~~~
Here I'll spoon feed you....

If you'd watched the video embedded in the article you posted, you'd know that your description of this event was totally wrong.

The judge states that a car with MSNBC personnel was pulled over about a block from the jurors. The driver told the cop that he was following the jurors van and that he was told to do so by his boss at MSNBC.

The judge did bar MSNBC from the court room.

But your original description - that someone had taken a video of the jurors, that an officer stopped them and erased the video - was completely false.
 
The video shown to the jury by the prosecution on Friday was enhanced by AI.


~~~~~~
Here I'll spoon feed you....

BTW - Here's the real story. The person detained for a traffic violation was a free lance reporter, not a MSNBC employee. So your assumption of any political affiliation is pure BULLSHIT!!

 
BTW - Here's the real story. The person detained for a traffic violation was a free lance reporter, not a MSNBC employee. So your assumption of any political affiliation is pure BULLSHIT!!

it's what the Kenosha police said, not us. They stopped him. Go correct them. You were there.
 
There is evidence that the prosecutors intentionally altered the video. That is a crime and a violation of the defendents constitutional rights if true.
Yes but the libs have been getting away with this shit---see Gen. Flynn and many many others------this is the first time that one of their Obama judges isn't there to protect the corrupt prosecutors. This judge may throw a book at the communists---(assuming that he doesn't get conveniently arkansided.) I love this judge.
 
The video in the OP is inaccessible.

The prosecution didn't give the video to the defense. The prosecution gave it to the State crime Lab. The State crime lab gave a copy to the defense.

Try watching the court proceedings.
Doesn't matter---the prosecution is required by law to give any evidence that is exculpatory to the defense. This corrupt ass idiotic prosecutor did not do this----he hid the better copy.
 
In the case of shooting the Anthony Huber the skate board wielding attacker that prosecutor Krauss claimed Rittenhouse. should have taken a beating..
Then there's the person known as "jump kick man" during the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse now identified as 39-year-old Maurice Freeland of Wisconsin, defense attorneys revealed to Fox News on Thursday.

**********​
 
Doesn't matter---the prosecution is required by law to give any evidence that is exculpatory to the defense. This corrupt ass idiotic prosecutor did not do this----he hid the better copy.

The transfer of evidence is done thru the State Crime Lab.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the prosecutor did not give the high quality video to the State Crime lab.

All there is a statement that the defense had a lower quality video which they only discovered to be low quality last Friday. Where they got it from or how it was created is unknown.

What is known is that the defense had months to look at this video.

If the defense is being honest, they would have asked for a mistrial based on this low quality video last Friday.

Instead, they waited until the jury was in a long deliberation, then pulled this out of nowhere.

Sounds like the defense created this low quality video in a desperate attempt to get the judge to declare a mistrial.
 
BTW - Here's the real story. The person detained for a traffic violation was a free lance reporter, not a MSNBC employee. So your assumption of any political affiliation is pure BULLSHIT!!

Why did NBC issue a statement saying they regret the incident if he wasn’t working for them?
 
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.
The defense didn’t know there was higher quality video until after the evidence portion of the trial was over.
 
why didn't they play that video before closing arguments?
Because then it would have to be presented under oath to its accuracy. In closing arguments a lawyer can say anything and the “evidence” he presents can’t be evaluated by independent experts. If the prosecution had presented the video during the trial, the defense could have forced the technician who spent over twenty hours “clarifying “ the video to present the original and describe the steps he took to get the version presented in court.
 

Forum List

Back
Top