Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would argue that, in this day and age, his claim of ignorance on the subject of video compression or any other similar digital file issues is irrelevant at best.

He's an attorney. He's supposed to be an expert on the law. This means he's at least got a passing familiarity with pretty much anything which could be introduced as evidence, as well as issues which could be brought up to object to its introduction.

He also knows that digital forensics exists and avails himself of such expertise. He knows how chain of custody works, he knows withholding, altering, or falsifying evidence is wrong.

In other words, his ignorance on HOW video compression works on a digital level makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE because he's familiar with all the LEGAL aspects of handling it as evidence.

Not just that, but the whole thing just shows the entire local legal system just has an appallingly lackadaisical approach to digital evidence. The defense gets no slack here either - this is arguably the most-recorded series of defensive shootings in history, and it didn't occur to them that they might want to get a video and photo forensics expert on retainer to question the source, validity, and any editing of all of the video and photo exhibits?

And the prosecution is clearly using Schroeder's total computer illiteracy to get away with the clearly suspicious video compression issue. Literally nothing the state said in its sudden flurry of smoke and hot air actually explains how what happened, happened. Not at all. Not possible.
 
What struck me is how in earth is it ok for these people to be passing around evidence using airdrop and and Gmail? Isn’t there a forensic process utilized here to preserve digital media in its original state? Every file has meta data associated with it such as the timestamp, details around the conditions the media was created within such as geo tagging, lens focus length, aperture, device type, etc. these can all potentially be used to validate the authenticity of file, or things like distance between objects etc. All those seem relevant, particularly in the age of deep fakes etc. how can they not maintain a chain of custody and forensically preserve the digital media? How can an attorney use their own personal email and devices knowing that this now potentially makes their personal email and devices open to discovery, particularly in such a high profile case where they will be subject to immense scrutiny. I’m no expert but this certainly gives me the sense of malpractice.

Defense counsel Wisco touched on that in passing - the higher-resolution drone video had automatic file naming from the camera that included metadata information, and the file she received did not. Incidentally, I suspect the file name she received was a default output file name from a video editing program where the user had a large number of such files in a single folder and didn't bother to assign individual names, dates, and descriptions to the file names.
 
What struck me is how in earth is it ok for these people to be passing around evidence using airdrop and and Gmail?

What struck me is the video in question is easily counter-able by other video, if provided enough time for the defense to be prepared for it. Notice the glare off the passenger side outside mirror of the Duramax. Rittehouse did not point his weapon at Rosenbaum thereby provoking him as claimed by the prosecution in the drone video provided on the last day of trial.


''YOU CAN'T KILL EVIL DEAD ENOUGH.''
Outrageous that a career criminal such as that was out on bond, had 20+ pending felonies, and two outstanding felony warrants, and was riding around day to day with an AR pistol. Thankfully the deputy provided backup.
I think the abuser/victim dynamics was provoked in Rosenbaum by Rittenhouses baby face appearance. Clearly Rosenbaum was not of right mind. Other video also show the female center of frame provoke/instruct Rosenbaum and/the crowd by pointing and yelling, "there he is, get him".

Has anybody on the outside seen the high resolution version?
If so, what does it show was going on?
I have seen the 8K video version of the chase, with Gaige in pursuit. Clearly shows a guy, a couple guys in fact with concrete in their hands, one struck Kyle from behind, Rittenhouses ball cap falls to the ground after that roundhouse blow, then Huber struck Kyle from behind with the skateboard, his skateboard went flying away to the curb afterwards which he retrieved for the second attack and strike after Kyle was felled. There was a dark male wearing black clothes and a white helmet that didn't attack Rittenhouse that also had what appeared to be a large rock in his hand. Using VLC software a viewer can (using the E key) go through it frame by frame. The 8K version is on youtube and a youtube video downloader such as (https://loader.to/en26/4k-video-downloader.html) can be used so video can be reviewed using VLC frame by frame.



I do strongly feel WI vs Rittenhouse is a benchmark case, and simple.
The right to keep and bare arms, and the right to defend oneself from violent attack with deadly force. Simple
Kyle walking from one car dealership to the other is no different than a home owner going from his residence to a neighbors residence to render aide during a time of natural disaster, civil unrest, ppl still have the right of movement during such times.
Any law enforcement officer, and/or any gun owner knows they can not be disarmed by a violent attacker.
How this situation can be contrived by the State is anyones guess. Perhaps the best outcome for the state will be he is found guilty and then the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice. Thereby no resolution is had by anyone and the public remains at each others throat.
I do feel very strongly that the general public are the victims at large of ongoing organized covert political and organized covert societal upheaval. People are waking up all over the internet to the fact that the people they are debating online are bots, not real people and may even be AI programs.
Bot farms are real, extremely diversionary, and designed to fragment the opinions of civil society with hot button issues. I view it as incitement.
Someone said to me several years ago, look at these filthy pukes. I looked at the picture shown to me and without any prejudice I felt they looked like kids, just kids no different from my senior class high school picture.
The fact alone that vast resources were at play here can not pass muster. And yet it does every day. And the media marches onwards with it's agenda.
Kyle was the "wild card" in all of this, clearly Antifa and BLM were ordered to stand down and the riots magically ceased.
One man (person) can make a difference.
 
Last edited:
I'm willing to bet that there is just one liberal on the jury holding everything up. If it is a liberal like the ones in my extended family, who are immune to common sense and anything in the US Constitution, there is no way they are going to let KR off no matter what. I bet a hung jury is announced today. But I would love to be wrong and see this kid go home. Just my opinion.
 
Could be one person holding onto the notion of self defense, evidence and such.

Unfortunate but it does only take one..,
 
What struck me is the video in question is easily counter-able by other video, if provided enough time for the defense to be prepared for it. Notice the glare off the passenger side outside mirror of the Duramax. Rittehouse did not point his weapon at Rosenbaum thereby provoking him as claimed by the prosecution in the drone video provided on the last day of trial.


That's another big thing that bugs me about the defense - there was so much video evidence that once the anonymous drone footage was submitted, they should have immediately pored through all the other video to see if there was collaborating or contrasting evidence they could use to counter the prosecutor's story about what the drone footage showed.
 
I'm willing to bet that there is just one liberal on the jury holding everything up. If it is a liberal like the ones in my extended family, who are immune to common sense and anything in the US Constitution, there is no way they are going to let KR off no matter what. I bet a hung jury is announced today. But I would love to be wrong and see this kid go home. Just my opinion.

A not guilty verdict is obviously the best outcome but a declaration of a mistrial with prejudice would have the same practical effect for KR, at least as far as the state charges go. What I haven’t seen much discussion of is the real possibility of him being charged under some sort of federal statute for something like a civil rights violation. I remember that’s what happened to the cops in the Rodney King case, but I’m not sure if the civil rights charge was only possible because they were police officers. Given that Merrick Garland seems perfectly willing to threaten school board members with terrorism charges it’s hard to imagine what the DOJ could do to Rittenhouse.
 
I would not doubt it and maybe more than one. I think "leftist" or "progressive" would be more accurate than "liberal".

I prefer the term "deluded". Which we are all victims of from time to time through no fault of our own..
all the other video to see if there was collaborating or contrasting evidence they could use to counter the prosecutor's story about what the drone footage showed.
and that is only one of the videos which I downloaded of that exact moment in time, there are a few more videos from different perspectives by different people.

I honestly dislike thinking like a "conspiracy theorist" lol, but if you want a "mistrial with prejudice" simply be as incompetent as experienced ADA Binger who should know better has been in the state of Wisconsin's pursuit of a guilty verdict.
the real possibility of him being charged under some sort of federal statute
it is not wise for me to speculate erroneously (which I may be doing a lot of here) but I have had the same exact thoughts.

If we see a huge public Antifa and BLM blow-up after this I can not see that after several days of a contrived media circus the DOJ doing exactly that.
 
A not guilty verdict is obviously the best outcome but a declaration of a mistrial with prejudice would have the same practical effect for KR, at least as far as the state charges go. What I haven’t seen much discussion of is the real possibility of him being charged under some sort of federal statute for something like a civil rights violation. I remember that’s what happened to the cops in the Rodney King case, but I’m not sure if the civil rights charge was only possible because they were police officers. Given that Merrick Garland seems perfectly willing to threaten school board members with terrorism charges it’s hard to imagine what the DOJ could do to Rittenhouse.
I don't wish anymore BS on KR, but I'd love to see this administration shoot themselves in the foot some more.
 
That may happen it would be a very bad precedent. It would almost certainly appealed and overturned. If it were upheld it would mean there really is no justice system.

There seem (to my non-lawyer view) to be multiple avenues for him to approach an appeal should he be convicted. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
 
I agree, for what is worth, the mistrial ploy has come and gone. The ongoing deliberations suggest a lesser charge compromise. Thus, Kyle's life is even more ruined than before. Folks have said that it would be a quick not guilty. Now it will be quickly overturned on appeal. The surety of opinion on the Internet is a wonderful thing.

The takeaway is again, not to go to stupid places, with stupid places and do stupid things. The greater issue is the failure of government to quickly protect civil society in times of unrest leading to people thinking that they have to do such.
 
The greater issue is the failure of government to quickly protect civil society in times of unrest leading to people thinking that they have to do such.
This should be a key component for the jury to consider with regard to KR's reasoning for being there. There was reason to believe that private citizen intervention would be necessary as those in authority had previously demonstrated their incompetence in dealing with such.
 
This should be a key component for the jury to consider with regard to KR's reasoning for being there. There was reason to believe that private citizen intervention would be necessary as those in authority had previously demonstrated their incompetence in dealing with such.

Maybe Wisconsin law is different but here in Kentucky it is expressly illegal to use deadly force to protect property with a couple of very narrow exception, those being arson of your domicile or being criminally ejected from it. Defending a business against vandalism with physical force is illegal here and I suspect it is in Wisconsin as well. I’m still stuck on his presence there being pointless because he couldn’t legally have used that rifle to protect property.
 
I’m still stuck on his presence there being pointless because he couldn’t legally have used that rifle to protect property.
He used it to protect his life, not property.
The argument is that his presence was to protect the property, the presence of the gun was to protect his life (a right SCOTUS has affirmed) should it be placed in jeopardy.
 
Maybe Wisconsin law is different but here in Kentucky it is expressly illegal to use deadly force to protect property with a couple of very narrow exception, those being arson of your domicile or being criminally ejected from it. Defending a business against vandalism with physical force is illegal here and I suspect it is in Wisconsin as well. I’m still stuck on his presence there being pointless because he couldn’t legally have used that rifle to protect property.

That's correct but also not relevant. His stated purpose there was not to defend property with force, but to put out fires set by rioters and offer first aid. The rifle was carried for defense of his person if necessary.

I would agree it was imprudent for him to be there, and that at the point of his decision to go there the risk outweighed any potential benefit from him being there. But that doesn't negate his right to self defense or make him the provoker or instigator of what happened.
 
In the Ferguson riots (remember those?) black men from the neighborhood were interviewed standing guard over a white-owned service station.
The reporter observed them with guns warning off vandals and looters. They were there because the station owner had employed them in the past, they saw the arsonists and looters in Ferguson as outsiders, and they did not want to see him burned out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top