Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[chancery]

The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday ....

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

[RVInit]

What does this mean?



Dunford retweeted it.

It means the person either isn't watching the trial, or has personal knowledge that there are people on the jury that intend to refuse to convict regardless of the testimony.

Without having benefit of having the entire collective of evidence already completely finished, and I also did not listen to the jury instructions yet, it's hard to say. But at this point the way the sworn testimony combined with video that is being played for the jury, I think Rittenhouse is in a bit of trouble. I can't see him being acquitted of the charges as to Grosskreutz. It's just plain as day that Grossgreutz is not a danger to Rittenhouse at the time Rittenhouse deliberately re-racked and shot him. It doesn't matter that after most of his upper arm is gone, i.e. no more muscle, his arm droops and the defense was clever enough to take a clip out of video while his arm is dropping (because he can no longer control his arm) and it "looks like his gun at one point is pointing at Rittenhouse". But, that's just like the Daily Caller guy "saw Rosenbaum go for Rittenhouse's gun", which now, after drone footage comes in shows that when viewed from above Rosenbaum isn't close enough to get the gun. And that doesn't even take into account that Rittenhouse KNOWS he's wearing a sling that makes it impossible for someone to take the gun away from him. He bought the damn sling five hours earlier.

I know most people don't have time to watch the trial. And that's why many people are relying on Twitter to tell them what's going on. I haven't seen one tweet that describes the testimony I have heard and seen while watching the actual trial. Not one. Defense attorneys often get what may sound like some kind of concession. Such as today - Grosskreutz admitted that the screen shot the defense showed made it appear that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse. But, you can see most of his upper arm is missing at that point and the only reason his gun appears to be pointing to Rittenhouse is that as his arm was dropping when he lost control of it the defense froze the screen at just the right moment to take a screen shot that will fool many people on Twitter. But it won't fool the jury. They are seeing everything in context. And the prosecution carefully replayed the video, showing the exact moment the bullet hits his arm (you can't miss it, his flesh is flying in all directions, it's quite graphic) and his gun is pointing up in the air at that point. Not pointing at Rittenhouse.

[RVInit]

The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday ....

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

I think the prosecutor had to subpoena it because whoever recorded it was only interested in giving it to Tucker Carlson who has been playing edited versions of it on his show. It's not official drone footage made by the FBI, it was recorded by a private individual drone, not any "official" law enforcement source.

[Foggy]

RVInit, I am reading your posts with great interest. You seem to have a very good handle on the facts that are coming out. Thanks for your excellent comments!

[raison de arizona]

RVInit, I am reading your posts with great interest. You seem to have a very good handle on the facts that are coming out. Thanks for your excellent comments!

Yeah, ditto! I’m really bummed out about not being able to watch and I appreciate the attentive commentary!

[RVInit]

Thanks, Foggy! I hope I can keep watching. I think over the next day or two I may have to post later at night because I am probably going to be too busy at work to watch much of it during the daytime hours. But I'm finding it interesting and also starting to understand why prosecutors felt confident about their case.

Living in Florida I am accustomed to almost every piece of evidence coming out before there ever is a trial. But, even sometimes in a Florida case I get surprised by some piece of evidence that somehow didn't get reported on. This case has loads of evidence that I was surprised about. And in spite of the fact that most of the militia types in some ways are trying to help Rittenhouse as much as they can, for instance by describing Rosenbaum as "violent", the prosecutor is forcing them to describe exactly what they mean by violent. And, what they mean is that he was acting like pretty much most of the people who were out there that night. Belligerent. Yelling at each other. Smack talking other people. Just like everyone else. So, not actually violent.

[andersweinstein]

The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday ....

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

Edited to add: I suspect this Tweet confuses the new drone footage with the "missing" HD FBI footage, explained below.

[pipistrelle]

What does this mean?



Dunford retweeted it.

It means the person either isn't watching the trial, or has personal knowledge that there are people on the jury that intend to refuse to convict regardless of the testimony.

It had to do with a Facebook post that came out today? Recently? There was talk about a botch job by the prosecution. Bob suggests the facebook post could lead to reasonable doubt. I'm not watching (work) so I have no idea but Dunford retweeted it, which puts some weight behind it.

[Dave from down under]

Perhaps the person with that footage only wanted the public to see the edited footage as it supports their narrative that babyface Kyle was the true victim and he just had to kill and maim...

So only now has it been able to be obtained in full via subpoena.

Certainly the defense don't want footage of Kyle being Kyle entered into evidence.

[Maybenaut]

The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday ....

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

Was this drone footage in possession of the government? If not, they had no obligation to go look for it.

[andersweinstein]

The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday ....

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

I think the prosecutor had to subpoena it because whoever recorded it was only interested in giving it to Tucker Carlson who has been playing edited versions of it on his show. It's not official drone footage made by the FBI, it was recorded by a private individual drone, not any "official" law enforcement source.

OK, there are two different aerial recordings at issue:

(1) the FBI aerial surveillance footage, IR footage from high up in a "fixed wing aircraft" (not a drone). We've seen a low quality version. I believe the agent told the court the HD version was destroyed, to the incredulity of the defense.

(2) the "drone footage". This was somebody's private drone flying a bit south of the lot. Footage from this view was shown on Tucker Carlson some time ago with a John Pierce appearance, I think. You see the people on the south edge of the lot scattering in the foreground. As far as I know this has not been publicly available and the source has remained a bit mysterious.

So maybe these have been getting confused (including by me). The "drone footage" would be something different from the HD FBI footage.

[p0rtia]

Hoist by their own petard.

Tucker Carlson has been playing an edited version of drone footage which rwnj have been using to "prove" Rittenhouse is an innocent victim.

Respectfully

Thanks for the excellent detail, RV! You are now must-read for this case.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I have been watching what I can and also reading articles about trial testimony. I agree with RVInit. What I see, especially on the fellow whose arm was shot, would cause me to convict.

I am surprised by Court TV's views of what a great job the defense is doing. I am especially unimpressed with the young, bald lawyer. His constant phrase on cross is , "Can I ask you....". Yes, you can! Just ask the fucking question. His co-counsel is much more skilled, but not consistently.

It gives me the willies that all these defense lawyers whose opinions I have trusted in the past are so convinced of Rittenhouse's acquittal. Perhaps that is because of the Wisconsin law. I have not heard their opinions since today's testimony. That witness is such a fabulous contrast to Rittenhouse. One chose not to kill, the other chose to shoot him even with his hands in the air. Rittenhouse knows what surrender is cuz he used the same gesture with the police.

[Maybenaut]

I’m not convinced of his acquittal. But nor am I convinced he’ll be acquitted. You just never know what a jury is going to do.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[andersweinstein]

Was this drone footage in possession of the government? If not, they had no obligation to go look for it.

This describes some of the kerfuffle over the missing HD version of the FBI footage (not the "drone footage", my mistake to confuse them):

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/202 ... 261308001/

[pipistrelle]

I’m not convinced of his acquittal. But nor am I convinced he’ll be acquitted. You just never know what a jury is going to do.

Yep. The Bundy cult taught me that much. (Although I believe there was jury tampering or at least influence going on.)

[RVInit]

Um, that seems suboptimal to me for several reasons.

Was this drone footage in possession of the government? If not, they had no obligation to go look for it.

There is a HUGE amount of intentional disinformation being put out on Twitter. I promise you I am not making things up, I am actually watching the testimony. This is NOT government drone footage. This is drone footage made by an individual and provided to Tucker Carlson so he could put propaganda out on his show. The prosecutor apparently had to subpoena to get the footage. And when they did, it turned out to be a treasure trove for the prosecution as I described above. And that is why Rittenhouse supporters are busy on Twitter putting out BULLSHIT

[LM K]

Everything I am posting is coming directly from evidence testified to in trial. The detective testified that he viewed the drone footage on his iPhone which allowed him to zoom in and that is where he can see that Rittenhouse points his gun at the Ziminskis prior to the last chase where he kills Rosenbaum. The raw unedited drone footage was only obtained by the police on Friday, so the prosecutor has not had time to record a zoomed in version that the jury will be able to see. As of today it's only the sworn testimony of the detective saying you can see Rittenhouse pointing his gun at the Ziminskis if you zoom in on the footage. The prosecutor indicates his office is working on making a zoomed version of the video available to be played in court.

OK. I look forward to seeing this.

It has been known that Rittenhouse came up against the Ziminskis as he ran onto the lot. Seems likely Ziminski had his gun in his hand; he is seen holding it on other occasions that night and fired it shortly after.

No. That is neither likely or unlikely. You have no info about Ziminki at that time.

I had ice cream today. Is it likely that I'm eating ice cream tonight? After all, ice cream was in my hands earlier AND I ate some.

[RVInit]

The right wing media is taking advantage of confusion about drone footage. The FBI has footage from a plane from that night. That footage has been known about by prosecution and defense for a long time.

The drone footage that showed up today is not FBI footage. Nor is it footage from any government agency of any type. It was some individual that was in the area, brought his own drone, and took this footage. It wasn't just "found" by the FBI. It wasn't "found" by the FBI at all. Apparently the defense had planned to put on the edited version and that's when the prosecutor said not so fast, we need to have the raw version. So, this backfired. Which is probably why right wing media is all trying to pretend like this was some kind of FBI footage that they were hiding because its' great for Rittenhouse. And again, because most people are not watching this, they are going to just believe it because it's coming from all the right wingers they listen to.

I have NEVER before seen right wing media get this intensely invested in a court case. I am horrified by these tweets, especially since I'm actually watching the trial. This is way beyond concerning. If we get a conviction, there are going to be some serious rioting by right wingers. Because they are being given what I think is a horrifying amount of intentional disinformation about what the testimony is showing in this case.

[andersweinstein]

This from the defense fund back in July described the originally aired version of the "drone footage" . Rest of the thread includes their spin on what that version shows and some questions about the source. I think the full version of this is what is being referred to as the new "drone footage" being obtained. Again, this is something different from the FBI surveillance footage.

[RVInit]

I watched this. It doesn't appear to be from the same time frame as the shooting of Rosenbaum, you don't even see the shooting in this video. I have no idea who the guy is that they "feature" in the footage with their highlighting, but that is not Rosenbaum, it's not Rittenhouse, and it's not anybody that is "anybody" in this case. I don't even know what they are contending this shows. I'm assuming from the highlighting that they are using this footage to show something about either Rittenhouse or Rosenbaum, but neither of them appear in this particular clip.

Edit: On second viewing it could be footage from after the shooting, as people are all scattering. And that may be Rittenhouse who circled around and then came over to gawk at Rosenbaum before calling his friend and running away.

[andersweinstein]

It has been known that Rittenhouse came up against the Ziminskis as he ran onto the lot. Seems likely Ziminski had his gun in his hand; he is seen holding it on other occasions that night and fired it shortly after.

No. That is neither likely or unlikely. You have no info about Ziminki at that time.

I had ice cream today. Is it likely that I'm eating ice cream tonight? After all, ice cream was in my hands earlier AND I ate some.

Not remotely analogous I would say. I mean we do know he must have taken it out at some point to fire it. He was a guy with a long criminal record who is seen discreetly holding a gun (illegal for him to possess as a felon) in his hand at frequent times *that night*. But whatever. It's perfectly possible he had it out as he did on other occasions.

[andersweinstein]

I watched this. It doesn't appear to be from the same time frame as the shooting of Rosenbaum, you don't even see the shooting in this video. I have no idea who the guy is that they "feature" in the footage with their highlighting, but that is not Rosenbaum, it's not Rittenhouse, and it's not anybody that is "anybody" in this case. I don't even know what they are contending this shows. I'm assuming from the highlighting that they are using this footage to show something about either Rittenhouse or Rosenbaum, but neither of them appear in this particular clip.

Edit: On second viewing it could be footage from after the shooting, as people are all scattering. And that may be Rittenhouse who circled around and then came over to gawk at Rosenbaum before calling his friend and running away.

Yes. It does show the chase leading up to the shooting, but the shooting itself is obscured by a car. There was a "third shooter" on that south side of the lot who fired 3 shots after Rittenhouse's.

Is there yet other drone? I believe this is the drone footage that was shown on Tucker Carlson.

[Dave from down under]

But whatever. It's perfectly possible he had it out as he did on other occasions.

Oh FFS!

You deny that it is possible that Kyle is a murderous POS and to that end you want to portray everyone else in the worse possible light to mitigate that he killed two people and wounded a third.