Posted on 11/17/2021 8:12:16 PM PST by TigerClaws
Some internet autists have been hard at work tonight.
If you remember at the hearing the Assistant District Attorney said the video should be no surprise to the defense team as it played on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News when the former attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse appeared as a guest.
But they then had trouble locating the video until... a few days before trial a person of mystery (no name; no address) 'dropped it off' or somehow got it to the prosecution.
Here's the new info:
Election Wizard @ElectionWiz · 10m ALERT: Based on the work by @Johnmcurtis, @DefNotDarth, and @FuarFearg, it appears the #Rittenhouse drone video was a cropped version of the video shown on Tucker Carlson.
»Jay H8s Tuatter« (sometimes) @FuarFearg HOLY MOLY.
The prosecutors admitted a drone video broadcast by FOXNEWS into evidence. Someone appears to have just cropped out the FN header
LOOK:
Need to have that hearing with everyone sworn in. Oh, and they can also ask Binger and Klaus if they know the identity of "Jump Kick Man" because the name is circulating for a day. Initials, ironically, are "M.F."
He allegedly offered to testify in exchange for immunity for various charges pending against him.
Binger said at one point - note his careful wording - "The man defense has chosen to identify as Jump Kick Man..."
Just like Klaus admitting the video the defense had was of lower quality than the one they had.
If you listen to these prosecutors, they say a lot.
at first I thought maybe FOX added a black bar on top to put their banner is all
but it appears that there is no aspect ratio for that type of Drone video
This is ALLEGEDLY (dond’t know for sure and not saying for sure) the guy that approached prosecutors saying he is “Jump Kick Man”:
http://inmate.kenoshajs.org/NewWorld.InmateInquiry/kenosha/Inmate/Detail/-29851
There’s another report that as the trial begins Binger says to Kyle’s lawyers, “Hey, some guy came by our office claiming to be Jump Kick Man...”
If prosecutors knew for sure and didn’t tell defense months ago when they found out = mistrial.
bkmk
That is really weird that it would be a cropped version of a FN broadcast instead of the whole original video.
The judge erred in ever allowing it to be played because it’s basically unauthenticated and has no chain of custody.
Who brought it in and where did he obtain it? Was any other manipulation done?
That's a terrible thing to call him. He was just JOGGING! /s
I thought he was in jail so he definitely didn't just "come by".
The prosecution may have just pulled it off the aired Fox News video. They then did the digital manipulations sand cropped it to hide where they got it. They basically played a news report in open court disguised as the original exhibit.
At least … that’s a plausible theory. Why else would it be cropped?
At this point after what we’ve seen from them is there any action too sleazy for these prosecutors?
Sour Krauss aka Fatlock told multiple lies and broke multiple rules of evidence today. The defense is just as guilty for letting it happen.
He first told the court today it was an airdrop to Android issue with the Defense. That had zero to do with it as it turned out it was emailed.
Then tried to blame the different versions on email.
Turns out they emailed a version with a different name, size and meta deta than the original. Their obligation is an an exact Forensic copy. Exact.
Turns out Krauss also sent from a personal email.
The defense would have no idea they got a shite version.
They didn’t even know until the States computer wasn’t working and defense offered to run it off theirs. State then ask why their version was so shitty. Reminder, this was AFTER closing arguments and the judge was reviewing to decide on jury instructions related to provocation , which became a huge issue in this trial.
Prosecution says they didn’t get the quality version until last minute when the person that created it came and personally airdropped it to them. Kinda of admitting they got version they had from Fox.
The BS part of this is (among other) is why haven’t they subpoened other video this person has and why wasn’t he brought in to authenticate. The idea they brought in video and cropped it from Fox (which never would be admitted by a good Defense team) to begin with and that the Defense didn’t question it is beyond me.
State had a legal obligation to provide exactly what they had. Not only did they possibly just grab it from Fox, they sent a shite version purposeful to Defense then lied about why it happened only to come back with another even more ridiculous explanation. Plus, the magic high res, uncropped version appears from a person that just showed up Friday? Wtf
This was a huge part of their provocation argument which was a key part of jury instructions.
The judge should have a hearing on this and stop jury deliberations while he does. Or he should simply mistrial (maybe w prejudice if state lied) as this jury is spoiled.
The revelations:
the file that was sent had a different name than the original (anyone who has the slightest awareness of digital media knows that doesn’t happen accidentally, or by transfer).
The metadata attached showed it was created at a different time, not long before it was sent to the defense.
And the presence of Handbrake (a software that one would/could use to reformat and resize the video), on the ADA’s computer screenshot... after him claiming he doesn’t know anything about doing that type of thing.
This isn’t a matter of competency, it’s a violation of legal requirements.
Need thr ADAs put under oath and ask.
The ideal here would be for the judge to publicly excoriate the prosecution, point out the numerous lies the prosecution told, announce he’s declaring a mistrial with prejudice, and that he’s reporting the prosecuting attorneys to the Bar Association.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.