Rittenhouse Trial Delves Into Possibility That a Clearer Video Was Withheld From Defense: Jury had questions about being able to review video evidence.

Red State ^ | 11/17/2021 | Nick Arama

[SeekAndFind]

As we reported earlier, the jury in the Rittenhouse trial had questions about being able to review video evidence.

That prompted a discussion of the drone video, which was part of a motion of mistrial with prejudice made by the defense. The defense argued that they hadn’t gotten a clearer, higher definition version of the drone video until Saturday, after the close of evidence. They argued in their motion to the court that the prosecution had sent them a compressed version and withheld the clearer version.

Their position was that constituted withholding evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. This was in addition to the prior points they had made about the prosecutor improperly talking negatively about Rittenhouse’s silence, impugning his constitutional right to remain silent and trying to get in evidence that the judge had already ruled against.

Kyle Rittenhouse's legal team argues the prosecution withheld and altered video evidence. pic.twitter.com/ug2pSNDwdv

— MRCTV (@mrctv) November 17, 2021

That jury question then led into a discussion of the motion point about the withholding of the evidence.

The prosecution argued that they had nothing to do with the compression and don’t know what occurred.

The defense, on the other hand, said that the video sent on Nov. 5 — the compressed and unclear video — had different tags and metadata than the video they were given by the State on Saturday. They pointed out how one was created 21 minutes later than the other. They argued that showed they were different versions and that, therefore, the prosecution had withheld that clearer evidence to which they were entitled. The defense said they became aware of the difference on Friday and brought up that the prosecution mentioned that their version was clearer while viewing the video in the courtroom that day. They said if they had had the clearer file, they would have made other arguments in their case.

Add this to it.

“Our version is much clearer.” pic.twitter.com/n2UsNtin7F

— Wilson Kanaday (@wilsonkanaday) November 17, 2021

But the prosecution today claimed there was no different copy. The “Miss Wisco” referred to on the video is one of the defense team, Natalie Wisco.

DEVELOPING: The defense in the Rittenhouse trial is alleging that video evidence used by the prosecution was compressed and left out key evidence. pic.twitter.com/J5Fuc9cPok

— Newsmax (@newsmax) November 17, 2021

The prosecution further claimed that the defense must have had the high definition copy, because a prior defense attorney John Pierce had gone on Tucker Carlson’s show and, the prosecution argued, Fox played the higher definition video.

"If you know Tucker Carlson's got it, you could have subpoenaed it, no?"

Interesting moment here: Prosecutors claim that the drone footage of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting Joseph Rosenbaum (the video that may trigger a mistrial) is owned by Fox News. pic.twitter.com/yK9vKWTFwR

— Ellie Hall (@ellievhall) November 17, 2021

At a certain point, the defense said they were making a motion for a mistrial without prejudice. They had previously moved for one with prejudice – meaning the prosecution couldn’t bring the case back. But now they were saying that if the court was disinclined to rule in favor of the with prejudice motion — and we don’t know that yet — if he would grant it without prejudice.

Now, that’s one element as to the motion. There are still other arguments within the motion, so even if the judge didn’t find in favor of the defense on this particular argument, they could on the other arguments. As we said before, if the jury acquits, then all of this is moot.

We’ll keep you apprised as things continue to break.

[janetjanet998]

Rumble version for those of you that won’t click twitter

Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal team argues the prosecution withheld and altered video evidence.
https://rumble.com/vpeqtt-kyle-rittenhouses-legal-team-argues-the-prosecution-withheld-and-altered-vi.html

[Jamestown1630]

Jonathan Turley made some very good points with Tucker Carlson yesterday (4:14 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z51ouBlsdkI

[TigersEye]

I listened to all of this back and forth in the court today.
Sure sounded like evidence tampering to me.

[knarf]

If the jury has ANY intelligence, they'll come back with "not guilty" on all counts and trust winter and the NG to keep the peace.

And all those patriots unafraid to walk the hell streets of Kenosha on a rampaging night, stand up and do it again.

RIGHTEOUSNESS has your backs.

[algore]

this is my own conclusion, I am not licensed by any bar assn.

I do have some experience with computers and stuff, and am computer literate.

The footage should never have been allowed.

There is no chain of custody.

The footage was altered before the prosecution received it.

But Algore, I know you are a computer guy, what proof do you have and it is bad enough that it was altered again before the defense got it, right?

From what I understand this video was in a .mov format,
( A file with the MOV file extension is an Apple QuickTime Movie file that’s stored in a QuickTime File Format (QTFF) container file.
An MOV file can store audio, video, and text in the same file through different tracks, or the tracks can point to the data stored elsewhere in another file.
Apple devices like iPhones and iPads are a common place to see MOV files because that’s the default file format that those devices record video in. )

I am unaware of any Drone that would record in an Apple proprietary format, but I could be wrong and it does not matter.

The resolution on the Video that the Prosecution used was 1920 x 844, that is just strange, and does not correspond with any known video or camera resolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions

The most reasonable conclusion is that the original footage is at an even higher resolution and that it has been edited.

Lawyer 101
https://study.com/academy/lesson/issues-in-digital-evidence-rules-types.html

says:

“Making Digital Evidence Permissible

For evidence to be deemed permissible in court, its security and extraction methods must ensure that its characteristics adhere to the rules of digital evidence. Digital evidence, like any other evidence, can be tampered with. It’s one thing to identify the email address from which a correspondence seems to originate, but it’s another thing to prove that the alleged culprit is the author. All evidence has to be collected and put through some form of process before it’s presented in the courtroom.

Digital evidence must be authentic. Whether it’s permissible in court or not will depend on how the evidence was obtained, its handling methods, and documentation of its chain of custody, from in situ to its presentation in the courtroom. At every stage, it must be ascertained that the evidence has not been altered in any way. “

[bhl]

Do we think the video helps or hurts Kyle?
I assume hurts.

[CurlyDave]

Do we think the video helps or hurts Kyle?

I assume hurts.

I suspect that if the defense has the full-definition video and can get it analyzed it might actually help Kyle. All the other videos show that he has good muzzle and trigger discipline and this one is either too blurry to disprove that or else shows it also.

I think the prosecution tried to pull a fast one and got caught. I am hoping for a not guilty verdict but if he is found guilty on anything he should get a new trial.

A second trial will go better for Kyle. The witnesses will have to say the same things as in the first trial, and the defense will include people much better versed in electronic evidence. No enhanced videos will come in.

To me, the judge should be really steamed about the prosecution "image analyst" who should have known that the program he used was not suitable for evidence used at trial, as stated in its manual, and directly violated that. Either the witness was ignorant and not a real expert, or was deliberately misleading the judge. In either case the judge should be furious about that.

[McGruff]

From what I heard today the withholding of the video may be justification for a mistrial and the judge said has hasn’t even had time to look at the mistrial motion yet.

Hopefully he will be judged innocent so it’s a mute point.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

There is no chain of custody.

Worse yet, the defense never objected to its introduction on these grounds.

[algore]

I mean who hasn’t done some post production editing of their dash cam footage?

Don’t ask me how I know this, but even in kangaroo court a prosecution drone objected and wanted to know stuff

[USS Alaska]

The prosecution should be on trial for multiple criminal offenses, but like the doj/fbi they are beyond the law.

Unless there is a real change, caused by refreshing the "Tree of Liberty" this country will become another socialist experiment, doomed to fail.

SAD.

[bhl]

Thank you Dave. Hoping the prosecution gets destroyed.

[Svartalfiar]

Do we think the video helps or hurts Kyle?
I assume hurts.

For the blurry, edited video, the prosecution argued it appears to show him flagging people and brandishing prior to all the events happening, so they claim he shouldn't be allowed to claim self-defense, which destroys his arguments.

The clear video apparently matches most of the other video/picture evidence, which doesn't show Rittenhouse being aggressive. It appears the editing done on the low-res footage somewhat edited the images of Kyle to slightly change where his firearm was pointed.