Posted on 11/10/2021 6:17:37 AM PST by Pilgrim's Progress
Today they are expected to bring in a witness that will impeach Gaige Grosskreutz' testimony claiming that he did not say that he wished that he would have emptied his gun into Kyle Rittenhouse."
It should be a lively day on the stand.
I imagine that Kyle will continue to smile and look relaxed during the trial knowing that the prosecutors are total idiots, and that Judge Schroeder will continue to make humorous insertions from the bench (probably because he already knows how this trial will end with a directed verdict of innocence).
As Hawk Harrelson used to say, "Sit back, relax, and strap it down" cuz' no doubt this one is going to get jiggy.
now this idiot is denying GG said what he said he said.
Dang! Trial hasn’t even had a witness and this thread has already hit 60 posts. Kewl!
I think that Kyle returning back to Rosenbaum’s body prove that it wasn’t his intent to kill him - and was looking to offer aid (IMO).
Sigh... something told me that I would need to do some hand holding. The verdict (directed or otherwise) of "INNOCENCE" is not the legal standard in our system. The legal standard, per verdicts (directed or otherwise) in the US legal system is "NOT GUILTY" (or "guilty"). That's like high school level pre-law knowledge and I don't know why it escapes so many legal observers.
The forthcoming witness is changing his story, you say?
Maybe because in our way of thinking, NOT GUILTY is equal to INNOCENT? Thanks for holding my hand. I feel really loved.
the 1st witness has been talking about 10 min
refresh your link as he’s been talking for some time.
yes, he renegged his statement; said he was scared :|
bump for later
what’s the purpose of bringing the car lot guy back, just to prove he lied about having someone protect his property? I don’t get this
I'd be curious to hear your opinion of the purported prosecutor's "face palm" (see pic in post #2, I believe) that is put forth by some of the "FR legal analysts" here. It's my contention that even a 1-L would never do such a thing, even in a mock trial - and that he's simply holding his head while writing. However, have you ever witnessed such a reaction (as alleged by many here)?
Thanks. I had it on that JeffMAC channel.
He did lie, but that should probably be a separate trial . . .
yeah, I can’t connect the dots on why this is relevant to Kyle’s case.
Hopeful the defense will connect the dot!
If Kyle's innocence is clear, and the jury is being threatened, then the judge's duty would be a directed verdict of innocence (taking the jury off the hook).
To be honest, I’m sympathetic toward the lot owner. He is a victim of all this and his world was collapsing around him if he didn’t have coverage enough for his losses.
totally agree. all the more reason for the DEFENSE to state what the hell their point is
Ergo, that is EXACTLY why "Not Guilty" is the legal standard. Your "(our) way of thinking" is precisely why I pointed out the OJ fan base example. It's an important distinction.
Kyle coming up!!~!!!!
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.