Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Jim Watson]

Seen on LegalInsurrection, interesting statement from the guy who faked, uh "enhanced" the picture:
At about 1:35 into this re-direct, Kraus asked Armstrong, “So you do compare [the “enhanced’ image] to the original?” Shockingly, Armstrong responded “I did not compare [the “enhanced” image] to the original in this instance, no.”

I think all this pixel talk will go right over the heads of the jury, though.

 

[KyJim]

I don't see him pointing the gun directly at his head--ever--as is claimed by Rittenhouse.

Look again. Below is a screenshot of the video played during testimony. If you can't see the gun pointed at KR's head, you need to have your eyes checked:

Note: image was from a portion of the trial video located at https://www.nbc15.com/2021/11/09/man-rittenhouse-shot-says-he-didnt-mean-point-own-gun/ at the 1:46 mark and Grosskreutz admits he was pointing his gun at KR.

 

[zeke]

When digital cameras came into common use, our lawyers instructed us that only the original images could be entered into evidence in court. You could transfer the original image for use in court, but copies/modifications would not be admitted. This was because the ease of which the image could be modified, and the difficulty in realizing the modifications. For our professional use, we could modify however we wanted, but you had to have the originals for any court. Course that was more than a couple years ago.


Unfortunately even heard a newscaster say that everyone who watches the investigatory tv shows knows they can enhance the image, because that what they do on tv. Or words to that effect.

 

[zukiphile]

I watched that as he said it and was shocked--I think he was either very confused or decided to purposefully throw his testimony--because it directly contradicted previous statements. I've watched the videos many times and no matter how many times and angles--at least at the seconds between he goes hands-up and he gets shot by Rittenhouse--I don't see him pointing the gun directly at his head--ever--as is claimed by Rittenhouse. HOWEVER--at the moment Grosscreutz pulled his gun--that did conceivably bring justifiable self-defense for Rittenhouse up IMO since it was an immediate threat with a lethal weapon. Grosscreutz didn't connect the dots to argue he had seen two previous killings by Rittenhouse and therefore was trying to neutralize a possible mass-murder scenario. I think on the back end somewhere Grosscreutz is going to make some good money after this.

Emphasis added.

Perhaps he didn't say that because it isn't plausible.

Grosskreutz was part of a group who appear to be attempting to "get him", or thwart an escape. If KR's purpose were mass murder, he had plenty of excellent candidates fairly close by and would not have needed to run down a street letting people get close enough to hit him.

Another indication that KR's purpose wasn't mass murder was his forebearance when Grosskreutz raised his hands in a surrender gesture, and KR lowers the muzzle even though Grosskreutz has retained his weapon. KR doesn't shoot when Grosskreutz appears to abandon his advance.

Grosskreutz' actions show a pattern of aggression when the threat from KR is minimal and retreating.

 

[stagpanther]

Look again. Below is a screenshot of the video played during testimony. If you can't see the gun pointed at KR's head, you need to have your eyes checked:

Or maybe you do. Let's take this part logically. Crosscreutz is body shifting to his left as Rittenhouse brings his AR up to bear (which I believe he probably had justifiable self-defense cause to do under the circumstances). Crosscreutz is body-mass shutting to the left--and the hand holding the Glock--is weak-side, which means he would need to either stop and hold with both hands to get any kind of shot off or at least compensate with the gun's positions he body continued moving to the left--essentially he was shooting a moving target since he was moving. did he possibly sweep Rittenhouse while running with the Glock drawn? maybe--but Rittenhouse also swept other people with his AR but didn't shoot all of them. Lastly--using the picture you posted, if you follow the line of sight from the Glock's barrel or sights it does not line up with Rittenhouse's head. As I've said already--I don't think it really makes that much difference in this particular case since once Grosscreutz deployed the Glock all bets are off on easily refuting self-defense IMO.

 

[stagpanther]

When digital cameras came into common use, our lawyers instructed us that only the original images could be entered into evidence in court. You could transfer the original image for use in court, but copies/modifications would not be admitted. This was because the ease of which the image could be modified, and the difficulty in realizing the modifications. For our professional use, we could modify however we wanted, but you had to have the originals for any court. Course that was more than a couple years ago.


Unfortunately even heard a newscaster say that everyone who watches the investigatory tv shows knows they can enhance the image, because that what they do on tv. Or words to that effect.

Well, there comes a point where you have to say--do we throw out all the image evidence, since it's all digital--or do we keep it? Defense cannot credibly argue that the stuff they used is "undoctored good stuff" while that of the prosecution isn't. Almost all modern digital imaging devices and software automatically encode what was actually done to the image--sort of like digital DNA--and a real expert can decipher whether or not the software used used algorithms that substantively did not alter the structure of the image--or a user deliberately went in and selectively altered the relationship of the pixels to change the essential structural relationship of the original image--which is essentially what the defense is alleging. The are arguing bogus bluff, and because they successfully threw pixie dust into the judge's eyes he allowed it. A big error in my opinion, but I give defense credit for seeing a tactical advantage in exploiting ignorance.

 

[zukiphile]

I don't believe it is picking nits to note that the prosecution and defense don't have equal burdens.

If the state wants to admit evidence against someone based on an enhancement to a photograph, but can't explain the mechanics of that enhancement to a layman, and offers a custodian or expert who can't explain it, the state may have a problem.

That it didn't object to a defendant's offering doesn't bear on the quality of the state's offered evidence.

 

[zeke]

Well, there comes a point where you have to say--do we throw out all the image evidence, since it's all digital--or do we keep it? Defense cannot credibly argue that the stuff they used is "undoctored good stuff" while that of the prosecution isn't. Almost all modern digital imaging devices and software automatically encode what was actually done to the image--sort of like digital DNA--and a real expert can decipher whether or not the software used used algorithms that substantively did not alter the structure of the image--or a user deliberately went in and selectively altered the relationship of the pixels to change the essential structural relationship of the original image--which is essentially what the defense is alleging. The are arguing bogus bluff, and because they successfully threw pixie dust into the judge's eyes he allowed it. A big error in my opinion, but I give defense credit for seeing a tactical advantage in exploiting ignorance.

My guess would be the defense just wanted to show the prosecutions witness was inept. Once that was accomplished, the rest of his testimony was pretty much worthless. Even if the witness did not know the precise algorithm or programming code, he needed to have a basic concept of what the code did, such as possibly altering the colors or adding pixels. He did not, and the defenses witness did. Worse, it showed the prosecutor was not aware of the ineptness of his "exspurt" witness.

And just to ensure that i am in touch with being cranky old guy, what could be expected from prosecutor who looks like an aged out yuppie with that ridiculous pompadour on his freaking head?

 

[stagpanther]

I don't believe it is picking nits to note that the prosecution and defense don't have equal burdens.

If the state wants to admit evidence against someone based on an enhancement to a photograph, but can't explain the mechanics of that enhancement to a layman, and offers a custodian or expert who can't explain it, the state may have a problem.

That it didn't object to a defendant's offering doesn't bear on the quality of the state's offered evidence.

A valid point, which in fact is what the judge brought up to allow the defense's argument. But let's look at this from a couple of points of view. First of all, this conceivably opens up the door to defense having the right to "demand" convincing proof of any evidence brought up and looking for a needle in the haystack to cast doubt of the entire result. Does this give defense the right to demand validation of DNA tests--in other words demand how each chemical component accounts for each DNA molecule in a DNA test? Does defense have there right to challenge the mechanical operation schematic of every piece of equipment involved in any incident? What it comes down to is probability--which is why the DNA stuff goes by. Now, using the same probability standards--what is the probability that the same software that has been professionally examined, tested, certified to forensic standards as a primary tool for use by law enforcement agencies across America are going to be continuously used in a way which has low confidence in accuracy? Remotely possible--but very highly not likely. Computers are binary, they don't arbitrarily decide to do stuff unless they are programmed to do so. Having said all that, based on what I saw on my video screen from the pictures projected from the trial--I couldn't tell what in the heck either picture showed, so I think defense saw an opportunity to take a pot shot at the credibility of ALL images.

 

[zukiphile]

A valid point, which in fact is what the judge brought up to allow the defense's argument. But let's look at this from a couple of points of view. First of all, this conceivably opens up the door to defense having the right to "demand" convincing proof of any evidence brought up and looking for a needle in the haystack to cast doubt of the entire result.

I don't believe it opens the door to it, since that door is always open.

The defense always has the right to object to evidence on a number of grounds, including the accuracy of the process that creates it.

Does this give defense the right to demand validation of DNA tests--in other words demand how each chemical component accounts for each DNA molecule in a DNA test?

Where a court has not previously accepted judicial notice of a DNA process, the defense always has the right to object to evidence based on a scientific process. A Daubert hearing is appropriate where there is a question about the process or expertise involved.

Now, using the same probability standards--what is the probability that the same software that has been professionally examined, tested, certified to forensic standards as a primary tool for use by law enforcement agencies across America are going to be continuously used in a way which has low confidence in accuracy?

To secure a conviction? Quite high in some jurisdictions. Would a prosecutor who violates a basic rule about a defendant's 5th Am. rights refrain from bending the physical evidence?

"If police and prosecutors use a process that they think is good enough, it's good enough" isn't a standard in a criminal trial. If an "enhancement" of photographic evidence introduces something that isn't there originally but is a product of the "enhancement", it looks a lot more like electronically buttressed opinion testimony that physical evidence.

If the prosecutor should have objected to something earlier, but didn't catch it (something that has happened to every attorney), that doesn't alter the burden of the state to show that its offered evidence is admissible.

 

[ghbucky]

Couple of questions for the legal types:
1) Do you think that the prosecution in this case dumped a raft of charges and 'life in prison' on the 17 YO thinking he would gratefully accept a deal of some type (10 years for manslaughter, just example) and weren't prepared for him to go to the mat on the charges?

2) Gaige Krosswhatever his last name is was illegally carrying a concealed weapon. Has he been charged with that violation? I can't find any indication he was charged.

 

[zukiphile]

Couple of questions for the legal types:
1) Do you think that the prosecution in this case dumped a raft of charges and 'life in prison' on the 17 YO thinking he would gratefully accept a deal of some type (10 years for manslaughter, just example) and weren't prepared for him to go to the mat on the charges?

In a case like this, I don't know that a plea was ever a possibility. How would a prosecutor explain to an angry constituency that he let a murderer just serve a decade? Even nominally non-political people operate within a political context.

2) Gaige Krosswhatever his last name is was illegally carrying a concealed weapon. Has he been charged with that violation? I can't find any indication he was charged.

I don't know that Grosskreutz was carrying illegally, but even if he were, charging him might interfere with his testimony in this prosecution.

 

[ghbucky]

I don't know that Grosskreutz was carrying illegally, but even if he were, charging him might interfere with his testimony in this prosecution.

He was carrying concealed. He did not have a valid concealed carry permit.

So, he gets to skate on a weapons charge because the prosecution gives him special treatment?

Is it any wonder we are in a tailspin when law enforcement can pick and choose who they charge based on their own convenience?

 

[zukiphile]

So, he gets to skate on a weapons charge because the prosecution gives him special treatment?

Is it any wonder we are in a tailspin when law enforcement can pick and choose who they charge based on their own convenience?

Has it ever been different?

I don't mean to read as jaded, and I don't think I am. Prosecutors have some discretion in what they charge. It may not reflect well on them depending on the decision, but they have that discretion.

 

[stagpanther]

It's over AFAIC--judge is clearly slanting towards defense and allowing 1) the mere presence of people across the street is an imminent threat--and 2) a verbal threat by Rosenbaum an hour earlier IS grounds for self-defense.

This one's over, I've lost interest, Kyle's going to walk with no or very marginal charges I predict.

 

[zukiphile]

It's over AFAIC--judge is clearly slanting towards defense and allowing 1) the mere presence of people across the street is an imminent threat--and 2) a verbal threat by Rosenbaum an hour earlier IS grounds for self-defense.

It shows no undue defense bias for a court to decide that a tier of fact, the jury, can take either into account.

 

[Metal god]

I'm going need the lawyers here to explain the catch 22 I'm hearing about the lesser charges . The prosecution keeps making a big deal that Kyle said he never wanted to kill anyone as a reason for the lesser charge of 2nd degree . I always thought 1st was premeditated and 2nd was not premeditated but you still meant to kill .

My point is using the fact Kyle did not mean to kill anyone for any 2nd degree seems wrong . Maybe you get to manslaughter of some sort . Regardless I'd think any lesser charge would need to be below 2nd degree anything .

I paused the hearing so I no long know the outcomes of these motions but this clearly changes my predictions of how the jury will rule .

On a side note I don't like the idea of the prosecution now trying to get lesser charges . Wouldn't the defense need to know the exact charges before the start of trial . It just seems common sense they would need to know how to for a defense for each charge and to throw new charges in at the end that they did not call witnesses for or prep the defendant for when testifying seems way wrong .

To that point how do you say I meant to shoot someone and not say I meant to kill them or you didn't mean to kill them ? What other answer is the if asked did you mean to kill them . Is it something like " I was defending my self and I just wanted them to stop , Period

 

[44 AMP]

I've watched the videos many times and no matter how many times and angles--at least at the seconds between he goes hands-up and he gets shot by Rittenhouse--I don't see him pointing the gun directly at his head--ever--as is claimed by Rittenhouse.

Just for consideration, were any of those views and angles you watched from Rittenhouse's point of view? A camera, or even a person right next to you looking the same direction you're looking may not see exactly what you see.

The camera's angle and the depth perception of a 2d image can create an entirely believable but false picture. The movie industry relies on that. I have a picture (some where..) that "absolutely shows" me pointing a gun at someone's head. FROM THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA. Had the camera angle been 90 degrees to the side it would "absolutely show" the gun was not pointed at his head but was pointed on a line parallel to his head and two FEET behind him.

The point here is that it doesn't matter if the gun was actually pointed directly at KR or not. What matters is the situation that KR believed he was in, and how he responded to that.

As to "enhanced" images, well here's where modern tech and ancient perceptions collide. Kind of makes a difference how you refer to them, too.

What is today's "enhanced image" is yesterday's "doctored" or "altered" photograph. Hell, my wife has a phone that can take a picture of me and turn it into a "bearded lady" if she pushes the right button.

The point here, for the defense, is not to claim the image was altered to harm his client (without evidence to support that) but that the image WAS ALTERED, and it COULD HAVE BEEN changed in a manner to show something that really wasn't. Reasonable doubt.

SO, yes, if they show an image, claiming that it shows reality, and admit that image has been altered, doctored, photoshopped, enhanced, or what ever term you want to apply, then they have a burden of proof to show, and explain HOW that image was altered, and why, and that includes "the software did it".

Like Lab tests (all of them) there are standards, and calibration requirements for the test equipment which in court may be accepted at face value or may be challenged.

Once again, I tip my hat to the people who made "MY COUSIN VINNY" for including a scene that illustrates that. Forensic expert testifies that samples from the crime scene were an exact match to samples taken from the tires of the defendant's car. He's then asked how he came to that conclusion, and he testifies about the make and model of the gas chromatograph used for the analysis. The prosecutor then addresses the jury and forcefully states "IDENTICAL!!" implying that it had to have been the defendant's car that left the marks.
That point is countered when the defense asks the expert what is the most popular make & size tire sold in America and he ..somewhat reluctantly admits that it is the same one the defendants have on their car.

The point here is that lab tests, imagery, and other evidence while it may be factually completely accurate can be presented to the jury (and the public) in such a manner as to support an incorrect conclusion.

 

[zukiphile]

To that point how do you say I meant to shoot someone and not say I meant to kill them or you didn't mean to kill them ? What other answer is the if asked did you mean to kill them . Is it something like " I was defending my self and I just wanted them to stop , Period

Yes, intending someone's death through one's acts and shooting someone intending to keep him from hurting you are very different because the intent is different.

Shooting Grosskreutz didn't kill him, and may have saved KR's life. If that's the intended result, this is a paradigm a firearm shot in self-defense.

...my predictions of how the jury will rule.

I don't blame you for trying to predict such a thing, but my limited experience with juries keeps me from trying.

 

[Metal god]

Yes, intending someone's death through one's acts and shooting someone intending to keep him from hurting you are very different because the intent is different.

I get that and that's my point No matter how he answers he admits to either 1st degree yes "I meant to kill him" or admits to 2nd degree " no I didn't mean to kill anyone . According to the prosecution if you meant to kill you are guilty of 1st and if you didn't mean to kill you're guilty of 2nd

Maybe I need to finish watching the hearing haha cus I be