Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Aunt Huber, Rosenbaum’s Fiancé, Kenosha Police, Car Source Employees

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

👉 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

🎥 TIKTOK LATEST: https://www.tiktok.com/@robertgruleresq/video/7005388301586730246​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​

🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​

📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 November 6, 2021 at 7-8 pm Eastern– Monthly Zoom Meet-up for Locals supporters.​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​

🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​

🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​

🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​

🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​

🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

🚨 NEED HELP WITH A CRIMINAL CASE IN ARIZONA? CALL 480-787-0394​

Or visit https://www.rrlawaz.com/schedule to schedule a free case evaluation!​

☝🏻 Don't forget to join us on Locals for exclusive content, slides, book, coupon codes and more! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​

🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #KyleRittenhouse #Rittenhouse #FreeKyle

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney right here at the RNR law group and the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. And throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We've got judges, not particularly interested in a little thing called a justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into. We're talking Kyle Rittenhouse trial day five. We've got a lot of different witnesses to go through and we're going to break this up into three different sections, three different segments. I would say first and foremost, we're going to get caught up to speed on what is happening with the crew member. This guy, Jason[inaudible], who was out at the scene. We're also going to hear from Amber RAs. Mucin she's somebody who works with the crime lab. They were doing some DNA analysis, Susan Hughes, and then the fiance Rosenbalm Carrie Ann Swart. We're going to hear about all of them. We're also going to hear about, say hill Kindle. We've got, I've got so many witnesses to get to, so let's just start going through it. Shall we, if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersgotlocals.com. We're live streaming right now. It's a live show. If you want to partake in it, there's a form that you can use. If you are a supporter over there, I'd ask that you just throw your name in there. Ask a quick question, pick the show topic. Of course, only one topic today. It's all day Rittenhouse. And so get those questions submitted. We'll make sure we get to them. We are going to chop the show up into different segments if you're looking for that. So you can just sort of, you know, if you miss the whole show, come back and find a segment that you missed. You can find those over at Robert ruler, Esq clips. You can check out that channel and of course, uh, share those clips, share the show, give us a, like, give us a thumbs up. Always very much appreciate that. And I sincerely mean it. We have been in a YouTube silo for quite some time here. And so I appreciate all the support out there. All right. So let's get into it. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day five, we've got a lot of different witnesses that we're going to talk about today. We're going to start off by jumping in, picking up where we left off, of course, revisiting our trial board. And so we know that the prosecutor today that we heard a lot from was Thomas binger. He's been the lead prosecutor we heard about from him almost exclusively today. We get introduced to Jim Crouse, Jim Kraus, the assistant prosecutor. He actually did some cross direct examination of several witnesses. And remember, we're still in the government's case in chief, these are all still government witnesses. It's their turn to present their case. It's their job to incriminate Kyle Rittenhouse beyond a reasonable doubt. They've got a pretty big burden to prove. And so they've got to do the heavy lifting. They can't pawn that off to somebody else. And so they started today by bringing in Amber RAs mucin and Jason Lukowski. We actually have these sort of in reverse. I think Jason looked like Koski was the first one up today. He was part of the crew that was down there on the ground. And we talked about this yesterday, when we've heard from Ryan bulge and from Richard McGinnis that both of these guys are kind of sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse. Jason Lukowski is just sort of in that same mix, sort of this bucket of individuals that if the government didn't call them as direct witnesses, then the defense would call them. Because the testimony that we heard from Ryan Baltz yesterday was very empathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse saying it was kind of like a war zone, you know, and, and that he was seeing Rosenbalm acting very aggressively towards not only Rittenhouse, but also to him. And he was testifying about that same thing with Richard McGuinness, a lot of very sympathetic testimony for Kyle Rittenhouse. And so if Thomas binger didn't call these people in, you better believe that the defense attorney certainly would because all the testimony was good. And people here, even on the show were like, Rob, stop cherry picking the, all just the, the stuff that makes Kyle Rittenhouse look good, give them a fair shake and I'm going, hello, it's their witness. It's their question. These, these are the government calling these people up. And then we started to get some theories that there might be, you know, sort of a bait and switch approach that we'd get a bunch of new witnesses that would tell a different story. And it just hasn't turned out that way. This has been the government's case. This is what they've got, and they've been working with it and sort of, you know, maybe even diluting themselves as to the quality of their witnesses. But here we are. So Jason Lukowski came out first. We're gonna hear from him. We're also going to hear from Amber RAs mucin she is the crime lab person who did some DNA testing. She tested, we're going to hear about two parts of Kyle Rittenhouse has gun that she tested the trigger. And you might, when we get to this part of the show, put the popcorn down, cause he might just spring out of your seats to figure out whose DNA was on the trigger. But we're also going to hear about the evidence that was on the barrel of the gun, because they tested that the allegation there being that, uh, Rosenbaum was lunging for the gun. He was trying to grab the gun, but maybe that is not something that actually happened. If his DNA is not on, there is what the prosecution is trying to prove there. So we're going to take a look at those two individuals. First, we got to talk about a juror that got booted off and we're now down to 18 jurors. So our board got updated a little bit. We heard from the defense that they both Mark Richards and from Corey cheer, FEC, nobody else has been presented thus far, of course, uh, because it's not, their turn will be shortly. And so we were down to 18 jurors. Now, second juror got dismissed from the Kyle Rittenhouse case before the trial began on Friday. I think I have a clip of this. We're going to see if it, if I have it, another juror was dismissed and not even a big deal yesterday, we heard about juror number, whatever the jurors number was, but it was our 20th juror got booted out for that very inappropriate, illegal joke that offended Thomas binger about Jacob Blake, which we can't repeat here. Cause it's too illegal. But what happened of course is they got that, that juror got booted out. Many people were thinking, oh, maybe this is a cascade. Maybe there's something else wrong happening here. And there's going to be a domino effect. And we're going to have to declare a mistrial at some point, not really juror requested the dismissal for medical reasons and attorneys for both sides had no problem with that. So, you know, I don't know, maybe a bored to death or, uh, feeling queasy from being on a merry-go-round of insanity. I don't know, probably that call your doctor because it has been a lot of that lately. Uh, we also had a little bit of an open mic flub, a moment from judge Schrader apparently said something like, oh God, this feels like it's been going on forever. That's a quote, Adam Rogan posted this on Twitter, said trial is scheduled through next week. And we also have binger, I think in a clip who is, uh, calling the judge out on that a little bit prosecutor, Thomas binger, according to Kenosha news, let the Kenosha county circuit judge Bruce Schrader know that he was captured at a live mic during one of the breaks in the proceedings the day before Schrader acknowledged that he had remarked on the length of the proceedings. And there's been a communication with video pool provider about avoiding that in the future. Not sure if I got that clip, but it did happen. Now we're going to jump into the witnesses. And so, uh, as I mentioned, we're going to see several of them today. Uh, not, not immediately in this segment, we are going to hear from, uh, Carrie Ann Swartz. She testified today. We're going to talk about her in the next segment. We also heard from Susan Hughes. Now these are people who are connected to the alleged victims in the case, we know count one first degree, reckless homicide, that involved Joseph Rosenbaum. And so Carrie Ann Swartz Rosenbaum's fiance. So you might be asking yourself, oh well, was she there? Did she see anything? Was she holding him back? Was she we're gonna find out same thing here with Susan Hughes and Anthony Huber. Very nice lady. Why would she be down there in a war zone in the middle of Kenosha? Who knows? But we're going to hear about that later on in the show in a different segment. But of course we're talking about two different dates and so let's just get our bearings straight. The 24th was a Monday that's when all the fires happened shortly thereafter, the people who still had businesses there and still wanted to protect their property in their livelihoods, they set up shop and they decided that they were not going to let that happen again on the 25th. And so for a long time in this trial, we've been having a whole bunch of conversations about what happens on the 24th about fires and dumpsters. And were you there and were you there and all this stuff. And a lot of it is sort of not particularly useful to the prosecution because it's showing that it was kind of a war zone, but for whatever reason, they keep wanting to dig into that and sort of are making this implication that the 25th was a lot less bad than it was on the 24th. Cause it actually was maybe because there were people like Kyle Rittenhouse out there on the streets of Kenosha, who knows, but we are going to be hearing now from other people getting their perspective on what was going on on the streets in Kenosha. And here is Thomas binger now asking our first witness of today, which was Jason Lukowski date five of the trial Rittenhouse case. And this is where he's specifically talking about[inaudible] interactions with Rosenbalm. Remember yesterday, we heard a lot about this. We heard from Balta about it. We heard from McGuinness about it. We've heard from all government witnesses saying that Rosenbaum was kind of a hot head, kind of an aggressor hyper aggressive, according to Ryan bulge and was out there starting stuff, trying to light stuff on fire. And everybody was trying to hold this guy back. So then prosecutor binger says, look, I, you were part of Rittenhouse, his crew, you were there on the ground. Tell us what you saw that day. Here's lockout

Speaker 2: 10:12

Enter what specifically in his banter, did you construe as a threat to harm you? Is

Speaker 3: 10:18

I really didn't see him as a threat at all, to be honest with you, but it would be his false stepping and his banter saying, shoot me explicit term.

Speaker 2: 10:27

Did you interpret him saying, shoot me as a threat to you? No. Did you interpret it as a threat to anyone else? No.

Speaker 1: 10:39

Okay.

Speaker 2: 10:40

How long did Mr. Rosenbalm continue this behavior before you turned your back on him and walked away?

Speaker 3: 10:48

I'm not sure, but it wasn't very long. He'd done it. Maybe one or two times then I just ignored it.

Speaker 1: 10:54

Okay. So again, government's witness not great facts for the government. Sounds like Rosenbalm, uh, was out there making threats more or less, or, or sort of not making direct threats towards this gentleman. Lukowski but making provocative statements, let's say not threats. Something like, shoot me, shoot me. Right. And being her comes out and says, well, that wasn't a threat to you. He wasn't saying I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to shoot you. Was he? No, he, but he was being antagonistic. He was being a jerk. He was being, you know, kind of an a-hole out there say, well, shoot me, shoot me. And this guy, Jason says, I didn't even have any, give it a moment's notice. Didn't even give him the time of day, give him like less than a second. He'd already done it two times before that. And you heard him get a little bit snippy with this prosecutor, say, I didn't even take it as a threat to be candid. Yeah, no, I didn't take anything. He said as a threat because I wasn't threatened by this moron out there on the streets of Kenosha, because if he would have stepped up inappropriately, if he would've kept, you know, if he would've become a threat, it would have been ended because this guy, as I said is on team Kyle he's part of the defense. He would be, if you said, sir, how do you vote in this case? Kyle's innocent or guilty? What do you say? Yes or no? What's he going to say innocent all day, 100%. Same thing that happened yesterday, Ryan Baltz was laughing at, at, at, at sort of the, the banter that Kyle Rittenhouse threw at the woman who said F you to him. And he said, love you too. Ma'am you know, they're all on team Kyle. And these are government witnesses that they're calling and they're getting some pretty bad answers. Like I understand the fact that they don't have a lot of witnesses, but if you don't have a lot of witnesses and you have a very weak case, guess what the solution to that is, don't charge it. Don't file charges in the first place dummies. You don't have to bring a case where the evidence is terrible. And so he comes out and it's the same story that we had from yesterday and it doesn't stop there. So here we have, again, this was an interesting clip because he actually tells us sort of about the, uh, the pandemonium that was happening while all this was going on, which again, sort of serves the written house defense that he was responding immediately to a direct threat. And there was a lot of chaos going on that arguably was not started by Kyle Rittenhouse. Remember that we already heard previously from the government's testimony in prior days, that the first of the eight bullets that went off was from[inaudible] or[inaudible] people. It had nothing to do with Rittenhouse. It was after that. And it was simultaneous more or less with that. But bullet number one of the eight, seven or two through eight were all written houses, but not the first ones, not the very first one that came out of that gun. And so we hear from Jason here, he says, yeah, I mean, look, Rittenhouse came up to me, said something don't even remember what it was. There was gunfire all over the place. And essentially I blacked out here's Jason in court today, Rittenhouse day three, now day five.

Speaker 3: 13:48

There's an alleyway there. And then the Lawtons offense line. And then from there, uh, Mr. Rittenhouse came up to me, he had said, I don't remember exactly what he had said, but it said something to me. And then I had told him to run toward the police, which he did. I had followed him a little ways, but then there was gunfire behind me. So I turned around to attempt to assess that. And then once again, there was gunfire behind me. And at that point, that is when pretty sure I have locked out. Remember that? Anything after that, you said you pretty sure you blacked out. Yes, because I don't remember anything. The next thing I remember is helping out with gage.

Speaker 1: 14:35

So there you have it. Then now we've got Jason. Lukowski basically saying it was like a war zone gunshots all over the place. And it's the same testimony that we've heard from a number of, uh, additional government witnesses. Not ideal. Now the same thing if missed our show yesterday, man, the prosecutor binger came out and did this repeatedly. He would call these witnesses up. He called McInnis up. He called ball chop and he basically ran them through his entire direct examination, bringing out all of their testimony, laying it all out. And at the very end called them. Liars said, uh, you, uh, all you kind of said something on Tucker Carlson, didn't you Richard McGinnis. That is a little bit different today. He was impeaching him using his prior inconsistent statements saying on Tucker Carlson, you used the word fall here today. You're using the word lunge. Why are you such a liar? Richard McGinnis is what Thomas binger was implying. And then he turned right around and did it to Ryan bulge his own witness again. Uh, sir, you actually lied directly to the media when they asked you, if you knew who Rittenhouse was, you knew who he was, didn't you and you didn't tell him liar going. Wow. Okay. Well I wonder, uh, Hmm. Wonder how that's gonna work out for them because if they bring in other witnesses that, that have a completely different story, what does that do? Legally speaking while it introduces reasonable doubt because you have two competing narratives. If you have two witnesses, you have several like three of them, McGuinness Lukowski and ball to come out and say one thing. And a bunch of other witnesses would come out and say something different while you've just created doubts about how the underlying incident took place in the first place. So they're in there now if the defense came out and if they came out in every single witness had written houses, a murderer, the defense came out and said, no, he isn't. That makes sense. But in logical inconsistencies within the government's own story is reasonable doubt. Naturally speaking. So he does it again here with Jason[inaudible] after all of that full morning of testimony. Yeah, but you're just a liar. Aren't you? Jason is what Thomas binger said today.

Speaker 2: 16:49

There were also people that were saying that the shooter was with your group at that time when they were saying that to you, you knew that was true, correct? Yes. Is it fair to say that you didn't volunteer that information at that time? I did not. Were there police cars nearby at that moment in time?

Speaker 3: 17:16

I believe there was a police blockade on the west side of

Speaker 2: 17:27

63rd street. Did you ever approach any of the police that night and tell them what you knew? No.

Speaker 1: 17:36

Nope.

Speaker 2: 17:37

After dealing with the things that you dealt with at 63rd street car source.

Speaker 1: 17:44

All right. So that was the end of that club. Uh, you didn't tell the police and you didn't report it to the media and didn't do anything. Did you? And he's just, no, I didn't know. I didn't know. I didn't do any of that stuff now. I didn't do any of it. So it's sort of as though this guy was, uh, defending Rittenhouse, was he trying to hide something? Was he being mischievous, concealing evidence, huh? Well, he sounds pretty, uh, you know, uh, not trustworthy, which is weird. Why would the government call him them then? So it's a really logically, bizarre thing that the government's doing on every one of these people, but okay. It's binger who knows what the hell he's doing, but he's doing what he's doing. So he moves on to his next witness and this person is a part of the government now. Uh, and so maybe you start to think that a government witness might be useful for the government because Lord knows that, uh, thus far, most of them have not. So we finally get to this woman, her name is Amber RAs mucin and she reads from a crime lab statement. Like many of these criminalists do at crime labs. Yeah. I hope you're watching criminalists out there. Oh yeah. We're real sophisticated scientists. All right. Whatever. All right. So Amber RAs mucin is going to be analyzing some crime lab data and some DNA for us. So here's a, what she has to say. We're going to be analyzing a couple of different parts of the firearm. Of course, Rittenhouse had, uh, an AR 15 style weapon. I think it was an MNP, something like that. And, uh, had his hands on it presumably. And there was some back and forth about whether Rosenbalm the guy, the bald guy with the red maroon shirt, whether he actually had lunged for the gun and whether his hands landed on the gun. And this is part of the self-defense theory. And we start to remember yesterday on the, on the segment about Richard McGuinness, there was a lot of conversations about whether Rosenbaum was falling or he was lunging or he was momentum going forward. Right. It was a very convoluted, nonsensical dialogue that happened between those two people, but it happened. And some of the elders, the allegations were that Rosenbaum was lunging. What for the gun? So did he touch it and did Rittenhouse swing the firearm in a, in a, in a manner that actually had physical contact with Rosenbalm? Who knows? Because if it refrozen bombed, didn't touch the gun. Oh, well then what does that mean? Well, it means that he wasn't a direct threat and Kyle shot him unnecessarily and he's a murderer. That's what they're trying to get at here. There was no contact. Kyle was just this trigger, happy little 17 year old punk who was across the street, who was just aiming, trying to pick off protesters or whatever who were running around all over the place. It wasn't self-defense in fact, he tripped over his shoelaces. He fell, the whole thing was a misunderstanding. Kyle just shot him without any physical contact whatsoever. So if we break this up into two segments, one, the trigger, groundbreaking revelation coming, and then we also have the barrel, the barrel guard of the actual firearm itself. So we've got two clips coming up from Ms. Rasmussen crime lab, forensic scientists here. She is

Speaker 4: 21:04

This case. It is this case related to the Cal written house. This report led to the COVID Rittenhouse case. Oh, look it up. Yes. And what did you receive to test for DNA in this case?

Speaker 5: 21:17

In this case, we received three sets of swabs from a firearm, two sets of swabs from an ammunition magazine and three standard or reference samples from known individuals. What is

Speaker 4: 21:30

The standard or reference sample

Speaker 5: 21:33

A standard or reference is that[inaudible] profiles.

Speaker 4: 21:37

Anthony Huber and Kyle Rittenhouse. Yes. We'll swab. What is that blood standards? What are the processes done?

Speaker 5: 21:47

And a long-handled Q-tip. And

Speaker 4: 21:51

Did you find any DNA on any of those swabs?

Speaker 5: 21:56

Yes.

Speaker 4: 21:57

Where did you find DNA?

Speaker 5: 21:59

There was DNA detected on all five of those evidentiary items.

Speaker 4: 22:05

And what did you do once DNA was detected.

Speaker 5: 22:09

I attempted to develop a profile from each of those and then attempted to interpret those profiles and make any comparisons to those.

Speaker 4: 22:18

Now for the trigger swab, was there any, uh, DNA found on the, from the trigger swab? Yes. And who was the source of that DNA?

Speaker 5: 22:30

A single source male profile was obtained from the swabs, from the trigger and Kyle Rittenhouse house is the source of that DNA profile.

Speaker 1: 22:39

Oh my goodness. Everybody. Can you believe this? Kyle Rittenhouse pulled the trigger in this gun? Wow. I told you, I hope you were holding onto your popcorn right there because, uh, I think the case has been solved cases over case closed. Yeah. Kyle Rittenhouse shot the gun. Okay. Now listen. Yes. I know I'm being kind of a punk about it. Yeah. They got to prove their case right there. They're saying murder. Obviously they need a murder weapon. They need somebody who pulled the trigger. So all this isn't a necessity, but I got to tell you, we spent a lot of day, a lot of the day-to-day, uh, talking about ballistics and firearms and all this stuff about testing and all this stuff. We know that Kyle Rittenhouse shot him. Nobody's disputing that, right? This is all gone out the window. When we started to see how the actual defense that was being crafted by Mark Richards and Corey cheer, FEC actually was developing. This was not going to be a, we're going to knife you at every which way type of defense. We're not going to fight over every single syllable or every even line of questioning don't care. Tuck submit whatever videos you want, call whatever witnesses you want, ask them, whatever questions you want. We don't care because it's self-defense yeah. He shot him. He shot him multiple times. Shot him hard. Shot him. Good. What a shot him again. If he had the chance and want to done it multiple times, if he had the unfortunate circumstance of being put there again, I had no problem with that because it was a justified shooting. So you don't have to argue about anything, call in whatever you want, submit whatever you want. And so when you spend a lot of time talking about ballistics and testing, as we're going to see it's all just around the margins, it's all. Okay. It doesn't again. That's great. What are you going to say? That they, it, they tested the bullets improperly and they don't match somebody else shot Rosenbalm okay. Well then that's a pretty, that would be very important. And if that happens, I'll come back here and eat my words. Kyle written out the defense comes out, Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't even there. He was in Florida done, done. And then who shot? You know, who's really responsible. Okay. It's pretty, it's the nuts and bolts of this thing are not complicated. And so it, you know, people are trying to twist it all into a pretzel. So here is now Amber Rasmussen, who is coming back out and saying, oh, in addition to the big gigantic revelation that Kyle Rittenhouse pulled the trigger on this puppy. Also we tested the barrel of the rifle now was Rosen bomb's DNA on there. Listen to this gigantic long red statement from our very astute forensic scientists. Here she is.

Speaker 4: 25:26

It's finding his swabs from the barrel guard. Is that a part of a gun? Yes. And, uh, what were the findings on the barrel guard?

Speaker 5: 25:35

The barrel guard contained a mixture of DNA. So there was DNA present from at least two people. This contained DNA from at least one male. And assuming that there were two people present, I was able to do a comparison to each of the three different individuals in this case. Would you like me to read those results?

Speaker 4: 25:58

Let me ask you one question before you get into, you said you used a process or a procedure called S T R mix just briefly. What is that

Speaker 5: 26:07

STR mix?

Speaker 4: 26:09

Is this the standard you use when there are potential mixtures,

Speaker 5: 26:14

Not use the software and we can do the, for the barrel guard. This was a two person mixture. And assuming there are two people present, we compared two different hypotheses or propositions or explanations for the data. The first explanation is that this DNA profile came from the person of interest in an unknown individual. And the second is it came from two unknown individuals. So in this case, there were three persons of interests, which were each compared separately to that mixture profile. There was strong support for exclusion, for Joseph D Rosenbalm. It is at least 70,000 times more likely to observe the DNA profile. If it is a mixture from two unknown individuals, then it is a mixture resulting from Joseph Rosenbalm and an unknown individual. There is very strong support for exclusion for Anthony M. Huber in this mixture, it is at least 2 billion times more likely to observe this DNA profile. If it is a mixture resulting from two unknown individuals, then Anthony M. Huber and another unknown individual. And there is very strong support for inclusion for Kyle H Rittenhouse. It is at least one quadrillion times more likely to observe this DNA profile. If it is a mixture resulting from Kyle Rittenhouse and an unknown individual, then if it is a mixture resulting from two unknown individuals,

Speaker 1: 27:47

Nice reading, well done. So am I understanding

Speaker 4: 27:50

That there's strong support to exclude Joseph Rosenbalm and Anthony Huber on that DNA swab on that DNA analysis, but very strong support to include Kyle Rittenhouse? Yes.

Speaker 1: 28:02

No. All right. Well done long drawn out process in order to get that out. Now, the reason why I wanted to play the whole thing is not. So you could listen to, you know, that, that a big explanation, which is, you know, reading from a statement, which is what happens in a lot of these things, and it's just going through it. Somebody else does the analysis and then come in and read it. And well, you know, I just follow the procedures is all I do. Probably a very nice woman don't mean to belittle Amber Ross. Mucin probably does a great job, whatever. So what we're talking about though, is the barrel of the gun, whether there's DNA on it. And it took like 60 seconds for her to breathe through the whole thing. And then it's finally this. So what's the point? What do you want us to take away from that? The jury, their eyes have glazed over. I almost fell out of my chair listening to that whole statement right there. It's about 90 seconds long. And the judge as we started in this segment is bored out of his mind. The judge is like, uh, on Thursday, the judge is like, is this thing over yet? He made a statement to the public about it. And then we get a day of this crap and you go, uh, yeah, it's pretty, they tested the gun for DNA on the Huber, uh, and uh, on for Rosenbaum. Okay, well, they didn't touch it. Thank you. Great. Next story. And we're going to see a lot more of that as we move on into the next segments, lots of very, very repetitive lines of questioning. Everybody's bored unless you're kind of sick, like, uh, like me and you like to watch this stuff, but great. It's a very repetitive, very drawn out trial thus far, and not much testimony came out from these individuals that helps support the government's case that Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer. It's not there. We're going to carry on. Let's take a quick pause and see what the questions look like over from watching the watchers.locals.com and from our friends on YouTube. I see a couple of super chats came in. Thank you very much, Kylie, for those couple of questions here, little Mandy says, I think the judge would be great on SCOTUS. Well, he'd be certainly entertaining. That'd be for sure. Probably it should get a little better handle on the hearsay rules before ghost gunner says the juror who questioned, who requested the dismissal. It was because she was pregnant. Don't remember the specifics of that. Something related to her pregnancy. Oh, okay. Well, there you go. That's good. And that's the reason why they picked extra jurors so that if that happens, no problem. They can come back later. Yo does, as if the prosecution didn't put on bad for them, witnesses they'd have no witnesses at all. It's true. Yoda. There's really not that many other people. I'm still waiting for the, uh, surprise witness rabbit out of a hat, but don't think it exists. Feisty lady says I watched the full segment from the DNA analyst. She received four swabs to test from the trigger, the barrel, the garden on anywhere along the actual barrel and from two different magazines. So part of the gun barrel that Huber touched didn't doesn't appear to have been swapped. Her tested. Yeah. You know, it's an interesting point because they say that, you know, to them, this is sort of the smoking gun. Oh, they didn't touch the gun, but that's not a necessary requirement in order for you to use self-defense you only don't get to defend yourself. If somebody touches you, you know, it's like that game. You play with your, your, your brother. I'm not touching you. I'm not touching don't ever touch me again. I'm not, I'm not touching you. And you're just like, you know, one millimeter away from them. My little brother used to do that. Crap. Get out of here, don't touch me, but I'm not touching you get out of my room while I'm not in your room. Yes you are. No, I'm not. I'm right on the line, but I'm not in there. That's not how self-defense works in this case, just because they didn't touch physically touch it. He was running after him around the corner. So thank you for letting us know that there was no physical contact there, but this isn't a, we don't need to identify the murder weapon. Yeah. Kyle Rittenhouse had it. We know that. So what are you doing? Like, you know, in some of this stuff, you know? Yes. Look, I know that that they have to prove their case, but you know, you could stipulate to a lot of this. You could just say, yeah, look, Kyle shot the person. There was a, there was a gun that went off and Kyle had the gun in his hand. So easy as that, we have another one from N Y renal says the testimony of Sara Quill and Gabapentin from Rosenbalm girlfriend opened the door for the defense should have asked why he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Why couldn't stay with his girlfriend. He had no contact order for violence against his girlfriend, Sarah corals. And anti-psychotic girlfriends testified. He was off his meds. We're to get to her in the next segment. No doubt about that. That was some interesting testimony. We've got LA LA medic says, when you get to Rosenbalm girlfriend, my comment applies as the paramedic, the witness either lot. We're going to get to her next as the witness either lied or was ignorant. Seroquel is an anti-psychotic psychotic, not a sleeping medicine. Last I checked use the sleeping medicine. Gabapentin side effects can cause sleepiness. It's not prescribed for sleeping. Yeah. Okay. So that's from LA medic. So we've got a couple of doctors, medical pros who, who, you know, are contributing to the conversation there. Now I don't, I didn't really spend much time on any of that. I don't listen what we're going to get there in the next segment, but I'm going to explain why I don't. It really doesn't matter what was going on in Rosen. Bomb's head. It doesn't matter at all. He could have been on zero medication. Insane. He could have been of sound mind doesn't matter. Chanel come says the prosecutor's witnesses had been so bad. I sent the conspiracy by the da. He had to bring up Kyle on charges only because the ongoing violence in the media pressure knowing full well, there was not a valid case now with BLM and the riot so far in the past, he just wants it over. So he told him, Lord, little binger, show up, do what? You can just get it over with, cut them loose. That's from[inaudible]. There may be something to that. I mean, I, it's hard to believe that these guys are like legitimate legitimately, like thinking of their cases are good. Three girls. He says, Julio. Rosa is a journalist from town hall was on Tucker a little bit ago, said that he was there and that he knows McGinnis. Personally. He said the way McInnis described it in court was correct. He said that he took video of the incident, was standing at the gas station at some point. Very interesting interview. I'll have to take a look at that. I have not seen that missed out last night. We didn't get off here until nine 30 last night. Long night sniper says DNA lady got handled, cannot believe the prosecution didn't object or redirect. And the court car source brothers widened the defense asked if they told the armed individuals to leave their property. It's a good question. Sniper. It's a good question. I don't know why they didn't ask that probably because they didn't have any authority or any knowledge that they were there or have any relevance to the situation at all. As far as I can tell the dogs have a, have a bit of an alternate theory for binger. Maybe being her feels really bad for Kyle knows he's innocent. No something else was making him go after Kyle. Maybe he was just doing it for looks. And the story developed as time went on, binger felt bad, but didn't want to go back and look a fool. So decided to throw the trial away. It was kind of obvious could prove the case, you know, hashtag conspiracy that's from the dark. I don't think it's that. I don't think that this is anything that's intentional. When I was joking yesterday about this is just how prosecutors are. I was only sort of halfway joking. You know, there are prosecutors out there that they get their mind fixated on something and they just don't let go. I mean, look, look, it's just like anything else in society, right? Like pick, pick any political issue, pick any issue that delineates people aggressively pick COVID for example, right? The VAX versus the unboxed, the ventilators who want to mandate everything versus the people who just sort of snubbed their noses at any type of restriction, right? You've got these two parallels on different ends of the spectrum. And there's a, there's a percentage of people in those buckets that will never change no matter what types of conversations you want to have with them, regardless of where you find yourself on that spectrum, same type of thing can happen here. You can have a prosecutor that just says no, uh, this happened. I believe it, nothing is going to change my mind. Nothing at all. And he's probably getting accolades. The DA's office is probably saying, this is a, this is an important case. You've got to go out there and win this thing. If you do, you're going to get a promotion. He's probably got a political ambition to write, wants to write a book about it, going to be the savior of something. I don't know. Right. But he's got an end in mind. It's not some grand conspiracy. This is just standard prosecution. You know, moving their way up the chain. I don't think it's anything out of the ordinary brig says, uh, on the brouhaha over Hoover's great aunt's testimony that Hoover would have run into a dangerous situation. It is my opinion that all three missed the point. Judge prosecution, defense prosecution brought it up. Well, let's save this. We're going to, we're going to we'll pause here on the questions. And then we'll take that in the next segment. I saw some super chats come in and I saw our boy Viva fries in the house says, keep on, keep on, keeping on Robert. Good to see you Veeva. You know, I want to connect with you. I'd love to connect with you in barns and talk a lot about this stuff. I know that you guys have been really busy driving all over the place, flying all over the place, hitting the big shows. Super cool. So we'll have to connect. I know there's a lot of trials going on. We've got Arbery. We've got Colin. Maxwell's coming up. We've got of course Rittenhouse that all eyeballs on that one. So we'll have to connect. I'd love to talk to you guys and get your thoughts. We'll have to have to connect. Thanks for swinging by Veeva. Loved the work, keep it up. We've got, Jacob says watching the DNA lady this morning and then watching the defense, destroy her with the picture of them touching the gun made me gasp. Why is she up there? I don't think I saw that part. Did they show her the picture? Uh, and uh, so that's right. They did. I, I did skip over that. I don't think I clipped that for today. Yeah, because she says that you can touch it, but not transferred DNA. I think I saw that watermelon sugar high says Kyle did not know. McGuinness was a friendly running with a raised phone while a gunshot was fired. Please help me get this through. Yeah. He didn't know that. And I don't think that that changes the charging analysis from the prosecution. He didn't have to know that they're saying that he was reckless and it was reckless endangerment because anybody who would have been behind the shots that went into Rosenbalm would have been in the zone in the zone that would have caused them to be, you know, in a danger zone, leading to endangerment. They're saying that Kyle, just by the nature of firing the gun was being reckless and Guinness was nearby. Therefore he was endangered. So it sort an extension of just the fact that he fired the shots operation reciprocity says gross. Crude said my only regret is I didn't kill him. Are those public statements admissible? Um, if he testified, I think that you could get that in. He would, he'd be able to come in and you'd be able to talk to him about a state of mind. And that goes to his state of mind back then. And uh, I'm not sure if we're going to hear that hear from him, they're trying to protect him. Remember they didn't want the search warrant. And I don't know what Marsy's law says about calling victims. Hmm. Very interesting. Good question. That's from operation reciprocity. I'll have to, I'll have to look into that and see what the 4, 1, 1 is on gross Kreutz and we had that from Jacob Joshua. My gosh says this case is in the bag in favor of Kyle. Does your law firm handle discrimination in the workplace cases in California? No, we don't. We only do criminal law and we only do it here in Arizona. We do one thing. We want to do it. Well, we do it here locally in our home base. We do a good job. We like to say so sorry. I don't know who that would be. You know, typically what I tell people to do search on YouTube right here, where you're watching the show, go find a discrimination lawyer in California, who is putting his money where his mouth is on YouTube. And give him a call. Chris Solado says, Christo Solado says thank you for your spot on insights. Well, that's really nice, Christo. I don't know how spot on they are, but I appreciate the encouragement. I I'll I'll I'll keep, I'll keep, uh, sputtering out stuff. And then you can be the judge of whether they're insightful or not. All right. And those are great questions and support and super chats over from our friends@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and on YouTube. And so let's jump into the next segment next up in the written house trial day five, we have several people related to the alleged victims who came into court today and testified. Let's take a look at our board. We know that we just talked about Jason Lukowski. We know that Amber RAs mucin the DNA crime lab experts at the government brought in. They testified all on day five. And so we kind of got them out of the way in a different part of the show. Now we've got a big handful of people, including Susan Hughes. We see her here and she is actually Anthony Huber's aunt. For some bizarre reason. She got called into testified. Uh, no indication that she was there. You can see that Anthony Huber over here is no longer with us. He was deceased. You can see this image of him is him swinging a skateboard at Rittenhouse, his head who happens to be lying there on the ground. And so the government called, uh, his aunt in to come and talk about him. Now we're going to get into that because there was a back and forth between the judge and the defense about this habit and character evidence that they started to talk about. She comes in and starts sort of opining about what Huber was like. We'd get into an argument about how relevant that really is. So we'll get into that. We're also going to hear from Rosenbaum's fiance. This is Carrie Ann Swartz. She talked a little bit about Rosenbaum's mental condition and his, uh, prescriptions and them living in a tent homeless together. So, Ooh, interesting testimony there as well. And then we hear from these two car source guys, uh, about whether they gave anybody permission to actually, I guess, protect their property. People like Kyle Rittenhouse and his crew. So we've got four people that we're going to fly through here today. And we're going to just really be paying most attention to the direct examination. Of course, we're still in the government's case in chief, these are their witnesses. These are their stars that they want to come in here to help them prove their case. The Rittenhouse committed those six counts plus that a curfew violation. And so we're going to start off with Susan Hughes. Anthony Huber's aunt looks like a very nice lady. And she's in here today talking about Anthony Huber. And she gets a question from the prosecutor who I think is related to her. They actually might be relatives. I'm not sure you have to be the judge of this, but I think they're related. And he's asking her what Anthony Huber run into danger. Would he run into a horrible horrific situation? Here's how that goes.

Speaker 4: 42:54

We've seen video here. Uh, and you may have seen video as well that Anthony Huber, uh, ran towards Kyle Rittenhouse well covered in house was armed. Um, were you surprised when you heard about that, were you surprised by his actions?

Speaker 1: 43:15

Surprise. It's sustained.

Speaker 4: 43:19

And again, had you ever seen Anthony Huber run towards danger? Yes.

Speaker 1: 43:26

Objection,

Speaker 6: 43:28

Sustained.

Speaker 4: 43:30

As to which ground

Speaker 6: 43:32

Ball

Speaker 1: 43:38

Dig, dig.

Speaker 6: 43:43

Well, maybe it's certainly on the second

Speaker 1: 43:46

Job, judge doesn't know either

Speaker 6: 43:49

Having our customer.

Speaker 4: 43:52

We've heard nothing about having a custom evidence in this case. We've heard nothing but having a custom evidence.

Speaker 6: 43:58

Well, um, first off you don't need to comment on the ruling. Secondly, there are different rules. Ooh. And we've been talking about this all along. There are different rules. Let's take a break, please. Don't talk about the case lunches here and a read. Watch your lesson on any account of the trial and um, um,

Speaker 1: 44:21

Uh, oh, uh, oh, James not good there. So they start getting into this conversation about habit and custom and you know, you might be asking yourself, huh? What the hell does the AAN have to do with anything? Was she there? Was she standing there? Was she watching what Anthony Huber was doing or have any involvement whatsoever in the case at all? No. So why did they bring her in? Well, because they wanted to ask her this habit and custom evidence. Well, you know, as Anthony hu Huber, is he somebody that regularly swings his skateboard over the head at a smash people in the streets, over the head with it, is that a customer habits, you know, that that's something that some snarky defense attorney like me would say, but that's not what the prosecution brought her in for. Of course they said, isn't Anthony Huber a hero. Isn't he basically like Mel Gibson in Braveheart, running in there towards danger to fight for his country and to stop an active shooter. And the defense says, you can't ask that stupid, irrelevant question. It has nothing to do with anything. Why are you asking that? Objection, judge says sustained. Cause it's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything. And she doesn't know anything about his state of mind officially there. Right? It's all speculation. It's all irrelevant. If she can come in and start just opining about what a great man Anthony Huber was, why don't they just get to bring in somebody who can come in and talk about how amazing Kyle Rittenhouse is? Should they bring Kyle Rittenhouse, his aunt in to say, uh, miss aunt Rittenhouse, tell us about Kyle and about, would he ever murder anything? No, he wouldn't murder anything. That's a relevant evidence. It has nothing to do with anything. That's okay. Yes, that's true. He wouldn't do it. But does that show that he's he's folks it's so frustrating that this is even happening? I can't even, I can't even explain it. I'm getting twisted up. I don't. So here's the point? This, this, this is why this stuff never comes into trial like this because it's not relevant. And the judge has up until this point has been just letting everything kind of come in, loosey goosey. And then when he gets frustrated, when they all get twisted up in the rules, the judge says, Ugh, I guess it's lunchtime because none of it should have, have ever gotten to this point. In other words, Anthony Huber's aunt should never have been called into court unless she had some direct relevant testimony about something that happened there. But it looks like a nice lady. She was probably, I'm not going to say it. Uh, but doesn't, she looks like the prosecutor. I think that they might actually be related. All right. So then we get into the situation where they're having problems about hearsay and about, uh, character, evidence, and about, uh, habits and, uh, evidence that is irrelevant. So it somehow comes in, the judge breaks for lunch. Then they bring out the books and they start hashing this crap out in open court, even though it should have all been done in a pretrial proceeding before the trial ever took place. And then the judge reads, I guess, from the wrong book. And then it just throws the book away in the middle of the trial here. Here's here's, here's what happens when you don't sort this stuff out here. Here's a, here it is.

Speaker 6: 47:44

Number 27 will be excused at her request based upon her sick.

Speaker 1: 47:54

It was actually from this morning. So I actually reversed this clip. So this, this, this is when the judge throws the book away about hubris testimony, but it still is relevant to grandma or to aunt, uh, hubris testimony. He goes, this is what we were talking about. This type of character evidence, and, uh, and, uh, habit evidence here. We are

Speaker 6: 48:13

Medical situation. I, I, he, I thought he indicated, yeah. Okay. Then the other one is a question. I don't see the jurors number on it. Um, uh, but it's one, I wouldn't answer anyway, to be honest with you. Does anyone disagree with that? Yes. All right. Marty's exhibits a and D for today. Okay. All right. So, um, would you ask the juror number? What was it? 27, 27 to come down, please. My haircut anyway, on my list of things. Well, yeah, ran over it and, um, and I spoke to court TV about it, and I gathered it was typical, uh, judge commentary about the, the basic w which is the questioning was proceeding. I just want to make sure you're aware of it. That's all I was aware of it in that, from what I heard, I come in and done, uh, the length of the examination. That was it. Okay. Um, anything else? Okay.

Speaker 1: 49:32

Okay. So that was, my slides are out of order, but that was a clip from earlier in the prior segment where the judge had to excuse a juror. And then he got busted on an open mic for explaining that Thomas binger is just boring the hell out of everybody with his direct examination and 37 different videos that we've all seen multiple angles that all show the same thing. It looks like pretty good case for Kyle Rittenhouse. So that was a, uh, uh, mixed up slide. But of course, want to make sure that we got those, uh, those in and done. So we've got another clip here now we've got Anthony, uh, Huber's aunt back again, Susan Hughes. And this is where they're trying this whole thing again. This is now they're coming back and, uh, trying to resolve this and you'll notice that the original question that was asked about whether he runs into danger, that doesn't come back in

Speaker 6: 50:25

The night of August 25th

Speaker 4: 50:28

Or the end of the morning of August 26th. Uh, when or how did you hear about what had happened to Anthony?

Speaker 7: 50:38

Um, I got a text around midnight, maybe the laughter from Anthony's girlfriend, Hannah saying

Speaker 4: 50:49

We don't even get the context of it. That would be called hearsay. Um, and then did you ever receive any further communication about, uh, let me ask you this way. When did you find out that he had, uh, he had died. Okay. Watch,

Speaker 7: 51:01

Uh, much later it was maybe five 30 in the morning.

Speaker 1: 51:08

Look at the eyes. And

Speaker 4: 51:10

How old was Anthony when he

Speaker 7: 51:11

Died? Uh, he had turned 26 a couple of days before.

Speaker 1: 51:16

Yeah. Okay. So you can see exactly what that testimony was all about. Right? She comes out. She does. She's very dramatic. Ah, oh gosh. I don't know. And then they were going to go down that road. Oh, tell us more about Anthony. Tell us more about, uh, because he's more, he's one of the more sympathetic victims, you know, allegedly here of anybody. He is somebody who may have been trying to stop an active shooter. And so the government wants to make that case. We know that that's where this narrative is going. They already brought out the DNA expert person to come in and say, well, he didn't touch him. So it's not self-defense because Rosenbalm was not the aggressor. Because yesterday we learned that the FBI showed video, that kind of shows that maybe he was being chased by Rittenhouse. If you only watch it in a narrow scope, if you watch it further back, you can kind of see the full thing, but they don't want you to watch it fully. So you get it. Now we're stacking all these things back on top of one another. So what do they need to do now to show that Huber is somebody who is not an aggressor, like Rosenbaum was Huber. Well, he was trying to stop an active shooter. Rosenbalm wasn't an aggressor either. He tripped over a shoelace. He was falling after Rittenhouse was chasing him. And so what they have to do is, is, is in order for them to overcome Kyle Rittenhouse, his self-defense claim, which is triggered when there is a vocation, somebody provoking them. They have to show well that these people, that Kyle shot were provoking them. Otherwise it triggers the self-defense with justifies the shoot. So then what we have to do is justify everything that Huber was doing. So they bring out aunt grandma who goes to the same store as the prosecutor, and they have a conversation or want to have a conversation about how great Huber is about what a nice guy he is. He would, he would always run into danger. He's always trying to save people. He rescues puppies too. When they're about to cross the street and fall down a storm gutter, he's the first person there on the side of the road to make sure they don't go in there. He's a hero. And he is never somebody who would get up and mixed up with the wrong crowd. He out there to save people and saying, Kyle shot him. Right. And talk about all that, which is why at the very end there she says, oh, he just turned 26. Yeah, just a couple of days ago. Yeah. His birthday just a few days ago. Wow. Very sympathetic. That's all she was. And they didn't let that get in. They said, no, it's not relevant. Get it out of here. And the judge said, no, it's not going to come in. He came back and started with a different line of questioning. So you can see what that was not much more relevant from him. And so now we switched back over to Rosenbalm. So we talked now to Carrie Ann Swart, who is Rosenbaum's fiance. Ooh, very lucky lady over there. And she is going to tell us a little bit more about Rosenbaum. And I don't mean to be, you know, overly facetious about the dead. May he rest in peace? But you know, this is, uh, something that is, uh, of the government's doing okay. They are, they are doing all of this dragging all of this out, making Rittenhouse relive all of this, making this woman come out here and talk about all this it's they're doing. And so if they don't want commentary on it, maybe they shouldn't have brought charges. Maybe they should have taken a case that was clearly justified and just let sleeping dogs lie. But they can't do that so well, this is what happens, I guess. So here is Carrie Ann Swart talking about Rosenbalm Rittenhouse day five trial.

Speaker 4: 54:46

Do you know if he was able to procure any medication that day?

Speaker 8: 54:50

He was not able to fill the prescriptions he had because the Walgreens closest to us had been boarded up and closed down due to the chaos that was going on.

Speaker 4: 55:02

Do you know if you know, if he had taken his medications that day? He

Speaker 8: 55:06

Had

Speaker 9: 55:11

[inaudible].

Speaker 1: 55:12

Okay. Long pause. A lot of these today, long pause. He took his medication, but couldn't get a refill at Walgreens. That day video is still going. Prosecutors just hanging out there. No wonder the judge is so bored, it's still going. All right. So it goes on and on and I cut it off. Now I want to make a quick point on these witnesses. Okay. We heard from auntie, uh, Huber, we're hearing from Kerrianne Swartz. And a lot of what the government is trying to do here is to show that these people are good people, which is maybe true. I don't know. It doesn't matter. It's not really relevant. And they're trying to communicate what's going on in these people's minds. What's happening in their brains. Anthony Huber would never hurt anybody, but he'd always rush into danger or rose. And balm was a really nice guy or maybe opposite of that. Maybe he was a monster. Maybe he was off his meds. Maybe he was in fact a lunatic. Okay. All of that is well and good. It's very nice to get context about what Rosenbalm was doing and all of those things, but it's all not necessary in order for Kyle Rittenhouse to invoke self-defense, it's all extra icing on the cake, but you can have a cake without all of that other stuff. Yeah. Rosenbalm may have been, you know, uh, you know, psychotically, deranged, who knows, I don't know. Maybe Huber has made multiple threats to multiple people. Maybe they've got, you know, all sorts of, uh, criminal histories and all of that. This isn't, in my opinion, it look, it doesn't hurt. Okay. If you want to win a case, use all of that. I'm not saying it's totally irrelevant. I'm saying it's not necessary in order to secure a not guilty. It's great. If you can stack it on all on top of it. Yeah. You'll probably get there faster and harder, but you don't need it. So it's not that even big of a deal. What we're talking about here is whether a person in Kyle written house's position objectively there right then, and there would have been able to use self-defense would he have objectively, if somebody in his, his shoes was a reasonable person right then and there would, they have felt justified using deadly deadly force to defend themselves. And Kyle Rittenhouse, when he was sitting there, he doesn't know anything about Anthony Huber's threats to his sisters or any of that stuff. He doesn't know anything about Joseph Rosenbaum's mental disorders or where he was getting his prescription or about his homelessness or any of those things. He has no idea. And so you've gotta be able to justify that shoot without any of that stuff. Just based on the facts that you saw right then and there, and they've got to be able to overcome those, those facts. They've got to be able to show that when Kyle invokes self-defense that they can show that it wasn't, self-defense overcome that affirmative defense and make their case beyond that reasonable doubt. And they've got to do that with, or without all of that other evidence, all of this other evidence it's just icing on the cake. It's yeah, it's useful. Yeah. Huber sounds like he had some problems and a pretty bad criminal record would be very useful if the jury saw that it would add some context, but it's not necessary in order to get a, not guilty because Kyle Rittenhouse didn't know anything about that. He also didn't know anything about the bag or any, or about the medication or any of that stuff. So what a person then in there, knowing what Kyle Rittenhouse knew under those circumstances be justified in the shooting. Absolutely. As far as I can tell, and the government is not shown anything to rebut that what they're trying to do is to show you, well, maybe there's other things going on in their minds. That's okay. If, if Rosenbalm was absolutely nuts or he was a Saint doesn't matter, what we saw in the video was him chasing Rittenhouse, shouting F-you the witnesses have all testified to this, the government's own witnesses and basically acting like a nuts all night long. Does that activity juxtapose with Rittenhouse justify the shoot? Yes or no? Kyle didn't have a five minutes to sit down with Rosenbaum and say, tell me about your prescriptions. Did you get those filled today? Are you on your medications? How many milligrams did you take? None of that happened so we can have conversations about all of this it's okay. I mean, we can, we can talk about Rosenbaum and about, about Walgreens being boarded up, but so what, what does that do with anything? All right, here it is the prosecution called it. Anyways, here she is. This is about the bag

Speaker 4: 59:52

Ms. Swirl, to show you what is marked as exhibit 2060. Recognize that I do. And what

Speaker 8: 59:59

Is that? That is the plastic bag hospital.

Speaker 4: 1:00:02

And, uh, is it true that a few days ago, I showed you a printout of this exact exhibit. And is that the plastic bag that you're referring to, that he brought back from the hospital?

Speaker 8: 1:00:13

Yeah. It's like one of those plastic bags that you just put your clothes and belongings and,

Speaker 4: 1:00:20

And looking at the screen because it seems like there's more items or fewer items are the same items. If you can tell that he had, when he was at your residence,

Speaker 8: 1:00:33

It appears to be the same as the last shot.

Speaker 4: 1:00:35

Can you make out anything in this photograph?

Speaker 8: 1:00:42

I can make, I think he might've had an extra shirt in there that might be, and it looks like the water bottle on the side shirt.

Speaker 1: 1:00:56

Okay. So again, you know, what are they trying to do here? They know what the defense theory is going to be. They're going to say that Rosenbalm was, uh, not only the aggressor. He was provoking the whole situation. He was hiding in. Wait as Mark Richard said he was ambushing Kyle from around the back of the vehicle. When Kyle came around, Kyle said friendly, friendly, friendly words were exchanged. The F words were dropped. Chase goes on bullets or ha you know, happen in Rosenbaum is dead. The defense can even say that. In addition to all of that, that Rosenbalm did he also grabbed the bag and threw something which we all saw on camera and the government submitted 37 exhibits all confirming that for multiple different angles. So he throws that. Was that a weapon? Was that something that had a brick in it that could have hit Kyle Rittenhouse and been considered a deadly weapon that would have justified the Rittenhouse shoot? Well, no, they say, and so they bring her out there. Now it's a bag. There's probably some, uh, some clothes in there. Guy just got out of the hospital, maybe an extra shirt, but nothing that would be a weapon we saw about this yesterday. Heard about this yesterday. Also during the Baltz testimony, when the prosecutor asked him, you said there may have been, you know, illegal chemicals in there for making Molotov cocktails, but you're a liar. Aren't you? There was like soap in there. Something. Yeah, you're right. There was soap in there. Okay. Well done. Great, great, great job. Now, as I've said here, multiple times, it doesn't matter that Rosenbaum didn't have a gun or he didn't have a knife or he didn't have a bazooka or he didn't have an attack helicopter or a nuclear submarine. Doesn't matter. None of that crap matters. It's not necessary in order for it to trigger. Self-defense pull up any self-defense statute anywhere in the country. And tell me if it says you can only use self-defense if somebody has a samurai sword. No, it doesn't. So it doesn't have to have any particular weapon. It's it's about reasonableness and about objective standards and about using reasonable force and about objective beliefs. It's it's not at all what the prosecution is talking about, but they keep bringing this up and up and up and up. Oh, Rosenbaum didn't have a machete. Therefore he is not a threat. Also the bag in case the defense wants to bring this up and say that the bag was some sort of a deadly threat, nothing in there. Just close. Okay. We got it. Don't know why you're so fixated on this thing. You don't need to have a weapon in order for Kyle Rittenhouse to be justified in the shot. Here's another question about, uh, them being homeless together, living in a tent, wandering around all. Okay. Here it is.

Speaker 4: 1:03:27

Uh, where you together all the time, all the time. And you said for a while, you were homeless and uh, you said you were living in a tent, correct. And you were together that entire time all the time. Did, uh, Mr. Roosevelt ever introduce you to someone named Joshua was a Minsky? No. Did Mr. Rosenbalm ever introduce you to someone named Kelly Sieminski no. Did he ever talk about knowing a Josh or a Kelly? No. Do you know Joshua or Kelsey Minsky?

Speaker 1: 1:04:04

No. And again, you know, this is, uh, this is stylistically, just kind of weird. They're asking a lot of questions that they should have already known the answer to. If you don't need to go into all of that, like get in with your witness and get out, get him in, make your point. What's your point, get them back off there. It honestly, it feels like this might be the first time they're having conversations with some of these people. Like they're learning for the first time. This is what their answer is going to be, which is insane. If that's true, you know, they should have had many conversations about this testimony, at least on interviews with these people. But we heard a lot about that even on day two. I think it was when binger was like, surprised that one, one dominate blacks testimony was that everybody else had ARS as well. He's like, oh really? Well, that's kind of a, I wasn't expecting that. Well, did you know it's your witness? Did you talk to him first? So the other point I wanted to make about this clip was the homeless thing. Now I know, listen, I know that this is not going to be sort of a fun, a mental reality check for some people. But when you're, when you're talking about situations like this, I mentioned this yesterday, juries want to do justice. They don't want to wrong people. They want to get it right. They don't want to send to prison who doesn't belong there and they don't want a criminal to go free. Absolutely don't want that to happen. And so they're stuck between this moral quandary. You know, society's asking them to do something and they've got to make this judgment that they're going to have to live with. They gotta sleep at night for the rest of their lives. Okay. This is why this was such a problem in the Shovan trial. How were you going to be a juror in the Shovan trial and live your life? If he is not guilty, if he is acquitted, how you're, you're going to be public enemy, number one is indefinitely. So they all, you know, that weighs on a person that has that, that pressure matters. So here in this situation, what do you have the state laying out for you? And I know it's kind of disgusting to think about this in these terms, but it's true. You've got Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17 year old kid out there, lifeguard somebody who is coming into a war zone, literally that was destroyed the night before to save employees and businesses from burning to the ground. A second night, somebody who was in the middle of this war zone, running out and providing medical aid to people on the streets, as this was all happening versus Joseph Rosenbalm an aggressive drug addict, homeless person, somebody who was just out of the hospital, very likely with some very serious mental disabilities who was lighting fires around all night long, and then attacking kids, threatening people. I'm going to effing kill you. And then actually chasing children under aged kids or the smallest youngest people in the whole community, which one ways better in a jury's conscience. Hmm. Which one is going to make them sleep better at night, sending a 17 year-old kid to prison or quitting somebody who was saving the streets from deranged drug addict, homeless people. I don't know. Tough call on that one. Now we had that last clip. They were living together. They moved back over into the car source employees now. So we have these two gentlemen who come out and they were working at car source. Binger comes out, wants to have a conversation about, uh, did you authorize Rittenhouse to be here? Did you tell them that they could come with their guns and stand on your property? Did you think that this was appropriate? Yes or no. This is say hill Kindree somebody who I think used to work at car source or had something to do with cars, source a lot of irrelevant testimony. We're going to get through it quickly. Here he is.

Speaker 2: 1:08:17

At any point during that Monday or Tuesday, uh, process, did you ever, um, speak with anyone about, uh, protecting any of those locations? No, I actually don't even work there. Okay, awesome. I have no further questions.

Speaker 1: 1:08:37

Okay. So that guy was out there for like two minutes because he doesn't even work there by the way. So he calls out there. Uh, did you, did you authorize this? Did you give them permission? No, man. I, I don't even know where I am right now. What are you talking about? No, I didn't even work their car. What? Carson? No. Somebody got shot. Well, this is crazy. Where am I? Yeah, it's it's uh, it's not even, it's not even relevant. So they go, okay, we're done. No more questions out of you. Thanks for coming in here. Sorry about that. Um, that mix up, they move on to the next car source person. So then we get this fellow over here. I think he's also a relative, also a Kindree and they start going down this line again. Remember what the theme of the government is? Kyle is a reckless outsider who came into our streets with a gun that he did not have permission to have. And he was doing a bunch of reckless things running around. He was underequipped. He was, uh, communicating with people in a way that was, you know, a little bit provocative. And he was also not even supposed to have that gun in the first place. And in addition to not supposed to being ha ha having that gun, he shouldn't even even been at car source either. Didn't even have your permission to be on that property. Diddy Thomas binger, Rittenhouse day five,

Speaker 2: 1:10:01

Um, Tuesday, August 25th. Did you talk to anyone about guarding or protecting either of the car source locations or the car doctor? I did not. You've identified. You're a person that used to work, uh, as a detailer, Nick, uh, in that white hat with the red cross. How, so this is August 25th, 2020. Was he still working with your family companies and he, but he had done so in the past, that was quite far back on that day, August 25th, that Tuesday. Did you talk to Nick Smith that, that individual identity, did you provide keys to anyone on Tuesday, August 25th so they could get in or out of any of the car source locations or car doctor? I did not. Did you offer money to anyone? I just, let me please let me finish. Sure. Uh, did you offer money to anyone, uh, in exchange for them guarding or protecting either of the car source locations or car doctor? I did not.

Speaker 1: 1:11:28

All right. How, how many times can you ask that question? This guy comes out, didn't give anybody permission. Didn't give him keys. Didn't give him access, none of it. And he just keeps going on and on and on. And this is something that I think starts to grate on people. We heard it from the judge earlier today. We already heard that question. Any keys, any access, any security codes, any Venmo, Tran, anything at all? Nothing. Then he does it again. He picks it up. And does it again,

Speaker 2: 1:12:03

Did you give anyone permission to be inside any of the buildings on why their car source location or the car doctor location on Tuesday, August 25th? I did not know. Did you give anyone permission to guard or protect any of those three properties? I did not on that particular evening. Good to know that there were people there with guns who had taken upon themselves to guard any of those car source locations or car doctor. Did you know that night that any of that was going on? I did not. I assume there came a time after that.

Speaker 1: 1:12:52

Good assumption. Yeah. Good assumption. Well done there, Thomas, so look really long, drawn out. Did you know, give him any permission? These are, there are jurors sitting there having to listen to this and it's not that interesting and they've never, you know, they didn't really do a good job establishing that he supposed to know those things. It is a war zone is we're about to hear from the officers again from the government. Let's see what you have to say about this. I see some super chats and some questions coming in from our friends over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Let's get these pulled up. See what you have to say about all this lots of questions, three. He says, apparently Kyle must've removed his gloves at some point, or his DNA would not have been on the trigger. They'd come across the idea that he was not wearing gloves when the shooting happened. I haven't seen that. You know, it's probably just from earlier in the day or from whenever he was picking it up, Kenny one B says, Rob, I get it. I get why the prosecution is calling the witnesses. Then treating them like defense. From your perspective as a criminal defense attorney, that looks bizarre. But from a perspective of a juror who knows nothing about how these cases are argued, these are just people telling stories about what they saw when there are few or no witnesses that actually help your case. You got to discredit everyone. Let the assumption of guilt reinforced by a year of media, do the job for you. It's an interesting conversation. It certainly is. Uh, let's see, somebody says, yeah. Okay. Let me swap over here. Yeah. It's an interesting strategy. Let's see how it works out for them. I don't think it's quite a good one. That was from Kenny one B sorry. I lost my bearings for a second. Thunder seven says binger talks and talks in circles. We wait for a punchline that never arrives. What we've found out with his witnesses is that Rosenbalm was acting like a lunatic setting fires. He was on a rampage, could be dead if they didn't shoot him being her, doesn't have a case, no amount acting like Jack McCoy from law and order. We'll do, like you said a year ago, Rob, this case should have never been brought to trial. That's from thunder seven. Got to fly through some of these cause we've got a ton of questions. Good point there though. Thunder brig says, am I the only one that thinks people might take bigger more seriously? If you lost the ACE Ventura haircut equally watch out. Yeah, he kind of snuck him, says if a man has threatened my life and chased me down and neither either or armed, what if we both see a lead pipe on the floor between us then what if I don't raise him to the pipe? He may use it on me. If I get first, he continues to attack me. Don't I have the right to self-defense if we both get it to the same time and I rested from him and he continues don't I have self-defense if I get it and he tries to get it from me don't I have the right. It's a hell of a question there[inaudible] sounds like a law school exam, but yeah, you could analyze it multiple different ways. And I think it's worth exploring. We have a lot of, of different permutations of this and I think a lot of it depends on well, okay. It kind of depends on your starting point. As we're seeing monster one says, isn't the defense argument that Rosenbalm tried to grab the gun? Not that he did grab the gun. Yes it is. I don't think I've ever heard them say that it was a physical contact there. I'm not gas as Rob. You might be getting a million comments on this, but recommend checking out the news about the FBI rating project Veritas. Ashley Biden diary is legit. I saw headlines on that, but I haven't taken a dive on it, but I will, uh, see the veil says, Hey Rob. So there was a video of Rittenhouse having gloves on at the gas station, locals chat how'd they get the DNA from the trigger. Yeah, probably from just when he was using it, you know, previously when he didn't have the gloves on, he probably just was carrying it around before that possible DNA came from the blood spatter, not touching the gun while they didn't actually find any of the, of the DNA of Rosenbalm on the barrel. In the clip that I played former Leo says DNA, not always retrievable. They didn't test a front sight area that would have been closest to Rosenbalm. So w where he grabbed it. Yeah. And again, it's not critical to their case. It doesn't even really matter to be, to be honest, right? The defense, as I think, I think somebody mentioned the defense is not making that necessary. He doesn't have to grab it in order to justify the shooting. Brig says the defense address, the DNA thing, when they cross the tech that actually took the swab short answer, he swabbed the trigger pistol under side of the handle guard, pick shows, Huber grabbing the top of the hand guard back toward the receiver. They didn't get a sample of where Huber touched it. Okay. So I think you're talking about, yeah, so we're, we're sort of conflating two different things here. We've got the Rosenbalm allegation, which is the man in the, in the maroon who's jumping. Who's not jumping. That was Anthony Huber. Rosenbaum was the first, uh, death. And then Huber was second Huber was the guy chasing with the skateboard. And so they're, they're talking about different people at different times. So we've got to keep them straight. But from the clips I played, there was no, there was not, there was no, um, DNA from either Huber or from Rosenbalm Gandalf says Rosenbalm never felt himself since leaving the Shire. That's from Gandalf, sir. Darren says, does the prosecutor looked like little finger from game of Thrones or what? Yeah, he does actually. And I was saying yesterday that the, um, uh, that cheer FEC looks like that guy from, uh, uh, another HBO one. What's it called? House of cards. Now that's Netflix house of cards, the congressmen, somebody mentioned his name, but I can't remember what it is, but he looks like the congressmen from that show, that alcoholic congressmen, uh, let's see here, snuck him, says listening to ricotta, going to try to get you two together over the weekend to talk about Kyle. Yeah. I think maybe Sunday night, we'll try to do something. Don M in Ohio says gross Kreutz is scheduled for Monday. Ooh, good. I was, I was wondering if they were going to do that today, but it would be bad to do him on a Friday. So Monday sounds good. Brig says how it prosecuting is a Minsky for unlawful possession affect the prosecution's case. So I don't think that it would, uh, and, and somebody actually told me that he was prosecuted. So I don't know what actually happened with that. I don't think it matters. They've already brought, uh, Dominic blacken to testify and they're charging him. So they, they're not opposed to bringing witnesses forward who, uh, who have, uh, been charged, I guess is where I was going with that monster. One says submitted this during the last segment. If isn't the defense argument that Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun. I did. I mentioned that RO yes. The defense said that he was lunging for the gun. Not that that, that there was any actual contact there. We have LA medic says the prosecution still has a duty to state and the families, they have to present their case to the best of their ability. Even if he throws the case out, he could be disbarred. Correct? Uh, I mean, no, I mean, not necessarily. I think that their case is just as bad. It should never have been filed. Yeah. So yes, they do have a duty, right? They're sworn prosecutors to uphold justice. They've got a little badge that they carry around that they're super proud of. And so, you know, they've got victims and they've got victims families, and they've got people who are in their ears saying, go get justice for my son. He was a total innocent victim in this case, go do justice. And you've got all of the politicians, right? Who are, you know, making decisions about what happens over at the county attorney's office, telling them my constituents are because this happened and this happened. So it's all very political. If he, if he chooses not to bring it, then you could, you could justify that. And I don't think that alone would be enough to disbar him, but it would be something that, you know, would, would be within his purview. There are decisions to charge and to decline charges all the time. He just has to have justification for it. The decision alone is not going to be what would result in disbarment. It would be a bad decision. We have a couple others monster wants as Seroquel, definitely prescribed as a sleeping med. They do it all the time. We have brig says the habit and custom question was nothing but an attempt to prejudice the jury. Uh, yes, I think so too.[inaudible] says the prosecution was treading water at the start of the day. I feel like they were dunked on with their first two witnesses. DNA lady was worthless. Only really hurt them. But as soon as the objection for Hoover's aunt came in, they started to sink like the Titanic, hilarious watching Riketa today during this timeframe, I'm sure it was because they're all just sort of looking at each other, like what's happening right now, not good. And you can see why the defense is just so lackadaisical because they it's just a slow motion, train wreck, just let it happen. See Rowe says this Wisconsin administrator, so to share the same bizarre rule that allows emotional testimony by family members that doesn't violate whatever the state's equivalent is a 4 0 3, which is the probative rule, the ant and finances testimony. Remind me of the mayonnaise and banana sandwiches. The Floyd brothers used to eat. Oh yeah. When they used to go hooping when they were doing hooping all the time. Oh yeah. We used to go hooping. I'm sure you did. Sure. Did George Floyd used to love a good day of hooping? I'm sure. So, okay. So, uh, I don't know what the rules are there in Wisconsin or what that, what that emotional testimony is, you know, that type of stuff would be relevant and sentencing. If somebody is convicted. Yeah. You bring in, you know, the family and they can cry their eyeballs out, but it's not relevant to the actual determination of innocence or guilt. We have, uh, Don Ammann, Ohio says the judge, his book had a misprint, said, defendant should have said to Seaton. So I chucked it in the trash. Also stated earlier that it was a 1992 print. It's probably, he's probably had it that entire time. Right. He's been on the bench forever. Monster. One says, why is the aunt's testimony relevant? Don't know. Uh, but you know, again, a lot of this stuff, like we don't know what kind of conversations they had with, uh, you know, before trial, they might have agreed to bring in these witnesses and talk about some of this stuff. And then the judge said, yeah, I want to hear it before. I don't want to hear it anymore. Cause that's what he's been saying this whole time. Most this stuff in a normal case gets fleshed out before court. Just like what happened in Shovan remember all those pretrial motions that we talked about. And none of this stuff happened where the judge is like, well, let's get the books out and look at a book from 1992. It didn't happen. Doesn't often happen. This is a little bit unusual. All right. Let's pause. Let's see. What's going on over at YouTube. We've got a couple of super chats that came in another one from, oh yeah. We've got several of these here today. Let's get these in. We've got Ryan Johnson was here. Oh, wait a minute. This is a big one. We got to pause on this one. Yeah. This is a big one. My goodness. Woo. This is from law school through a service dogs. Eyes says, just found out. I passed the July bar. Shout out my friend. Whoop whoop. That's awesome. Congratulations. Seriously. Congratulations. We had, um, we had a couple, a couple of new attorneys here past the bar and uh, one of them just got their license. So we're sort of celebrating them as well. Be congratulations. Eventually want to do appellate level criminal prosecution for the con shoes, but love being a law clerk. So big shout out. That's a huge accomplishment. Everybody. That's a big deal. Bar exam is a lot of work. So congrats to you over there. We've got Ryan Johnson says, did you see yesterday when the defense accused Martin Howard of nodding at binger and asked if they had spoken the night before it seemed heated? If so, what do you think that was about? No, I didn't see that Martin Howard was the detective, but you know, I have a clip here in our final segment of another police officer who was, uh, I think he, I think he needled them a little bit. I think he gave them a jab here. We're going to get to that in a minute. So I think, I think the police might also be team Rittenhouse. Who knows. Thank you for that though. Ryan Johnson. I didn't see that particular exchange, but I, uh, I'd like to, because it sounds curious. We have watermelon sugar high says clarification, Zelinsky and co they trapped. Kyle, how do we know Kyle? Didn't perceive McGuinness as an attacker with a gun in the air phone from Sweden. Well, shout out from Sweden. Well, that's awesome. Very cool. I, uh, would love to go visit over there at some point in time, but we don't know that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't didn't didn't recognize that. I don't think he said that or that that came out, but it, it, it could have been right. He could have thought that there were, he was scanning for multiple different attackers. Who knows we have, uh, but thank you for that. And shout out to Sweden, love it. Tallix says entire situation stems from Minnesota, then Portland leaders not enforcing the law, that spreads quote, peaceful protests. If the law enforcement did its job, this would not have happened. Weak men make bad times. That's a good comment there from Tallix. And we're going to hear from an officer in the next segment where he says it was a war zone. I mean, we were totally, there's nothing we can do is free for all. If that happens, what should people do if law enforcement can't keep order anymore? What should people do? Should people like Kyle Rittenhouse and Ryan? Balch just a, I guess, sit at home with their firearms and their guns and ammo and just let society just fall into disorder or should good men stand up and do something about it. Hmm. Yeah. I don't know. Sounds like, uh, one of those might be the better option there that's from taluks very good comment. Chris Kelly says RO bear[inaudible]. That was a law school moniker that a substitute law professor gave me because she didn't know how to pronounce my name. She's going through the, uh, the attendance is a [inaudible] here and I'm sitting in the back of the room, like always waiting to get out of there. And everybody's looking around who the hell is.[inaudible] nobody knows what she's talking about. I don't know what the hell is that person, no idea who that is. And then finally we couldn't figure it out and it's like, oh, oh, oh, is it Robert Robert griller? Is that what you have? You've been saying that for 30 seconds up there. So it was a weird day. Uh, but, uh, but yeah, it's my, it's my French name. Just like juicy smell. Yay. It's row bear grill. Yay. Very, very French and very fancy. All right. That we have another one from a wrestler town says I've been waiting for your analysis all day. I've been waiting to spend time with you there. Wrestler town, glad you're here, Ryan. She says, when you look into gross crudes, look at the connection between the mayor, the lead detective and the da that came up on yesterday's show. And I haven't taken a look at it yet, but I am curious about that. I have seen gross. Gruits his dad on the court zoom meetings multiple times. And he's also an angry fellow. So you can see sort of the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In other words, Bianca says, I still wish the defense had asked more questions on the bipolar medication and Seroquel since it's for manic episodes. And we'd go to his erratic behavior since the attorney big Mac opened the door. Oh, attorney big Mac. Oh my gosh. I almost skipped right over that. So, um, first of all, that's probably true. It's that? Or Whoppers look like we can't, we can't be mean to, to the, to the gentlemen. Everybody has their addictions and their insecurities. Uh, but his line of questioning was just awful in general. So regardless of his personal appearance, not really that great of a prosecutor either because his questions were not particularly relevant and yeah, they could go into it. You know, who knows what the defense is going to call and, and say during their case in chief and whether they want to present any evidence of anything like that and the judge, and they try to get it in and they object, the judge says, you talked to me, you started it. So now they're allowed to talk about it as well. Jacob says self-defense is based on the reasonable perception of the defender in this case, Huber's motives do not matter exactly. That's an even more succinct and astute point than even I could come up with motives don't matter. He could intentionally want to kill him. He could be mistaken about something like him being an active shooter. Doesn't matter if he was attacking him and a person in Rittenhouse, his position was justified to use it. It's all the matters. Joe Cal Ganos says the individual acts all clearly appear to be self-defense. However, because Kyle chose to insert himself into the volatile situation. That's problematic. That's from Joe and Joe. I think that that's sort of a take that the prosecution is trying to capitalize on. They're trying to make that claim that basically everything that Kyle was doing was this domino effect of bad decisions, took the gun, drove to Kenosha, had no permission to do any of it got caught up in a situation, had all sorts of bad decisions, compound one after the other resulted in a death. And so he's gotta be responsible for that thing. And that's, that's that domino that cascade that I think they're trying to make the jury see so that even if the jurors say, yeah, it was self-defense, he shouldn't have been there, there in the first place. So it supersedes the self-defense argument. I don't think it's a good, a good strategy, but we'll see if it works out Cuomo's revenge says, did you catch the text message gambit? I thought I did. And I thought that I actually, uh, put that in my slides, but I think maybe I skipped over it. I think I might've skipped over it, but it was this one, there was a, there was a conversation allegedly that, that, uh, Kyle sent Sam, this guy, a, uh, this guy, a copy of this email that says, do you need anyone to protect your business tonight? I'm more than willing to come in armed. I just need an address. Me and my brother would both be there arm. So we don't know, you know, where that came from. He doesn't know when he got it. Apparently the Wednesday after the Tuesday of the shooting, they were trying to, you know, say maybe Rittenhouse with somebody who was trying to instigate. All of this was even sort of advertising for it. You need help. I'm an anti rioter person I'll come and help. So they were trying to make that point. I did see that if, is the jury in nominate, if not, was that not requested? So do you, I think maybe you're asking about a sequestrations, whether they're sequestered and that would happen at the time of deliberation. So not, uh, not right now. So right now they're able to go home and, you know, spend time with their families and all of that stuff. Okay. I, uh, I think that is no, we got a bunch more questions. Okay. Uh, Joe Joe Myers, it says it was pretty obvious at the time of questioning the second brother. He was trying to keep his family from being sued because they let the group inside and the guy died on their property. Oh, all right. So yeah. So maybe some reason as to why they didn't, uh, communicate the way that they did another one from Eddie Oliver says, can't the fact that Rosenbaum had a history with children, took his shirt off, started chasing Kyle, be considered a threat. It would scare me if I was a baby face 17 year old. Uh, it certainly, yeah. I mean, all of that stuff could be relative to, you know, what Kyle was experiencing or what a reasonable person would be experiencing right then and there, somebody taking their shirt off, shouting things like you warning you, I'm going to kill you. All of those observations that took place then, and they're all relevant. What Huber did that morning or what his prescriptions were or what, uh, Rosenbalm was doing with his homeless girlfriend, who knows. Right. All of that is not really relevant to what Kyle or what a person in his shoes right then and there, what have been observing, throwing things. Yeah. Screaming. Absolutely. All of that would be pertinent. Ivan Villa says this guy is guilty as hell. Right? I, I think you're trolling. I think you're trolling. So we'll just, uh, we'll just let that one go KB and says Rittenhouse is guilty as hell of self-defense. Right. I think she was swinging that run back over to Ivan and Villa. Thank you, bean for cleaning that up for me. Appreciate that one. Glen Shelton says being, or it looks like Ned Flanders from the Simpsons is appropriate. The prosecution is proceeding like a cartoon. So I think you're right about that. Not far off Joseph's[inaudible] says, can you ex uh, let's see here, uh, a lot of, a lot of these tonight, thank you everybody for the support says, do you think the prosecution is attempting to throw this case on purpose? I don't. I answered that earlier at the very start of this stream. I don't think so. I think they're believers. I think that they have been building this case for a year now. They think they've got it all in the bag. They want to be like the George Floyd, prosecutors. They want, you know, a big win and they want to probably run for office one day, write a book about it when they retire all of that stuff, which we are still going to see. We have another question here from NC says, can you explain why your views on the George Floyd case changed from when you first reported on it versus when the trial happened? Did you flip-flop oh, well, did you flip flop? It's a good question. Um, here's what's uh, I guess, I guess you could say yes, I did. And here's, here's why I would, I would say it's because we learned a lot about our, uh, our witness, our, our victim, our defendant, our buddy George Floyd. We learned a lot about him. What we saw on that day in may of 2020 looked like he got murdered by Derek Shovan because he put his knee on his neck for nine minutes and 34 seconds or whatever it turned out to be. We fast forward a year and we learned a lot more about George Florida learned that, uh, there may have been another pill in his mouth. A lot of that evidence never came into courts. We kind of saw that on his tongue. We didn't hear about any of that evidence from his compadre, who was in the car with him, legitly, his drug dealer, Maurice hall, who may have given him fentanyl, which turned out to be in his blood at lethal levels. Also combined with methamphetamines also at problematic levels. When you combine those two drugs, you've got a number of other remnants in his system from other drugs and alcohol. You've got two seriously problematic cardiovascular conditions. You've got arterial, sclerosis and hypertension. You've got all whole laundry list of additional causes that could have contributed to his death. The standard that I adhere to is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt that is based in reason as to what killed at George Floyd, that's a not guilty as far as I'm concerned. And because the defense and the prosecution themselves brought out evidence that seemed to conflate even the testimony of their other expert witnesses. We had somebody say it was asphyxiation caused by suppression on the back and the neck. That was the respiratory doctor. And we had somebody else who came out and said it was another cause of death entirely. That was what was his name? I can't remember his name, but basically that it was his heart just gave out his heart just stopped working, had nothing to do with the fact that there was a respiratory problem. So yeah, my, my opinion changed when the evidence changed and I adjusted that accordingly. And I think that Derek Shovan, uh, got a very raw deal. I think he became the scapegoat for the entire country to solve the racial animosity that's existed for however long. They just decided, well, we can't solve any of this stuff. And because it's election year, we got to find somebody to make sure it gets punished on this thing. Derek Shovan looks like a good one. Oh, Kyle Rittenhouse. He's another good one. And now we've got, uh, some, some very problematic cases in our justice system that have resulted. And I think in injustices, let's see what else we have. Good question though. NC, thanks for asking me about that. And for holding me accountable, uh, you know, you're going to see evolutions of, of myself on this show. I've never tried to be somebody who's always 100%, right? The first time and always consistent in my correctness. I say regularly that I think my opinions are like shirts. They change when I don't need them anymore. When the style changes, when I have to get a new one that serves me better, it's going to play with that one too. I think that's very important. We have a Matthew self says the idea that it's Kyle's fault that he was there can be said for the entire situation for the people being there, or am I missing something? Yeah. So you're right. You could reverse that, you know, further, well, maybe Kyle wouldn't have been there if they weren't burning the place down. And that is a very good point. Cuomo's revenge says he took the screenshot the next day, hence yesterday, but in all likelihood, he looked at it the night of binger will command condemn a man with tech ruse. Yeah. I mean, he probably saw that. And again, you have to start thinking about what outside of the evidence that we have heard about might cause the prosecution to suddenly win their case. It has to be something, what card can they play? We'll talk about it in the next segment. When we get to the police, we have Ivan Villa says, yeah, I was trolling for sure. I could tell, obviously I'm glad though. It's good. Uh, Mr. Jay black says, does Sam saying he didn't ask, allow these guys on property have any impact on the case, in your opinion? No, it doesn't. It doesn't. If they thought that Kyle Rittenhouse was illegally on the property, they should've charged him with criminal trespassing and they didn't do that. So I don't really know how it's relevant at all. And if he, you know, was running through somebody else's property or something like that, who cares? It's it's again, it's irrelevant. As far as I can tell. Let's see, Jacob says your opinion, changing based on known facts is for a lack of a better term, a good thing. Well, thank you for that. I appreciate that, Jacob. I think that people should change their opinions and change their facts based on the evidence. And maybe if our political people did some of that and new evidence came out and they said, well, that seems pretty obvious. Then the people would, you know, take that into account at least. So I don't, I don't have any problems changing my opinions. Jacob says that that was from, uh, Jared says I, it meant kept anonymous so that they're not pressured by the PO. Oh yes. Uh, I would be scared of the riders coming to my home. Yeah. So, okay. So I see what you meant, Jared. I apologize if I misinterpreted that one. Yes, they are anonymous. And that's basically going to be the case for any of these high profile cases, especially during trial, nobody, you know? No that nobody wants to risk them being contacted and they are going to be sequestered. I'm sorry. They are unlikely to be sequestered, which is, which is after the fact where they would be sort of put up in the hotels, which the judge said is like a, you know, a hundred to one chance. Very unlikely that that happens. So I apologize if I misconstrued your question. Okay. And so those were all of the questions. A couple other super chats came in. Hello world. We've got Matthew self says ooga booga, booga love your streams. I C U P Hmm. What else? Matthew self. You know, it was very, might be, you know, 12, 13, I don't know. But thanks for being here. Matthew Bianca says, I don't think any of those two guys were Sam. I thought the owner was their dad and we didn't hear from him. Yeah. Yeah. I agree with you there. I don't think we heard from them. Not sure why they're particularly relevant, but they were brought to trial today. All right. So those were great questions from our friends over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and over on YouTube. Thank you everybody for all of the amazing questions today. And let's see, we've got one final segment left a lot of witnesses today, and we're going to close it out here. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day five, we've got three police officers that we got to hear from today. You can see them here on the screen. Day five had a lot of witnesses. We already talked about Amber Rasmussen, Jason Lukowski, Susan Hughes, hubris ant. We talked about Carrie Ann Swartz. Rosenbaum's fiance. We talked about say hill and animal, both from car source today in this segment, we're talking about Eric Weidener KPD patrol Kenosha police department, Jeffrey van wi Kenosha police department. He worked on the evidence and then pep, pep, more ready, which is one of the best names I've heard. Recently. He sort of looks like a pep Moretti con Kenosha PD. He was out on patrol that night. And so we're going to talk about these three officers, not really groundbreaking testimony from any of these people and remember why they didn't see much. They weren't there. If you get a DUI, guess what happens while the cop pulls you over, you're in your car. They get to do the entire examination. They get to pull you out, walk and turns down on one leg, do the whole thing. They are in direct observation of what's happening. They're very important to a trial in a domestic violence case. Oftentimes the police show up after the fact, you have person, a hits person, B police show up and they didn't see anything. Did they, if only person, a and person B are in that room together, and the police show up after the fact who can testify about what happens there between a and B is eight going to testify. I punched me. No, not likely. So what if B doesn't show up? Can an officer come in and testify about what B told the officer? No, they cannot because that is hearsay. That's an out of court statement that is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That's the police officer saying, officer B said, officer a said a hit beat. Can't do that. It's an out of court statement. Now, if B wants to come in and make that testimony, make that claim. No problem at all. That's perfect. That's how it should be because B was there be sought, but the officer didn't. So I know that's sort of a loose analogy here, but same thing is happening here. All of these officers came to the scene after the fact they were not there. They did not see any of this stuff. They processed evidence. They did some analysis, got some more documents. They saw Kyle after the shooting. We're going to hear from that when we get to pep Moretti, but they weren't there with Rosenbalm. They weren't there with Huber. They weren't there. They came after the fact. And so how relevant is their testimony? Can they opine on much of any of this? Not really. So let's go through it. We have Eric Weidener first. He is our KPD patrol. And we're asking him about what he saw that night. Let's listen to. What is it?

Speaker 4: 1:44:02

And then the next thing that you discovered as you process the scene?

Speaker 3: 1:44:11

Um, I believe I took a crime scene video of it, and then I collected all the evidence. And then I proceeded back to the police department for the evidence.

Speaker 4: 1:44:22

Um, did you find, uh, another casing on Sheridan road?

Speaker 3: 1:44:28

I believe it was on 63rd street west of all the other casings. So the 40 caliber casings I initially talked about on 63rd street. Those were more towards a house that was labeled a nine 15. I found another one, two houses away, which is 9 25 60 third street. And that turned out to be a nine millimeter Casey. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:44:49

Listen, listen.

Speaker 4: 1:44:51

Now, in terms of your, uh, activity that evening, uh, is that the extent of your activity at this crime scene?

Speaker 3: 1:44:59

Um, before I left, uh, there was an possible shots fired going on in a park west of us, one block west of us. And I went over there to attempt to locate evidence also,

Speaker 4: 1:45:10

Uh, best of your knowledge that had no relation to this crime scene.

Speaker 3: 1:45:13

I believe it had nothing to do with this seeing there's other shootings going on.

Speaker 1: 1:45:18

Okay. So right. There was an important piece of testimony. The reason why I wanted to play this guy, Eric Weidener is because yesterday when we got off the stream, I was trying to, uh, I was trying to think about what I am missing, what evidence is there that the prosecution can have that is going to just wreck this whole case. And something did come up that I was like, oh, huh, okay. Something came up to my mind. And it was the idea that they've got other evidence, other videos of Kyle Rittenhouse acting like a lunatic, somewhere else, shooting guns, somewhere else, recovering other shell casings. Earlier that night they've got video footage of him shooting somewhere or later in the evening or at obviously it wouldn't happen because he turned himself in or basically, uh, try to shooting off somewhere else. Something that really does constitute recklessness, something outside of the scope of what we've all seen, because we've all seen the footage. And even from day one back on this channel, I was like, what the hell are they talking about? This case is clearly self-defense. Even when we read the probable cause statement, it was a no brainer as far as I could tell, but they charged him. So I'm still thinking, okay, what did they find that is outside the scope outside the universe of the data that we've already got that might change the whole ball game? Well, it could very well be that Kyle Rittenhouse, you know, 10 minutes before this was popping off rounds up into the sky, or he was threatening somebody else around the corner that wasn't Rosenbalm, wasn't gross. Kreutz, wasn't Huber something outside of the scope that changes how we interpret everything that happened after the fact you go, oh, whoa, okay. Maybe he wasn't this heroic kid running around the streets, trying to save people who got hurt during the protest. Maybe this was really a punk and our entire perception changes. But the kind of the only thing that would happen would be Kyle being violent. Kyle shooting off in the air, Kyle trying to stab somebody or doing something that would put him on the level as the other hooligans that we saw that night. And I was waiting for the smoking. I was waiting for something like that. Maybe it still comes, but I doubt it. But this guy, Eric Weidner, we just heard him say, no, I went around, I checked, there were some other gunshots reported at a park, nine millimeter had nothing to do with this. Uh, that's the extent of everything. So it sounds like this guy was on patrol, going around, responding to all the gunshots. He came, found the shell casings and did his investigation didn't find anything else. So I think that the universe of possibilities about what else this could be, that's going to be earth shattering. That's going to damage the written house case. I'm not sure I'm thinking that the, the doors are closing on that relatively quickly and the case th the government's already lost a week. The judge has already bored. We've already spent five days here in the trial. Not sure what else is coming next week. So this is our next officer. This is Jeffrey van. We, and this is what we call sort of a chain of custody officer. This guy received a bunch of evidence inventories. It does some basic analysis on it, turns it into the evidence locker. You know, it's he's yet again, he's almost even one step further removed that other officer that we just heard from, at least he was, he went to the scene. He went, he went there and picked up some shell casings. This guy was just back at the evidence locker. And remember what we talk about when we talk about chain of custody, it's the idea of that person. A give something to person B, give something to a person, see something to person D you've got to check all of that in a DUI case. If it's a blood result, if something happens to person B, officer a draws, the blood says, officer B, go take this impounded into evidence. Officer, see this guy takes it, impounded into evidence, log logs that documents and all that crap. And then person D is the crime lab analyst who actually does the testing on it. What happens if person B who transported the blood doesn't exist anymore? He is fired for incompetence or for malfeasance or for negligence, or he retires moves to a different police department. Fleece to Mexico gets hit by a bus who knows what happens if that happens that entire chain of custody is now broken because you can't tell what happened between the transfer from a to B and from B to C, B is no longer there. So now the sanctity of that evidence can be questioned, whether it changed it or anything is, is, is subject to debate maybe. Yes, maybe. No. And it depends on what alphabet letter you're talking about removing out of that chain of causation there. So this guy is in that role, he receives a bunch of this evidence. Here's what he said today. Again, he wasn't, there really can't talk much about self-defense or about justifiable shooting or about reasonable force or about the scene. But here he is,

Speaker 4: 1:50:07

Uh, he please state and spell your name for the record.

Speaker 10: 1:50:10

Jeffrey van wi V a N capital w I E an

Speaker 4: 1:50:15

Officer. How are you

Speaker 10: 1:50:16

Employed the city of Kenosha police department? How long have

Speaker 4: 1:50:19

You been a

Speaker 10: 1:50:20

Police officer for 18 years?

Speaker 4: 1:50:23

Did you become involved in the investigation of a shooting involving a Kyle Rittenhouse? Yes. And how did you become involved?

Speaker 10: 1:50:32

And that case was handed over evidence by detectives Howard and answering them to a process and actually secure into evidence.

Speaker 4: 1:50:42

How did you go about obtaining that or starting to do

Speaker 10: 1:50:47

So detectives Howard and answer any of them met me by the police station. Um, from there, um, the evidence was brought into our, our evidence room in a police station and it was turned over to me.

Speaker 4: 1:51:01

And was this on August 26th?

Speaker 10: 1:51:03

Yes.

Speaker 1: 1:51:05

Okay. So not much is going to come out of this guy. He got a bunch of the evidence, did some testing on it. All right, it's fine. Test it all you want. We know that Kyle Rittenhouse shot the gun and that, uh, that's not being contested here now. We're, you know, cross examination here from Corey cheer FEC. He comes out very short cross exam, says something about the fact that the testing was done the next day kind of wants to put a marker in that. And they're fighting over the testing kind of we're going to hear from[inaudible]. Oh, but you tested it the next day. Huh? Kind of like, this is a, a delayed test or something, which I don't think it is, but it, but it's a point and, and I don't know why we're even arguing about any of it, but he probably doesn't know what else to argue about or even ask about. So he asks about the test because it's inconsequential to the entire thing. So we get sort of a, a token cross-examination here from Chira FEC, and this testing

Speaker 4: 1:52:04

Was done. The date

Speaker 10: 1:52:06

After the shooting, right? The 2 26 or the, if it's a shooting with a 25th then yes.

Speaker 4: 1:52:17

Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:52:18

Okay. Okay. Fine.

Speaker 10: 1:52:21

Thank you for pretty fast. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 1:52:25

All right. And so, uh, not much there, right? Not much comes out of that line of questioning, but it's funny because the prosecutor wants a final word on the redirect and the prosecutor comes back and says, yeah, but the defense, they didn't test it either themselves. And so let's listen to this and then I'll explain what happened here.

Speaker 10: 1:52:47

The defense theories as for further testing, uh, how was nine pharma, if any other further testing?

Speaker 1: 1:52:58

Uh, it's just, yeah, it's just like a bunch of nonsense. So what happened here? This guy receives the gun, does some tests on the gun that nobody cares about what the results are, because we all agree that Kyle Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum and everybody else. All right. So they tested it just to make sure it all matches. Slugs came, it all matches. Got it. We know it. Thanks for the confirmation. But then the test happened the day after. Oh, well that might be a problem with the test. Cheer FEC comes out, you tested the next day. Didn't you sort of hinting that. Maybe they're going to challenge the test. They're going to come back out and say, oh yeah, maybe you supposed to test it the same day. Aren't you. And, and find some problem or something like that. So what the prosecutor then responds with, he says, well, the defense, they didn't test it on their own. Did they? So in other words, hinting at, if that, if the defense comes out in their case in chief and wants to challenge the underlying test sort of hinting, that they could have tested it on their own. If they thought that there were problems with their results, they do this in DUI cases all the time. If you say, if you go into you present your evidence and you try to say that they got the test of the blood results wrong. Well, they typically will talk. We'll draw two vials of blood in most states. And so the prosecution would love to be able to say, if you think that our results are so bad, why don't you just go test your own tube on your own there, buddy? And, and what, uh, what, uh, uh, an intelligent defense attorney, somebody who knows what they're talking about would say, it's not my burden. You jerks to disprove my, my, my guilt. I don't have to disprove myself. It's not the burden is on me. I don't have to disprove myself beyond a reason. You got to prove it, dumb dumbs. So don't tell me to go test something. It's your burden. All right. So we know how that goes. Now let's jump in. We've got another, uh, final officer here. We're going to hear from pep more ready? Who is a, uh, an officer who was on patrol. We see here, this was an image that was taken from, uh, from, you know, a lot of the livestream footage that was out there on the night. You can see Kyle Rittenhouse silhouette over here, sort of hard to see, but he's walking, his hands are up and he's walking towards the police vehicle. Here's a, another scene from a different angle where he's clearly got his firearm on a slang, kind of hanging around his body, walking towards the police. This is the gas station. Car source is a sort of, uh, back to Kyle and he's walking towards the police. And so this officer was a part of, that was a part of kind of re apprehending Kyle, or at least seeing Kyle, because remember he ultimately went back over to Illinois before he was transferred back over to Wisconsin. So this is pet Moretti also on Kenosha patrol. And this is his conversation. This is what he sees as Rittenhouse is approaching him on the night of the shooting Rittenhouse day five.

Speaker 4: 1:55:50

This, uh, man, we now know as Cal Rittenhouse is approaching you, um, there's commands over the PA there's commands being shouted. What's the next thing that,

Speaker 11: 1:56:01

Uh, he approached the passenger side of our patrol vehicle, um, with him disobeying the commands and being armed with a rifle like that. I drew my service weapon and officer Krieger or deployed pepper spray because it became clear and obvious that he was not going to go away, but he continued to just advance on us and disobey commands. No.

Speaker 4: 1:56:22

And you say you were still driving the vehicle, correct? Correct. So when you draw your service weapon, what does that mean? What did you do with it?

Speaker 11: 1:56:29

Um, so anytime we're confronted with somebody that's armed in, that could be a threat to us. It's not uncommon for police officers in this country to be ambushed. And given everything that was taking place at a war zone is the only way I could describe it. We were surrounded, the city was burning and on fire, and we were just outnumbered and completely surrounded. So,

Speaker 1: 1:56:48

Okay. Did you see what he just said there? The whole city was a war zone. It, we were completely outnumbered, totally surrounded, not good language. If you are a prosecutor trying to make the case that Rittenhouse was acting recklessly by running around with an assault rifle, sounds like it was all hands on deck. Even the officers were outnumbered. Even they're acknowledging this, this officer didn't have to say it that way. He said it this way for a purpose. He had a point to make, he wanted to say it was a war zone. We were totally surrounded, outnumbered completely under fire here, here he is again saying it.

Speaker 11: 1:57:27

We were just outnumbered and completely surrounded. So with his advanced, what that weapon, um, we we're in a stopped position at that point. And we're waiting for him to get out of the front of our vehicle so we could advance. And as he approached the passenger side, I was able to use my right hand to withdraw my weapon and then keep my left hand on the steering wheel.

Speaker 4: 1:57:46

So did you point the weapon or you just pointed out here where you have it?

Speaker 11: 1:57:51

What were you doing with it? I would imagine that I would've had it pointed at them because that somebody's advancing on us with the rifle Meadowbank commands at that point would be taken as a threat.

Speaker 1: 1:57:59

Okay. So, uh, that's kind of what we got out of the officers again, uh, waiting for that smoking gun, waiting for some good evidence. It's going to come out here and wrap the case up for the prosecution. But, you know, Rittenhouse, we, we even get conversations from this officer that Rittenhouse is walking up with his hands up. God is his, you know, weapon around his sling and never seen anybody do that before. So he thinks that, you know, he's not listening to his commands, he's pulling out his gun, but he communicates. Yeah, I was very aggressive with Kyle because we were outnumbered. We were completely surrounded. It was a war zone. Jurors was a war zone out there. So, uh, okay. You know, not, not really big day, my opinion from the prosecutors. Let's see what you have to say over from our friends@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com that wrapped up the testimony from the witnesses today. We're going to pick back up on Monday with cross examination. I'm sure of pep Moretti. And we'll see where that goes. We've got some questions here, chime in over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com Davis park says can't the defense object to most of aunt Huber's testimony on relevance. It says I took high school mock trial. I'm wondering if relevance is still a valid objection. It is. And yes they can. And they did. And they actually, it sounds like they won that now that theoretically they could have objected to her entire testimony. But, um, but there may have been, uh, pretrial stipulations or agreements that, that, that, that they would not object to letting her come in just to certain testimony. So we, again, we don't know what the rules were at the start of the game for everything. So maybe they let her in captain. Jim says, Hey rod, happy Friday. Sad thing is Kyle May still kick convicted on all charges in spite of being replaying the defender here, who knows maybe he a closeted defense attorney. I doubt it. We don't look like that. I'm thinking of a case from New York from a few years ago where a man was exonerated in a killing after spending 25 years behind bars for it, murder happened. New York man was in Florida at the time had plane tickets, videos, materials, a woman testified. She had seen him commit the crime. A lot of those stories, horrible stories, big reason we do what we do is to keep that from happening to hold the government in check, always making sure that they meet their burden. We have Zydis, Texas. I'm fairly confident. This in trial, entire trial has a dog and pony show designed to try to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system. For example, if Kyle was not charged at all, there'd probably be more riots. And fortunately political prosecutions are a poor long-term strategy to repair the faults of government. I agree completely. It's not the appropriate use of the justice system. It's not supposed to be weaponized to push political garbage agendas. Brig says the defense's offer to allow hubris aunts characters comments so long as they got to bring in the case report for hubris DV charges was priceless reminiscent of Samuel L. Jackson say what scene in public fiction? Say what again? I dare you three girls. He says, hubris ant looks like an old crotchety nun who hid the ruler in her purse. Also looks like the prosecutor former Leo says, what would a reasonable and prudent person do? Only question that needs to be examined by the jury. The DOB says, what is it called when the defense agrees with the facts of the case and asked the judge to dismiss because the state never met the burden. What do you do with the odds? Are that the defense makes that the motions that the judge does does dismiss the charges. If so. Okay. So a couple of questions in there. Number one, it's it depends on what, uh, what state you're a part of, but it's sort of a motion for a judgment for acquittal in Arizona, we call a rule 20 motion. It's a motion that typically exists in your rules of criminal procedure that authorizes the maneuver. But you file a motion at the conclusion of the state's case. You say, even if we agreed with all of the facts, you still couldn't find them guilty. It's like a motion for summary judgment in a civil case, same type of concept in criminal law. And if they do make that motion, is the judge going to find in favor of the prosecutor of the defense and dismiss the charges? I doubt it it's the case is too far along for the judge to do that, that there would be a, an outcry pili. Wally says, Hey, Rob, bringing family and so on to declare sainthood upon their fallen relatives. As a joke, I always say that I may be the nicest person on earth for 99% of the time, but if you're a menace and a bad egg, the other 1% character really isn't too good. Also what's the chance of the ant, knowing what nephews are doing, doing their private time. It's ridiculous. Pantomime. I agree with you. Uh, Antifa is here gonna jump over that one. David says, sorry for double-dipping on this one, but about at Huber, they're asking questions way beyond Kyle's knowledge at the time. Does that mean the defense can now bring up his domestic abuse conviction to rebut the whole line of reasoning? It seems wrong. They can bring up good character evidence at Kyle wouldn't have known, but leave out actual criminal convictions, which should only support Kyle's view that Huber was acting viciously. Look, it's kind of a free for all as you're seeing in this trial. So the argument from the defense should be sure if they're going to say that, but I don't think they can, because what happened now is the judge said, we're not going down that road. They want to talk about Huber running into danger and being this heroic man of valor. Okay? Judge said, no, we're not going that route because we don't want to open the door to allow Kyle to come in and parade a bunch of his people saying he's just really great, 17 year old, all American rockstar, right? It's not relevant to the issue. If we did that, we'd be having trial for two years because every side would just parade a bunch of people in puffing up their particular witness. Brig says, perhaps the reason Rosenbalm threw the bag, wasn't hit Kyle with it, but to free up both his hands for a beat down, it's a good comment. The Del SPI says the voice deer was very interesting reason. A very interesting for Rosenbaum's fiance didn't really understand the point of it. Both sides changed their questions in relation to that line of questioning and in front of the jury. Yeah. So I think you're talking about the direct examination voice Deere is when you're picking jurors, this was the direct exam of Rosenbaum's fiance, but yes, again, not much there. She wasn't there. Who cares what her opinion is about. Rosenbalm irrelevant. And why says if the prosecution rest of the day, isn't there enough reasonable doubt to ask for a dismissal, the prosecution has not proven any elements needed for the charges. Yes, I think so. I mean, I thought at the beginning of the case, I thought that at the, at the probable cause statement at the very beginning, there's no, there's no crime committed here. It sounds like, sounds like a self defense statement, three girls. He says, Rosenbaum's girlfriend said there may have been a water bottle in there. Who's to say he didn't pee in the water bottle. Her testimony seems as irrelevant as the rest of the case, Minnesota and says, Rob, I'm not so sure you're sir. Why you're surprised about the way this is unfolding. These people are from Wisconsin. It's basically the dumpster of the U S no, it's not. Are we really surprised these people are doing a terrible job. I see my cat could prosecute this case better. It's not the dumpsters, not in Wisconsin. It's in California. I don't know where it is over there, but it's over there. Most of the state's a gigantic dumpster over there. Yeah. The whole state. Yeah. I said it. All of it. It's a dumpster fire. I was told it's going to fall off soon. Maybe we can speed that up. Garbage. So love Wisconsin, California, those terrible speech on leash says, do you think this judge would really dismiss this case for lack of evidence, even if it qualifies for it? No, I don't think so. He seems concerned with how the public sees the trial. So what he thinks that him unilaterally deciding to the Smiths, the case would happen. I do not think that that would happen. It's a, it's a formal motion that happens. It rarely gets granted. I've had it happen like one time. I think personally at my firm, not sure how many times in total DDL SPI says, no, that's not car source. That's car Depot. My mom owns it. How the hell they mislabeled this business? When they had a witness for it for three days of trial, the witnesses were so strangely standoffish, I felt like they've opened themselves up for legal troubles. Yeah. Maybe. And remember a lot of the time witnesses. They don't want to come to court. They don't want anything to do with any of this crap. Thunder seven says, I thought the car lot guys were hilarious. I think they were high. They didn't know anything. The inventory manager didn't even know how many cars were in the lot, such a joke. But to your point, Rob didn't, they speak to these witnesses prior to prep them. It was like a comedy skit with[inaudible] playing the dumb car. Lot guy. He was just wandering around in here. You had binger. He's like, I'm pretty sure he works there. And Jim to his left is like, should we check? No, I think he does. We're good. We don't need to check that. Yeah. Just call him. Yeah. Put them on for Friday. All right. Now we'll call them. Uh, no, I can't answer that. Well, I don't even work there, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Who's Kyle Rittenhouse. What did he do? Wow. This is a serious case. Briggs 57 says I thought the defense had a pretty good job. Eviscerating. Those dudes pretty much prove that they were claiming they didn't authorize anybody to guard their property because they're afraid of civil liability. But then, uh, we'll put them under. Yeah. Under insurance refuse to cover the arson losses. They were manipulating stuff. Yeah. That's a good point. Briggs. Yeah. Yet again, I don't know what had has to do with, um, the government's case. Okay. So what if they said explicitly? No, you can't come on our property. Then you charge Kyle Rittenhouse with what? Trespass murder now murder on a illegal property. If you would shot Rosenbalm if they gave you permission, then it would have been okay now, but now, because you were on their property illegally, now you can't now it's murder. It doesn't matter again. So I don't know why they're wasting their time on it, but, uh, they're wasting a lot of people's time. Most particularly, Kyle Rittenhouse is Jeremy MITRE to says, Rob, by looking at the prosecutor's body language or listening to his words, he's clearly leading the witness. Why aren't they objecting? Because they're good witnesses. Why would they object? They're doing a great job. Making Kyle Rittenhouse, his case. Jeremy says, I'm just waiting for the prosecutor to ask a witness of Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. They won't ask him that question. Cause they'll probably say no. Scott[inaudible] says this car source boy seemed like he was lying to me. Long pauses, constant asking for repeated questions. They were squirreling. They don't want to be there. It's court. It's the worst. A live streamer. CJ TV live has a live of car owners with the inventory. Count money loss on the 26th, both the witnesses lied about the loss of streamer on the witness list and on the way to Wisconsin unclear why they want to talk to him. Did you catch binger asleep during the testimony? No. I didn't see that. I did not see that. Appreciate your coverage. That's from beyond reasonable doubt is in the house. Being her fell asleep during their testimony. He's his board is that the rest of us are, it's actually not boring. It's kind of amazing to watch because it's so disastrous. Uh, let's let's poke over to YouTube for a quick minute and see what we've got here. Hello, world says, is it weird that Kyle can be charged as an adult yet can be charged for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18? Yeah. So I see what you're saying. So it's like, yes, this can happen. This happens all the time. They charge you for something that happens a long time ago. And it's a, it's a, a frustrating thing. No doubt about it, but you can see the, the, uh, disconnect there. You're charging him as an adult for a crime that he committed, that you can only commit when you're not an adult, because if you're an adult, they can't charge you with the crime. Cause you're an adult. So it's sort of a topsy-turvy little, little thing happening there. Thank you for that. Hello world. We have president elect. Austin M says, commenters are caught up in the history of the decedents. Defendant is setting the scene to nail gauge and let Dr. Black go wild as an expert in one to two things free Kyle, I think you're onto something there. It's pretty much clear that these witnesses are not helping, but Joseph[inaudible] says, do you think Kyle or gauged the hole in the arm guy is going to testify? What do you think the benefit and the negative consequences of both would be? So I do not think that Kyle is going to testify. I don't think there's any reason for him to do that. You'd really want him to testify. If you needed to establish his state of mind as being under threat, I was fearful for my life. This was a dangerous environment. I thought I was going to be killed or harmed. You don't need him to testify to that. Every single adult male that was there testified to the fact that this was a dangerous situation, regardless of whether or not you think sh Rittenhouse should have been there. He was there. And he was for most of the night in a situation where he was not having to shoot or kill anybody or get into altercations. Most of the night was pretty peaceful for Kyle Rittenhouse, one bad incident, one altercation that took place, but you don't need to hear from him in order to put that scene together. Right. Ryan Davis said, you're going to Rittenhouse. His attorney said he's going to testify in opening statements. Yeah. I'm not so sure about that. If he said that, I'd be surprised that, uh, they actually move forward with that. I don't think it's necessary personally. Um, Kyle Rittenhouse may want to, he can take the stand if he chooses to do so, but I would be very hesitant to do that. I think it can only hurt now. Gage gross. Kreutz yeah, he's the victim. I think you'd put him on there. I don't know what the rules have been in terms of what he can, uh, or what can be talked about. Remember, we have a little bit of a, of a complication with gage that he is also the victim and there's Marsy's law in Wisconsin that says that you can't get access to certain things. When a victim is involved, they couldn't get a copy of his phone and all of those other things, he is a non cooperating witness. At least if you're thinking about this from the defense perspective, Richard McGinnis was a victim, but he was really team Kyle wasn't. He pretty much when he went on to Tucker show, when he gave additional interviews, after the fact McGinnis was team Kyle, pretty, pretty sure about that. Gage gross Kreutz who could really use a hand at w w with, uh, with this case is upset about this. He's not happy about what happened, God, his arms shot off. And so this is, uh, him. He's going to be very upset about this, and he's going to come out here and he's going to try to hit Rittenhouse hard that he was going to go and stop an active shooter. And he's going to be the most damning testimony. So the government has to call him and he's going to be brought in. I think somebody said on Monday and we'll see what that testimony sounds like, but I think he has to come because he is one of the victims in the case. And he's available. Georgia peaches says, Rob, great show, stupid question. But, uh, could a person with Kyle's charges request to trial by a judge, a jury. And if so, could a judge's verdict be appealed? It's a good question. Uh, Georgia ordinarily. Uh, yes. So you can like in the state of Arizona, we could do that. I could say, ah, Mr. Prosecutor, we want to waive a jury trial. And if the prosecutor agreed with me, then yes, you could. You could theoretically do that. Just waive a trial, waive a jury, and go in front of a judge. Both sides would have to agree to that. And I'm not sure that you can get that done on a Hong Kong on a homicide type of a case, uh, just by statute. So you have to look at Wisconsin, but generally speaking yeah. For a misdemeanor charge or for a felony charge. Yeah. You can wave a jury and go right to a judge in this case probably would have been a good decision for the Rittenhouse team. Prosecutor would have absolutely objected. And that's why it would've never happened. Couple others here from, uh, beyond reasonable doubt to the state, even talked to their witnesses. It feels absurd. I think you're right. I'm not sure that they did, to be honest. King Kate says evening, Robyn, all this is torturous to our minds. Didn't Giuliani. Get disbarred for effectively. Not doing due diligence. The prosecution seems awful. I feel sorry for everyone involved, especially Kyle, I really hope he doesn't have his dreams crushed. I would bet he would make a good protectorate. That's from Kincaid. Thanks for sharing that Kincade. Let's see what else former Leo says the witness in the black jacket was the son of the owner. Big question on cross was if it could be proven that you requested security might make your father's company, a civil suit responsible for damages. You are good, man. You might good man are nothing but a liar. A liar. I said it's from former Leo. Uh, Peter Russo is the name of the congressmen from house of cards. That's who I think. Yeah, Corey[inaudible] kind of looks like Russo. Uh, what happens if the jury dies from boredom a mistrial? Well, if you're this prosecutor, they'd probably charge Kyle Rittenhouse with another couple charges. If you're Thomas being, or he'd probably try to blame Kyle for it, uh, tos forever says it would be a comedy that the people who were brought on the standard old fashioned protect our city. So they are proving the prosecution is the one who does not belong. We ain't telling you nothing. Yeah. A lot of the people who were part of Kyle's crew were very sympathetic to the prosecution throughout the entire, I'm sorry to the defense throughout the entire prosecution direct yo DUS, as I believe, McGinnis had been walking and interviewing Kyle prior. That's true. McGuinness had that is accurate. And uh, gross. Kreutz did not though. Monster one says, Kyle didn't perceive Richie as an attacker. Cause you know, he didn't attack you. It's pretty obvious. Yeah. He wasn't a threat because he wasn't being threatening. Rosenbaum was former Lao says the only issue is written bomb, state of mind. And that being that he was in fear for his life objective reasonable person. Then in sugar britches says, Rob, not able to watch the show until tomorrow, but I had a question you've already answered it. Please disregard does binger spending so much time on Rosenbaum being on armed work counterproductive when they get to the guy with the skateboard and the guy with a gun. In other words, because Binker spent so much time with every witness insinuating that Rittenhouse was unjustified by attacking an unarmed man, does that imply that Rittenhouse was justified in shooting the guys that did attack with a weapon? It seems like he's clearly showing the jury that the entire prosecution is based on hypocrisy and double standards. Yeah. And really taking that even one step further, just simple old table, banging just I'm just mad and not even any consistency at all. Also it seems that the defense is taking a page out of the geo P playbook of the opponent is if the opponent is busy, screwing everything up, just shut up and let them destroy themselves. The more they say, the more chance they have to make a mistake. Why do anything when the other side is doing a great job of screwing everything up. Yeah. I agree with you there. Sugar britches. And I, I think I made a similar point earlier about that. You just step aside, let the train wreck continue to collide right in front of you and just be thankful that it's so easy, but your point is very well taken. We've been hearing this trifecta routine from Thomas binger indefinitely on this show. It didn't have a gun. Didn't have a knife. Didn't have a bazooka. It didn't have a chain. Didn't have this. Right. Didn't get grant permission to go inside, to be on the property to use a firearm digit. No, no, no, no, no. Okay. But now you turn over to two Huber. Well, he had a dangerous weapon. No, no. He didn't have a gun. And he had a skateboard that he was swinging over his head. So that kind of was a weapon. Uh oh, gross. Groots no, he didn't have a knife or a machete or a nuclear submarine, but he had a Glock in his hand. So you asked about that with Rosenbalm. No, he didn't have a weapon, but the next two did. So it actually got worse there binger. So I'm not real sure that they've thought through all of this all too well, chip Von shoulder says I can't stop focusing on quote victim's rights. This is a backdoor way to shut down a person's right. To a fair trial. Yes. Yeah. There are a lot of problems with it. This, this was something that sounds great in idea, but our politicians just, you know, don't know reality all that much. We have another one, a snuck them says not true. You flipped, but you never flopped. You were staunch once the full reality on Chauvin's facts became available. Yeah. Look, I made a judgment call on the day that I saw it. I'm sure I don't, I don't even remember the stream or what I was, uh, what I said, but I mean, I was reacting to it in real time. Like everybody was, and we didn't know at the time. And I do know that I have a general tendency to find law enforcement often does problematic things. I'm a defense lawyer. I see what the government does on a regular basis. I see what they do to people like Kyle Rittenhouse all the time, built a whole law firm around stopping that from happening. So I get it. And when I see a police officer or anybody, who's in a position of power, I am skeptical naturally. So I was skeptical when it turns out that George Floyd's arteries were closed, like you could squeeze a hair through it. And the government's own witness comes out and says, yeah, I think his heart just gave out. Now it wasn't the knee. It was, the heart just gave out. Well, he had fentanyl and methamphetamine running through his blood and he may have taken a pill right before the whole thing went down. Cause he knew he was going to jail and he wanted to be high for the in and the out. Hmm. I don't know. Sweet potato says don't, you know, Rob doesn't directly answer those types of questions. Did he do it happy Friday? Rob loved the late start time and all the live chats like old times. Oh man, are we going to have to switch things back? We're experimenting works. I told him I'm a tinker. I like to tinker with things. We'll see. Uh, we had another question I saw on YouTube from Kira says, why did you stop streaming on YouTube regularly? And why the late premiers happy to see a stream? Well, we were experimenting Kyra. You know, I know a lot of people are unhappy with it, but a lot of our live streams, the problem with live streaming on YouTube, generally speaking right now, we've got a great audience audience. We've got a huge, you know, a huge, very nice show, but uh, you know, everybody in the chat is start doing it live again. All right. So the problem being is that when on YouTube and this is just so everybody understands how this works. When we do a live show on YouTube, the live show stops being put into the algorithm. Okay. It stops being shown. We call this impressions. When we talk about this in terms of our metrics, it stops getting impressions because YouTube says it's not live anymore. Nobody cares about the show. It's only useful for alive. It's only useful. The, the, a good analogy is like a live stream is good for a book release event, but not so good for talking about what's in the book. And so if you want your, your, your content to sort of live on indefinitely outside of the live stream, the live stream is not really the optimal methodology. Now it's very useful for cases like this, where there's a lot of interest surrounding a very, you know, very sort of high intensity live real-time event like a trial. So it makes sense for this, but there are other things when we're doing deep dive analysis on, uh, you know, court documents or some of the other stuff that we talk about where a live stream just doesn't make as much sense. So when I actually stopped doing the live streams and I started uploading the premiers are impressions, which is a very important metric on our YouTube channel, started to go up dramatically by about 11% in the first week. And so you can see now that the different format will actually make your channel live longer. And so I think that maybe the, uh, the right approach is to find a happy balance between the two of these, some live streams, some prerecorded content. I'm still trying to find my, uh, you know, the right format and the right balance. But I am, I'm absolutely listening to the feedback. Don't think that I'm happy about the change. It's a lot more work for me. This is a lot easier to just go live and just do it this way. If I do it, the premiers, I got an edit, it takes me another hour, hour 15. After the show's over to do all that work, this is easier. I would like to just continue to do this, but I can't let you know it's YouTube's playground. And if they're, if they set the rules the way they set the rules, and I got to make changes for the survival of the channel, so we can continue to get our message across, then I have to do it. And I know it hurts. It's painful, but that's what the change was all about. Uh, three girlies is here. Thank you, Kira, for the question, three girls, he says, do you see any parallels between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin? It's like deja VU. It didn't matter when Zimmer Zimmerman calls 9 1, 1 9 1 1 operator tells him not to go and do anything. Clock started when Zimmerman actually got into a confrontation with Trayvon. So in that thought process, it doesn't matter if Kyle shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have been carrying a gun, should have been doing whatever. It's what happens in that moment. And the Rittenhouse seems to have the same argument as Zimmerman. Did Alice, at least when it came to Rosenbaum. Yeah. Yeah. So the only, the only caveat being here, that what they're saying is that Kyle Rittenhouse, by breaking the law in the first place loses the entire argument of self-defense is what they're saying. And I think that same thing happened with Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman in Zimmerman. It's the same arguments. You're right. It's the same arguments. It's whether somebody was provoking and whether somebody had objective reasonable belief that they were under imminent threats and whether they could use self-defense as a result. So you're you're right. There are a lot of parallels there. Now that I talk about it, see the veil says, Hey, Robert, the issue with the domino effect is even if Rittenhouse was not there, it would have been someone else. The fact the war zone was going on. There were people looking to start a fight and kept threatening to kill others. It was going to be someone if Rittenhouse wasn't there. So why is it okay that the government goes after a kid when the government has over a hundred people to choose from putting on trial for a burning a community to the ground and terrorizing people who had nothing to do with elected officials crimes? I don't think that it is see the veil. I don't think it's okay at all, which is why this case has been so captivating. It's because it feels like it is one of the most obvious cases of self-defense and of innocence, a case that should have never been charged. And it got charged. I think it's political. I think it had to do with 2020, we had a lot of this narrative taking place that Donald Trump was just racist, moron. And that the only thing that he wanted to do was see more dead black people and more dead brown people and all of this nonsense. And so every time there was an opportunity for the media, for prosecutors, for the government to take a case, and Wisconsin is a contested state, isn't it to make a mountain out of a mole hill. They do it. And they did here and they turned this into a whole BLM thing. And they even tried to concoct Kyle Rittenhouse into this racist 3% oath, keeper, whatever they were trying to do with that, there was no basis for it. Why clicks political clicks? They wanted to just turn this into yet. Another thing, right in August, right before October and November, when the election comes out, they wanted to rally the troops. If they can get Wisconsin to turn blue. Great. And they can really have a nice make, make a nice go with that when they have all of the media behind them pushing the narrative one direction. So I, I agree. I think it's reprehensible to use the justice system and in a weaponized fashion, uh, Jeremy says, Rob, you said criminal trespassing. Are there different levels of trespassing, such as misdemeanor, felony, trespassing, aggravated trespassing, TUI trespassing under the influence. Just curious, uh, uh, there can be, yeah. I mean, there can be so like an aggravated trespassing charge would be like, you've done trespassing four or five times, and now it's aggravated. It's sort of like a DUI DUI first offense, regular second offense. Second, third offense felony aggravated. Why? Because you got two others previously, same thing with domestic violence, one, two misdemeanors, third DV trespassing, same type of concept. Um, but you could also have, you know, non criminal trespass. Like you could go into a Walmart cause a ruckus be asked to leave, be trespassed from that property, but not charged. They just tell you don't come back here. So there's a lot of different ways to interpret. I think trespass, former Elio says Rittenhouse was trying to surrender to the PD. They ran him off after they pepper sprayed him or tried to saw that, uh, we have a couple other ones. Let's see what we have here. Monster one says, this is the weakest case I've ever seen. Understand why initially they may have filed charges, but after they did a minuscule of investigation should have been dropped. Not a single witness has been sympathetic to the prosecution thus far, at least in Shovan. They were able to make a few compelling arguments in this case, nothing so far. How many days is estimated for the prosecution while the judge said two weeks and he's getting tired of it. So, uh, I think this trial is over by next week, by the end of next week, he said two weeks, certainly. But it is a, I think the, I think the defense is going to cut their case short because what do they need to present? The government just presented everything. The defense doesn't need a full week. They didn't need it. Anyways. They probably said we need three days, four days, but probably not. Bill given says, can you explain the difference between hearsay and unexcited utterance? So it's a great question. A unexcited utterance is an exception to hearsay. So hearsay would be like, uh, somebody comes in and says the legal definition. It's going to be hard to give you a good example because hearsay is very complicated, but, but generally hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter that is being asserted. So let's say, um, I'm trying to think of a, of a case where there might be an excited utterance. Um, so like if somebody stole something and a police officer is investigating a crime and somebody saw somebody steal something, person a saw a person B steal something, and officer B shows up to the scene and says, uh, officer a, I'm sorry, a person a tell me what happened, officer. I saw Bob Steele that candy bar officer says, okay, Bob stole the candy bar. Now Bob goes into court to talk about, uh, who stole the candy bar. Ideally you bring Alison a in and she comes in and testifies. Bob stole the candy bar. You get to cross examine. Alison that's all great. It's all well and good. Now, Alison, for whatever reason, she said something. Her statement to the officer that the candy bar was stolen by B is, is being offered in the courtroom to prove what that B stole the candy bar. That's why he's there. He's being charged with theft of the candy bar. And now a is trying to say something that is being offered to prove the truth of that criminal allegation. So that's classic hearsay that can't come in, officer, I'm sorry, Alison herself can come into court and she can come in and testify about that. But officer can't come in and say a told me that, uh, that B stole the candy bar. That's hearsay. That's uh, that's an out of court statement. Officer didn't see any of that. Somebody else said it that's hearsay. Now an excited utterance would be an exception to that. Okay. Even though that out of court statement, can't come in. If you have a different statement, if we think of a different hypothetical or something where somebody says something excitedly, if person a just says, you know, uh, says something like, well, they stole that candy bar and an officer was standing right there next to her and heard that. And they said, well, Bob just stole that. Whoa, well, that guy just stole that. Did you see that? He just grabbed that candy bar on his bike and just wisdom, but whoa, he just stole that thing. Now that's a different statement. Okay. It's technically an out of court statement that is, is, is technically, you know, proving the truth of the matter asserted, but it's an excited utterance. So we give that statement a little bit more reliability and a little bit more credibility. And so there's some argument that that statement can come into court because it is less subject to credibility problems. If somebody has an excited utterance like whoa, like, whoa, that guy just shot that guy. That guy just shot him. Do you see that, that statement, even though it might prove the truth about who shot that person, it's still just an excited utterance and we give it a little bit more credibility because it, it happened so quickly. It doesn't give a person enough time to concoct some story. If it's not an excited utterance. And somebody's got to think about that. Well, should I say that person a or B stole that? Or should I say C or should I say anything at all? And you get to then manipulate what's happening in your mind versus an excited utterance. And so the court will say sometimes, even though these things are hearsay, we're going to let it come into court anyways. And again, this is complicated because now you have to put it through a number of other different tests about whether it's overly probative or prejudicial versus the probative value. The rules are very complicated and you'll have, like you saw today, three different lawyers, judge prosecutor, and the defense person, all individuals who were licensed, went to law school, got a bar license or whatever. I think they're in Wisconsin. So not sure you have to pass a bar. I think you only have to, uh, uh, just graduate law school, but they all were having conversations about this. And they had to bring out the book and they're talking about the Clarence it's it's messy stuff, which is why you don't do it in the middle of a trial on a Friday. You settle all this stuff before, before trial ever starts because they are complicated and you have to go, all right, aunt, uh, aunt Huber, she's out there. What's she talking about? What's her statement going to be okay. She's talking about Anthony, who is Anthony, while he's a declarant. Uh, but he's not here with us today. So he's the declarant is unavailable. So that's this section of the rules. And what's his statement about, is it being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted or is it being used for another purpose? Because it's being used for another purpose, that's a different section of the rules. So then you have to go to the statement and then find out why it's being used. And there's all sorts of different exceptions. It's very convoluted, which is why it's called a practice, the practice of law, because you're practicing it all the time. LA medic says after today and barring anything earth shattering from the prosecution. When do you think the charges are for an approved motion to dismiss or a directed judgment? Uh, chances are, I think virtually zero. Uh, as I said, I think it's, it's a formal motion, but the judge is not going to take this out of the jury's hands. I don't think this judge is a little bit interesting, but yeah, I doubt it. It's just too big. He's not going to take it away from the jurors. Especially after all of the time that's gone into this three girls, he says, I swear, these questions are driving me nuts. So the officer was coming to collect evidence in the middle of collecting 40 caliber shells. The officer stated there's nine millimeter shells officer actually goes even further to say, Rittenhouse is not there, but there's other shots being fired further away. Just shows that there were multiple people shooting off firearms in the local area. These prosecutors are really daft. These smoking guns keep shooting these stupid prosecutors in the foot. That's some three girlies. Yeah. It's pretty astute. A summation of what's happening in trial today. I agree with you break says, according to officer pep, Kyle was pretty close to taking the pavement temperature challenge too. Yeah, well, he had a gun and he was, you know, rapidly approaching the police so you can see why they might be a little bit, uh, cautious. My light went out again. These light shows, see, rose says, Rob, have you ever seen a prosecution that tried to draw the sting for this amount of time? That's a very technical, a legal term. They're drawing the sting means that you're sort of getting the bad facts out early, right? Draw the sting. Like you're going to get stung on these facts. Just get it now. All right. I know it's going to hurt. Give it to me. Come on, do it. So he's saying draw, draw the sting. The prosecution came out all of their bad facts. Gonna lay it all out there. Give it to us. He's saying, is it supposed to go on for like four days though? No, it's not. Maybe there's a Minsky's are gonna try to implicate Rittenhouse, but I feel they're going to be destroyed on cross by the way. Emotional testimonies allowed under Minnesota law under the spark of life doctrine. Luckily the only state that allows it, the alcoholic congressmen is Peter Russo paid by Corey Stoll. Yeah. That's who I think that this, I think this is who sort of, uh, Corey, uh, cheer. Feesey kind of looks like this guy. Doesn't he? Yeah, there he is. Corey chair Feesey or Peter Rousseau. Yeah, I think it does. I liked that actor, Corey stall and look at this Corey Stoll, Corey cheer, FEC. Oh, maybe it's the same guy. Maybe. I don't know. I'm very curious. Soul Viking says Sergeant pepper helped the defense significantly with his war zone comments. It's hard to unring that bell from an officer in full uniform, looking at the jurors. Did you notice that about those officers today to lot better, uh, testifying see all of the Rittenhouse crew, who were they looking at during the exams? They were looking this direction, Workday towards the prosecutor, towards the defense, the police, they were looking this way over to the jurors. And he said, uh, jurors. Yeah, it was a fricking war zone out there. Disaster not good from the government's own witnesses. Monster. One says, Hey, maybe don't defund the police. Maybe the governor should call the national guard. It's wouldn't happen. A lot of maybe's not legally REL relevant. Rob's racist lamp is here, says, do you know what would brighten my day up, Rob, when Rob turns me on, but I'm S well done there. Rob's racist lamp. Lot of racist things here, uh, we've got Pelosi's bags is here talking about Nadler's diaper. Former Elio says you better back off little, Mr. I live in the reddest of red counties in California. Former Leo did not like my California dumping three girly says, officer pep said that Kyle was approaching, but wasn't obeying commands with all due respect. Kyle had just shot three. People had been hitting his head with a skateboard. He was dealing with a fair bit of trauma. Most likely concussion. Glad this officer understood that Kyle was not a threat. Yeah. And the officer was just, you know, communicating from his perspective and his perspective, I think is valid. He didn't know what was going on. Either John Haugen says the car lot guy was sheltered from Hogan's heroes. He knew nothing. Oh, I know that thing. Yes, no. Do I know that? I don't think I know what you're talking about, John, but I'm sure many other people do good to see you. John hope you're well, hope to see you guys tomorrow. DDL SPI says I'm almost entirely convinced at this point that everything that happened today was to confuse the jury. Mostly wondering how much the last two days the jury will even talk about. Will it cause jury deliberation to go for more time as a result, this really seemed to be like a distraction day to fire up the week two case. Yeah. I mean, it is like a shotgun approach to some degree, but I don't, it's not, it's not working as far as I can tell. Greg Morat says, is the prosecution trying to flip the case? Narrative is not being a case of self-defense, but as some right wing gun, not playing, Counter-Strike playing towards people's emotions and knock the facts of the case. I think, I think you're right about that. You know? And it was that frame, that phrase that I mentioned yesterday, Greg, if you don't, if you have good facts, pound the facts. If you have bad facts, pound the table. A lot of that idea of being the written house was this craze, lunatic running around acting recklessly, and everybody else was an innocent bystander. Rosenbaum tripped over her shoelaces. Huber was, uh, you know, running into danger and gross Kreutz I'm sure we're going to hear from him was trying to stop an active shooter. That's all three, truly good people just trying to improve the streets of Kenosha. John Halligan says what's the over-under for the length of time that the jury deliberates three hours. This is a hard one, John. Yeah. It's a hard one because they do have like 17 exhibits of videos. So maybe they'll watch some of those three hours is a pretty good one. The important thing with an over-under is that you want to split people right down the middle. You don't want to get it. You don't, you don't want to get the right number. That's not the point of this thing. If you want to set it, you want to split people. So three hours I think is probably a little bit short. I'd say maybe six. I think six you'd split people. Cause that's kind of a day. Are they going to get it in one day or in two days? If it goes beyond one day, that's going to be not good. If it goes multiple days, that means the jury's really thinking about this. They're watching the videos. They're having deliberations. If it comes back three hours is pretty good. I actually liked three hours, maybe five hours. That's a good question. Got to think about that. Maybe we'll talk about that tomorrow on our meetup. A couple of other questions break says, I think the prosecution's only strategy is an emotional appeal to a majority female jury. Yeah, but what happens when they come out and say, this could have been your son, you know, out there, uh, Nancy Pelosi's fun bag says, Rob does like to tinker. She can attest to that. You watch who you tell about that. Nancy Bama lick. It says, if you bring a knife, a bat, a gun, for whatever reason, you intend to use it right now that you, when you used it and somebody died, no matter how jerk of a person that is, does it mean that no one is accountable to the life. Lost great show. Rob watching your show attentively. Very informative. So many laws I get to encounter. That's from Bama Likud. Thank you, Bama. Look at welcome here. Now people are accountable. If there's a gunshot that goes off and somebody is shot and killed, oftentimes people are charged. You don't just get to say I shot and killed somebody and I get to go free. There's often charges. This is a extreme case of something where I think the evidence doesn't match, but we'll see Natalie's dirty diaper says until I became overweight. I'm now at 34.5 pounds. Oh my gosh. It's Friday. We have a weekend updates. He was 33 pounds on Wednesday folks. He's 34.5 pounds. Now each Jerry Nadler. Can somebody change Jerry Nadler? Where's Nancy Pelosi. Where is Chuck Schumer? You're in the majority. Natalie is waddling around Capitol hill stinking up the whole place. He's at 34 and a half pounds. Now can you pause the destruction of our economic future for two seconds and just change his diaper? Natalie's dirty diaper. He's over capacity. He says somebody help him gross Radice. He says, I'm doing my Christmas shopping in San Francisco. If I hit several stores, I can get a great hall at under 950 a pop it's only five hour drive for me. Well, that's good.[inaudible] I think if you're in San Francisco, you don't have to for anything. So I don't know why it costs you anything. Just go and take it. That's what everybody else does over there. Yeah. It's a free for all, uh, uh, Hogan's heroes. Uh, another comment on that don't know what that one was. Oh, Zulu Zeit fan is here, says, remember to register for the locals meetup tomorrow had an interesting comment with Zulu earlier in the week. Not sure if you miss that one, Zulu has got, you know, he's got some proud things, you know, that he's proud about. So that's great. Zulus eight fan says, remember to register for the locals meetup tomorrow. Don't forget. John Haugen says four hours for the OJ jury. Just saying that's a good point. Yeah. How long was, uh, the Shovan jury? Jury. Jury out? Not long. Sure. Shovan jury time. How long was that? Uh, how long? Four hours. Oh yeah. Shogun was four hours. Let's take a look. New York times says how long could a verdict take? Oh wait. Well, I don't know how long it was. It wasn't long. It was basically within a day. So I think that you're onto something there. John, we'll have to figure that out. Okay. Couple more. Before we get out of here, former Leo says no charges in Chicago. It's a free fire zone from Chicago and see the veil says, so God, very imaginative. Uh, being her in, Biden's sitting in a tree, sleeping, not kissing, being her praise dreaming. He's going to hell. Okay. I'm going to have to read this offline. I don't know what is going on in this Biden. Moans Biden moans at Nadler. And then Colin says, is it supposed to smell? I thought, hell is just about fire. And Colin says, they're talking. See the veil. I don't know what it's Friday night. I don't know what is going on over there, but it sounds like a wild time. So I'll put a pin in this one and I'll read it, but enjoy yourself. Be safe. Whatever's happening over there. Chairman of the board says Rob for a non-sports guy showing some solid knowledge on the over-under thing. It's not that I don't know sports. I know sports. I, and I, and I like sports. I just don't stay up to date with them. But yeah, you want to split them. You want to split them dead on. Yeah. You don't want to give them people missed. It's a common mistake as for the beyond one day thing for deliberation. Do you think the jury may not want to come back too quickly? Even if their minds are made up because they don't want the political backlash PS, I get why you're doing the shows the way you are, make sense for the way YouTube works. And for those of us on local's not that big of a deal. So I guess my advice is join watching the watchers.locals.com double exclamation point. Thank you for that. Chairman PBS, do yourself a favor and check out some Hogan's heroes reruns. I don't, I don't know why. I don't know what that is. Yeah. I'm going to have to pull that up. So let me, let me, let me pick that one and chairman, I got your, I saw your message that you're going to be at a gig tomorrow doing your show and performing live when we're doing our meetup. And so hopefully we can see a little bit of you, but if not, we'll catch you on the next one in December. Um, I do not think that the jury is going to be too concerned about the political backlash. If it's a pretty clear decision they're going to want to get done with this thing. And they're probably going to move quickly. Fowchee says it looks like Natalie's diaper is having an, an underlying health condition. It's a co-morbidity and we have a couple, I think our last one, I don't know what that last question is. And so we're just going to end it right there. My friends, all of those questions came over from watching the watchers.locals.com tremendous support today on the live streams from our friends over on YouTube, shout out to our very accomplished new lawyer to be law school through a service dogs, eyes who passed the bar, this July in a, a tremendous accomplishment. So shout out as well. And now my friends is at, for us for the day, lot of Rittenhouse stuff. And I really appreciate all the amazing questions. It's so fun to be able to take a deep dive into this and have some people to talk about it with. And so, um, um, I'm very grateful to everybody. Who's allowing us to have this conversation because I think it's very important and I hope that, uh, it's meaningful to you. Like it is to me. And I want to welcome some new people who are a part of our community over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Big shout outs have a lot of new supporters. We've got custodies P any w is in the house, joined up for the year. We've got Robert, Mary Robert Emory's in the house. Welcome. Robert. We've got chip avant shoulder and I may have typoed that one. Sorry about that. I'll fix that. Para LA 4 0 6 is here. Welcome. We've got crime junkie. JECA in the house. Welcome crime junkie, future freedom. Now also signed up joining us for the year Briggs 57. We've got G echo man in the house. Welcome to G echo, man. Big welcome Briggs. 57 PWS, M K a Z is in the house. We've got CPO forever and de Del SPE is in the house. We also had G nonsense frat bod flee J bad guy, 24 CC. Very clever name mine, magician, C rose hyperspectral and Erin Caroline, who joined up all our friends are over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com five bucks a month, 50 bucks annually. We're doing monthly meetups now, uh, where I'll be doing this for a while. Our next one is this Saturday. That's tomorrow seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time, very casual, very low key. We just all hop on zoom. The registration link is now posted on locals. It's pinned to the top. So go and check that out. We hang out for an hour, hour and a half. Turn on the cameras. If you want to use your real name, use a fake name, doesn't matter, but it's a good time to connect with people. We talk a lot about surviving the chaos of the world. I think a lot of benefit comes from being plugged in with a group of like-minded people and just to be around that energy for some degree it's useful. And so come check it out. Join us tomorrow, seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time. Typically we go a little bit longer. Don't have to stay for the whole time. Come say, hi, leave if you want to, but check it out. Watching the watchers.locals.com. It is a lot of fun, other good things you can get over there. A copy of all my slides, you get a free copy of my book. There's a PDF link that's available there. Uh, we are having morning sort of impromptu show prep conversations to kick the day off in the mornings. So there's some additional content over there. And, uh, we're going to be doing zoom tomorrow, going to try to connect with a ricotta. I saw Viva swung by lot of trials going on. Lots of talk about, and so we're going to make sure that we can get to it all. Want to make sure that you're a part of the conversation when we do so check us out tomorrow, six to seven, I'm sorry. Seven to 8:00 PM. Eastern time for the meetup. Otherwise we're going to be back here on Monday. Not sure what time yet, but we're going to do it all again. Probably going to be at 4:00 PM, but we might just go live again across the board because we'll be talking Rittenhouse again, at least until that trial is closed. And so whatever the time is, I'm sure I'll update you, but plan on it. 4:00 PM Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain 6:00 PM. Central 7:00 PM on the east coast. All my friends out there have a tremendous evening sleep. Very well unplugged from politics for a little bit, because I'll see you right back here on Monday and tomorrow for watching the watchers.locals.com. Meet up, have a great rest of your Friday. My friends be well, see you on the next one. Bye bye.