Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.

Rittenhouse Trial Day 7 Recap: Forensic Pathologist, Drones, #Grambo , Photgrapher

November 09, 2021 Robert Gruler Esq.
Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq.
Rittenhouse Trial Day 7 Recap: Forensic Pathologist, Drones, #Grambo , Photgrapher
Show Notes Transcript

The Prosecution RESTS in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the Defense calls four of its first witnesses. We review the Rittenhouse Trial Day 7 with clips and take your questions!​

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

Speaker 1:

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert ruler . I am a criminal defense attorney 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. So we're grateful that you are here and with us today, Kyle Rittenhouse trial day seven, the state rests their case. The prosecutors are done presenting their evidence. So we've got to go through, see how it went for him . We're going to go through and finish with the government's case in chief today, they rested. We had a couple of additional witnesses that came out. We're going to go through them. One was a videographer, somebody who worked over at the crime lab who was , uh , sort of enhancing, enhancing, enhancing the photos that were then delivered over to , uh , uh, evidence to the defense attorneys today. So we'll listen to that guy and we have another witness. The actual coroner, the person in the medical examiner came out and gave us his assessment of what ended up killing Rittenhouse. I'm sorry. Uh Rosenbalm and Huber course, we , uh , sort of know what that was. Those were the bullets that came from written has gun, but we have the coroner. Who's going to tell us a little bit more about that. And then they're done prosecution wrapped up for the day. The defense came out and we had some very interesting witnesses. We're going to go through all of them today. The big highlight of the day Graham bow that's right. Grandma Rambo, this woman, Joanne running around Kenosha, basically about to save the day . So she testified today, good testimony from her. She had some profane language that we're going, that she used in court today, but it wasn't her language. It was actually Rosenbaum's language. And so we're actually gonna play that today. Uh , content warning on the show. If you're concerned about that, again, this is a murder trial, intentional homicide. So , uh, there is going to be a little bit of profanity here, but we're going to try to clean it up as best. We can also. There's no , uh , graphic footage here at all. We clipped all of that out as well. So we've got all of the defense today. We've got four different witnesses that we're going to get to. So let's get into it before we do quick reminder, if you're a supporter of our community [email protected], first of all, thank you very much, but you can use this form where we take questions. This is over there available on the link where we share the show. And so , uh , fill out the form, ask a question, we'll get to it. If you're looking for individual clips of this show, it's a long show. We are clipping up the different witnesses. So in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, specifically, if you're looking for a specific witness or a specific segment, you can go and find those over here at the clips channel. So we're actually clipping them up by, you know , the different witnesses. Sometimes we're batching them if it's a short witness, but check those out at the clips channel. Okay? So Kyle Rittenhouse trial day seven, we're going to take a look at the government's witness list. This is what wraps it up. This is everybody, everybody who testified from the government is on this board today. We had two additional people that we added. We're talking about James Armstrong down here, somebody who did some forensic work on the videos. And so he came into court to tell us a little bit more about this sort of a magical drone footage that just appeared out of nowhere. So James Armstrong was in court today. And then we hear from Dr. Doug Kelly forensic pathologist today who tells us a little bit more about the bullets that ended up killing some of the people who are the alleged victims in the case. So this is it. This is everything that we've got. Government's done. Nobody else. You can see every single witness they called on this board, including the secret FBI agent who was sort of was a disavowed it today. We'll get to that in a minute, but that's the case, a lot of different witnesses we're going to see and compare and contrast that to the defense board and see if they are using the same number of witnesses. Once again, the main trial board we see here, no big changes, still looking at 18 jurors. The rest of the team is most of the same. We heard a lot from binger Kraus , from Mark Richards and quarry cheer FEC today. So everybody was sort of playing ball. We even heard from judge Schroeder a lot as we normally do. And he actually started off the day by telling us about this interesting incident that happened with the jurors. And so thus far in this coverage, we've done our best to sort of keep the coverage housed within the court itself. Not really venturing out, looking outside of the courtroom or sort of , uh, indulging in some of the other gossip. Maybe that's going around. I did an interview with Veeva earlier today and check that out. If you miss that, that was at the regular Showtime, but we were talking about this idea that maybe there was somebody posting stuff on the internet, threatening the jurors in the Rittenhouse case saying, if you don't vote the way we want, there's going to be repercussions for you because we have somebody who's actually filming you. And we're going to be able to dock your butts and Institute penalties for not complying with our demands. And so that was a sort of a rumor that was existing. It was on Twitter. Might've been George Floyd's cousin. Somebody was saying something like that. Didn't look into it, can't vet that claim at all, but I wasn't even going to mention it. But for the fact that the judge brought it up today, says , uh , jurors , uh, when you were on the way to , uh, court, somebody might've been taking your pictures, we were able to intervene and that's not going to happen again. But here's the judge talking about it with the, with the attorneys today, outside of the courtroom, specifically talking about somebody who is , you know , kind of taking pictures. The police approached , this person, asked them to delete the photographs, but if it happens again, the judge is going to have to escalate the consequences. Here's judge Schrader today in court.

Speaker 2:

It's not in the room. And , uh , it was reported to me that my intentions are aligned that , uh, this morning, okay. Is there a line at this morning? Uh, the pickup , uh, there was someone there and it was video recording the jury, which , um , the officers approached , the person required him to him. Her, I didn't even ask him to , um, delete the video and returned the phone to him. Um, I've instructed that if it happens again there to take the phone and bring it here. So that's for your information. Um, number two, unless there's some request I'm not going to address anything further about , uh , our conversation of yesterday.

Speaker 1:

All right . So, you know, some interesting business going on there and you can't necessarily relate the two automatically. You can't say well, because somebody was threatening to do that, that they actually went and did that, that of course could have been just a regular journalist, somebody who's a reporter, somebody who's trying to get to the bottom of that thing. And so you don't really know exactly what was going on, but it is very interesting, very coincidental that you have a threat like that. And then you have the judge come out, you know , the next day and say somebody was actually doing that. So , uh , maybe there is some truth to that who knows, but the judge and the courts are going to keep a good eye on it. And we'll see where it goes from there. Quick look at what the charges are. Quick reminder in case we're already not familiar at this point. Also looking at these two days, also, it sort of included to date some conversations about the 23rd Sunday through Tuesday from several of the officers. And so we're going to start off with the government's testimony or their witnesses testimony today with Jaren James Armstrong. This is a guy who does imaging and video analysis for the state crime lab. I don't think it was the Kenosha or, or a local crime lab, but actually the state crime lab in Wisconsin. And he is telling us a little bit about bombs bag. Remember this bag, that sort of captivated. A lot of the time in this trial, some people saying that the bag was a weapon, a projectile, that there was something in there that Rosenbaum threw towards Kyle Rittenhouse. And this was his aggression, right? This was a threat. And we heard from Thomas binger all throughout this trial, did you ever see Rosenbaum with a gun knife, a machete, a bazooka, a samurai sword. Did you see him with any two by four filled with nails in it? No. None of those things. And so the government's perspective was that means that he wasn't an actual threat. Therefore Kyle Rittenhouse was not justified in shooting him. It turns out that that's not really how self-defense works. You don't have to have a hatchet in order to , to be a threat to somebody. You can just chase them, but this was the theme. It wasn't even something that was necessarily found in law. It was just a theme. It was just this, this, this message that the prosecution was trying to get out to the court and to the jurors more specifically. And so we focused a lot on this image. Was it a brick? Was it filled with , uh, you know, volatiles, like something that could be used for a Mala Molotov cocktail was this soap that just came out from Rosenbaum's discharged from the hospital, a lot of open questions about this. And so they send it over to this guy, James Armstrong, James Armstrong is again with the crime lab and he's going to do some, you know, detailed image analysis on this, where he clarifies it. Let's see what he said today in court,

Speaker 3:

Mr. Armstrong to shoot what has been previously marked as state's exhibit 24. Uh , you look at it either . Your screen is which other screen is more comfortable. Uh, does that look familiar to you? Yes, it does. And what is that?

Speaker 4:

Those are three clarified images that I produce , um , from the I'm sorry that I produce from item you have from video file that was submitted.

Speaker 3:

So a video video file was submitted , uh , by me and you found an image and you clarified it. That is correct. How do you go about doing that?

Speaker 4:

I utilize a variety of software in this particular case I used and five to enhance and clarify that image.

Speaker 3:

Now, is it your job to figure out what is in the image?

Speaker 1:

Okay. So that, that mouth breathing noise is not me. That's the witness he's like right over the microphones for breathing into it really heavily. So that's not me, but that is him. But you can see they're sort of doing that CSI enhanced thing. So they take a picture of this. They do some very aggressive image processing on it, run it through some algos and then come up with a conclusion. That's what this guy's job is. And it's sort of like that. Remember that scene from super troopers where he's typing away, pop up , uh , enhance bapapapapa enhance, or you have the CSI shows where they're like, wow , we're not sure who the killer is. Wait, I know I'm going to access that top secret government satellites. They access it. And they're like, oh, okay, zoom in on his , uh, residence . And then suddenly they zoom in and it's right through his window and you can see him laying on his bed and they zoom in on a pimple on his button. They're like, oh, that's mark. And go, yeah, mark, mark did it. So, you know, it's like that, right. That's what we're sort of looking at. And so they bring him back again to talk a little bit more about the other videos, the other image processing that they did remember there was a lot of it that took place here. They just didn't scrub these videos and have these yellow arrows magically embedded in the video. Somebody did that. And it was this guy where he went through analyzed. All of it says that we reviewed the footage. And in this situation we're looking at right here, this yellow arrow, that was presumably I can't remember if that's pointing to probably Rittenhouse at that time. It doesn't matter. But he is telling us about taking still frames from the BG on the scene video, which was the subject of a lot of conversation here. So he kind of broke the video apart and was able to extract a number of different steel frames. And so that's what he's talking about here in this clip. Let's listen,

Speaker 3:

Mr. Armstrong, in this case, are you ever given a video and asked to get still shots of a snippet of a video? Yes, I was. And are you aware if that is the BG on the scene video? Do you recall?

Speaker 4:

I do not exactly recall. Um, with regards to that video now ,

Speaker 3:

Uh, but fair to say that we asked you to look at a short segment in produced every still image that you could. Yes, that is correct. And were you able to do that of this video? Yes, that is correct. And do you know how many stills that you received from that video?

Speaker 4:

729

Speaker 3:

Stills . And this morning before we came over here, did you view a folder that had those stills in the , uh , from the video? I guess I did . Um, at this point I'd like to mark and move a folder named frames , uh , which is state's exhibit 80. Um, I'd like to , uh , move that into evidence.

Speaker 5:

No objection, your honor.

Speaker 1:

All right, so now no objection. That stuff comes right in and you know, most of it not very interesting. What was interesting to me was this clip where he's talking about this video file item X, like that's the actual name of this video file that just sort of popped up. He gets cross-examined about this. This video was very late disclosed. Uh , lately disclosed, it was disclosed late is what it was. And it was outside of the normal bounds of disclosure. We're going to hear about that when Mark Richards does his cross-examination, but this is about that drone footage. Remember we saw sort of the drone footage previously, that was the FBI drone that had the infrared overview of the entire scene. This is a different drone. This is like some sort of somebody , um, you know, commercial drone that you can just sort of fly around and you see people with, you know, making YouTube videos and stuff like that, not the commercial infrared military-style drone, just somebody random, you know, drone. So this, this drone footage shows a very important angle of everything. I mean, it shows the exact opposite angle that we all spend a lot of time watching that came out originally with the case, the angle from the McGuinness side of the shooting, from where Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle, then they go sort of tuck away back in the darkness in that corner. This is showing that corner. This guy's laying the foundation for that. Let's listen in.

Speaker 3:

You've already mentioned, have you recently done any more for forensic imaging work in this case?

Speaker 4:

Yes, I was provided another video file as item X.

Speaker 3:

And what did you do with item X

Speaker 4:

With item X I enhanced and , uh , enlarged the video file and cropped it to the area of interest.

Speaker 3:

I let you show you, what is it marked as state's exhibit 81? Do you recognize this? Yeah .

Speaker 4:

Yes . It appears to be the videos , uh, clarified video that I export it .

Speaker 3:

Now, do you have any difficulties clarifying or tracking this file?

Speaker 4:

Uh, the limitations of this file include the movement of the camera , um , movement of the person and the lighting conditions that are present.

Speaker 3:

Now, you mentioned limitations. Did all these various videos you looked at have different limitations? Yes .

Speaker 4:

Each had their own set of limitations.

Speaker 3:

Um, I'd like you to, is this , uh , I know we watched, we watched this video this morning. I believe so. Yes. It isn't a true and accurate copy of the , uh , exhibit that you created of that drone video. It appears to be. So I guess I'd like to move exhibit 81 into evidence and play it for the jury.

Speaker 5:

Go ahead.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Now the drone is flying and this is the exact opposite angle. So that's the car lot right there. And you can see as a positive right there. This looks like it's Kyle Rittenhouse running in here. So we only saw stuff previously from sort of looking down this direction, looking this angle because McGinnis was around this side. A lot of the footage was from back over this angle. So Rittenhouse, as we know, sort of runs through this crevice here between this light spot and written house . I'm sorry. Rittenhouse is running through this light spot. Rosenbaum is following directly behind him and we don't ever actually get to see any of this cause it's all darked out, right? It's really dark over here behind this corner. It's so illuminated here that it's casting a shadow really on this whole, this whole vicinity. And so we get to see the entire other angle of this. And so what we've got now is , uh , is , uh , we heard from the gentleman , Mr. Armstrong says, basically what I did is we saw this big scene here. Right. Which is zoomed out quite a bit. So he's saying I just kinda zoomed in right here. I just kind of , uh , take, took this frame , uh , cropped, all this other stuff out and enhanced it just like you do in a map on your phone or in a photograph on your phone. Oh , you want to see that one? Oh, who's that? Ooh, who's that one. And you zoom in there and it's a little bit pixelated. It's a little bit granulated, right? You really can't see it. The clarity goes down depending on, you know, the make mega pixels and the quality of the camera and things like that. So that's exactly what he's doing here. And he shows us as he zooms in, we're not going to play the actual, you know , moment of the shooting because of a YouTube. But what we have here, we can see, you know, this is written house who is in the lower left , uh, down here in the green sort of turning around, looks like Rosenbaum is , is sort of shortly, you know, right behind him right here. And then as soon as they enter into this corner, you can see it's pretty, you know, the quality is not bad at all. You can see it is , it is pretty, you know, pretty decent. It is pixelated. It is granular, but you can make out body parts, at least, you know, you can't look at any details, but it looks like human figures. This looks like Rosenbalm , this looks like Rittenhouse. And so you're able to put a couple things together. Now it don't know if I actually, yeah. So here, here is, is , uh, during the cross-examination . So that video then gets admitted and you can see if you want to go watch the full thing, I'd encourage you to do it, but it basically doesn't show anything differently than what we all saw. Right. It shows the shooting then Rittenhouse runs around, gets on his phone and then takes off. And so during cross-examination now, Mark Richards comes back out and says, can we talk about that timeline again? A little bit further in detail? I think, I think what you said is that the crime lab just got this on Sunday. It's now Tuesday and we're in the middle of trial. You're telling me, you just got this thing. Here's what happened in court today.

Speaker 4:

I've received them, the crime rarely ever see that as a submittal on Sunday. Okay. And who submitted them to you? I was eight. Hey , Jim cross. Okay. And you're familiar with the fact that we didn't receive these videos until Friday of last week. I was informed that that was the circumstance. Yes. Okay. And when you do this, you're not adding color, correct? That is correct. I'm not in color. You're not adding pixels with regards to enlargement. There is interpretation . And so pixels are added to that. Okay. How is the colors not changed? Color is not changed. So if you blow something up 10%, what does that do for the pixel number? The pixels will increase by interpretation of that , of that , uh , area. Okay. And

Speaker 1:

So kind of boring stuff. They go off into the weeds on that a little bit, you know, if you zoom in, what's going to happen. And really the crux of this is that when you make any manipulations, you're sort of manipulating the evidence. Aren't you? I mean , you're actually adjusting it. You can't see exactly what happened there. The computer is filling in the gaps when you zoom in the pixels in large, and it would be too distorted for you to actually make any sense of what it is. So the computer is sort of filling in the gaps because all the pixels spread out and you've got some dead area in this computer, you know , kind of fills it or something, right. I'm not a computer programmer, but it's adjusting the original file. It's adjusting the image in a way that it's not the real thing anymore. It's , it's a manipulation, it's computer's best guests . And so he's sort of undermining the evidence to some degree here, you know, just to, just to just to ask questions more or less. I mean, the video shows what the other videos showed because it's what happened, but he's still, and he's got to come out there and cross them just a little bit. So he gets him to admit, yeah, no colors are really being changed, but there is some interpolation. The pixels are going to be adjusted and make of that. What you will. So not a lot of additional cross there , very little in terms of redirect. And so the government stopped with him, got those additional videos admitted and then moved on into the next witness. So we pick up here with Dr. Doug Kelly, Dr. Doug Kelly here is the forensic pathologist. And so he's going to come in here and tell us a little bit more about the cause of death for the people who died and about what his examination revealed. And so we're going to get into that. Obviously the bullets from Kyle Rittenhouse, his gun killed Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbalm , but because it's a murder trial, it's intentional homicide. They still need to, you know, they still need a body, they still need a murder weapon. And so even though we all kind of know, and it's obvious, maybe there's some interesting things we can glean out of here talking about maybe gun shot residue being on Rosenbalm. Maybe we can tease out something about the proximity between these two people when Rosenbaum was crashing down upon Rittenhouse. Here's Dr. Doug Kelly today, the forensic pathologist in Rittenhouse day seven.

Speaker 6:

My name is Doug Kelly, D O U G K E L L E Y.

Speaker 3:

And are you a doctor? I am. And what kind of doctor are you

Speaker 6:

A I'm a forensic pathologist. What is

Speaker 3:

A forensic pathologist?

Speaker 6:

Well, pathology is a , the field of medicine that involves the study of disease and trauma in the human body. Uh , forensic pathology is a sub-specialty of that, which , uh, specifically involves the principles of medicine, medicine, and science as they apply to the law. So as a forensic pathologist were concerned with determining the cause and manner of death in people. And , uh, typically we act as , uh , medical examiners and medical examiners offices. So,

Speaker 1:

So that's it right? Pretty basic stuff. We all were familiar with this in this trial, right? This guy's not going to be the witness who makes or breaks the case. We didn't even spend much time with him today. We're going to have a couple more clips cross-examination relatively brief. And then we move on from him, compare and contrast this with what happened in the Shovan trial, where the medical examiner, we had, you know , multiple different , uh, expert witnesses, all talking about the cause of death. I mean, almost, you know, the majority of the trial was about that. I think we had a full day with the respiratory doctor who wasn't even the actual medical examiner talking about the cause of death, because that was the crux of the case. Was it Chauvin's knee or was it something else? Was it fentanyl? Was it methamphetamines? Was it arterial, sclerosis, hypertension, anything else? Last minute, ingestion of fentanyl who knows, but it was very important in this. It's not so important because it's the bullets that killed the , everybody. We know that pretty clearly, but we can still see, there is something interesting. Um, this is the clip from Anthony Huber talking about the cause of death. And it's interesting to hear, you know, it's always interesting for me to hear people talk about this in such such clinical, you know , they're examining a dead body and they actually played a lot of those images today in court. Not going to play those here, but this was something the prosecution did almost gratuitously. And I talked about this with Veeva earlier on the show today, but they were just showing Anthony hubris body just up . Yup . There's the body, you know, pictures of his face, you know, with his eyes open sort of in a, in a, you know , unnecessary way in unnecessarily gratuitous way, they were, you know, making this public to the jurors in a way that I thought was just a little bit too much. And part of the reason being is they want the jurors to have these images associated in their minds. They want them to be so grossed out and aggravated that they're going to punish Kyle Rittenhouse, but diva had a good point. Maybe it doesn't do that. Maybe it just symbolizes for people that this was just a bad situation and anybody who's going to go play in a bad situation kind of deserves to maybe not , maybe not deserve the penalty, but you know, should be somebody bearing the brunt of their choices, bearing the responsibility for their actions and not punish Kyle on that. So a very interesting here is once again, the doctor talking about Anthony Huber's gunshot death,

Speaker 3:

And where are you able to determine the cause of death to Mr. Huber? Yes. And what was that of ,

Speaker 6:

Uh, Mr. Huber died from a gunshot wound to the chest

Speaker 3:

And is that an opinion given to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and uh, what can you tell us about this gunshot wound?

Speaker 6:

Uh, so Mr. Huber has an entrance wound , uh , that is just below the left nipple. Um, it , uh, basically travels through his chest and creates trauma to both of the lungs and specifically to the heart. There's a lot of damage to the heart. Uh, so he has a large amount of blood in his body, cavities, his chest cavities and the , uh, the projectile didn't exit. There's actually a bruise and it was some scraping to the surface and it's located to the right shoulder, just beneath the collarbone.

Speaker 1:

So kind of talking about the bullet, how it went inside, kind of bounced around a little bit, cause of death, the gunshot wounds then talks about an interesting concept. And the idea being that when you shoot a gun, obviously the projectile comes out of the end of the gun, but there's also a lot of other stuff that comes out of the end of the gun flames, residue, gunpowder. Uh, anything else we want to mention here, they'd ask this question of this forensic pathologist who explains exactly what this is here he is.

Speaker 3:

You know, how many gunshot wounds Mr . That you found on Mr. Rosenbaum?

Speaker 6:

Uh, well, Mr. Rosa mama has a number of injuries. Um, there are , um, uh, two injuries in which , uh, the bullet enter the body and did not exit. So I collected bullets from those injuries. There is a third injury that is a graze wound in which the bullet just grazed the skin superficially. And then there is , uh , a , uh , a gunshot wound to the left hand and an area to the left thigh that appear to , uh, be separate, but may actually be , um, I think they're related , uh , to the same , uh, gunshot wound. No ,

Speaker 3:

Before we get too far into this, what is stippling?

Speaker 6:

Um, okay. So I think to explain that I have to back up one step and just remind you that more than just the bullet comes out of the end of the gun. Uh, so , uh , flame comes out of the gun smoking. So it comes out of the gun unburned, gunpowder particles come out at the end of the gun. And of course, then the bullet comes out. Um, what we do in forensic pathology is we look for injuries on the body or evidence on the body that allows us to estimate the distance of the muzzle of the gun, to the surface of the body. And so in contact wounds, we might actually see , uh, scrapes around the entrance site , uh, from the muzzle of the gun, from the skin actually hitting the muscle of the gun, it called a muzzle stamp. So that's a contact wound , um, uh, out to a certain distance, so that we'll actually be able to deposit on the skin. So obviously not very aerodynamic. So after about a foot or so, so it is, is imperceptible, but it depends on the weapon , uh, to how far that can be seen. Um, but so it will tell us that the muzzle of the gun is within a pretty close distance.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So talking about that relative to Rosenbalm , it's stippling, it's the idea that there's going to be a blessed sort of like, you know, those , uh , party poppers, you know, when you're a kid and you start to pop those at your friends and you're like, Hey, Punkin , pop them their direction . Oh no. Cause they get blasted with all of the , uh , confetti and all of that stuff. All right . Same kind of concept with a gun, you pull the gun, there's going to be a blast that comes out in addition to the projectiles . So now that we know what stippling is, and he's explained this anything interesting as it relates to

Speaker 6:

This gunshot wound, actually , um, I have some stippling gunpowder stippling associated with it. Um, it's to the lower abdomen and interestingly enough, where his waistline has hat, there's no stippling below that point. So there , it's not surrounding this entrance wound, it's actually above to the abdomen, but it's because he's wearing the clothing and the clothing didn't allow that gunpowder to get to the surface of the , uh, of the body in the groin region, but it did in lower abdomen. So we see that compounder stepping to the lower abdomen it's associated with this entrance wound to the right groin. And that is an intermediate range gunshot wound. So what does intermediate range?

Speaker 1:

So intermediate range right into the dive into that. And so a lot of this is, is sort of to flesh out whether or not , uh , there was a, you know, an actual grabbing of the gun by Rosenbalm , which some people were saying was necessary in order for self-defense to be applicable, which never ever crossed my mind, the government here, the prosecutors were repeatedly attempting to say that there was no DNA found on the gun from Rosenbalm or Huber, you know, they didn't have any weapons or, and so all of these things justify or cause zero justification for self-defense. In other words, they needed to have a weapon in order to cause Rittenhouse to be able to use self-defense and they didn't. And so that whole theory evaporates into thin air. So it never really made sense, but you can see what they're trying to do here, trying to use this, this , uh , medical examiner to make the same argument. It was an intermediate distance. He was kind of far away, Rittenhouse shot somebody who was already falling forward. It wasn't a lunge toward a weapon. It was an intermediate, you know, it was , it was a distance away from there. So , uh, not much else the state moves forward, they rest their case and that's the end of it. So this is now, then formerly resting

Speaker 2:

[inaudible] case . Okay. Uh, thank you. Uh,

Speaker 1:

And that's it. And so we're going to , I think they take a short break and then we jump into the defense case in chief. And so before we get there, let's take a quick [email protected]ls.com where our community is alive and thriving. Let's see who's here. Uh , LA medics , as at this point in the trial, what do you put the odds of not guilty judgment, not withstanding, I would say, you know, 90%, if not more than that, I mean, it's the defense case to blow at this point. D Del SPI says the judge's comment about using free labor and the photo journalists were in the courtroom to take pictures of the forensic pathologist , Martin Howard holding the gun was absolutely hilarious in the end, the judge entering the evidence in the case, however, seems strange. I think it was the right thing to do, but it did seem strange. I didn't see that free labor in the photo journalists who were in the courtroom. I didn't see that comment. That's from de Del SPI . I didn't see that the judge, the judge is pretty funny. He's got some good quips in some one-liners , uh , Zydis says the state's exoteric witness. Dr. Kelly looks a lot like the expert witness Dr. Tobin from the Shovan trial. I think these expert witnesses are mass produced in a factory and sold in bulk to the government. Just sort of stamping them out. There was something to that. You could even say the same thing about lawyers. You could say the same thing about , uh , police officers. Did you notice that? Do you notice on our , um, our coach , uh , Kenosha PD, about four out of the five of them all look pretty much identical, identical , uh, D Del SBE says the problem is that with interpret interpolation color does technically change. If you're making a whole number, zoom, you can be okay with the pixels, with the fractional zoom, 125%, et cetera. You were modifying the pixels and interrelating the old pixel value positions with the new positions for the corresponding pixels. The reality is that none of the lawyers on this case understand the technical nature of this stuff. And really neither does the jury. Most lawyers are lost Martin, not tech smart, especially in this case. That's a great point there , detail , speed . This is something that is worth taking a quick moment on, you know, a lot of lawyers are not expert witnesses and they're not supposed to be think of lawyers. Oftentimes a good analogy is sort of like, like your general practitioner doctor, right? You go to your doctor, you say, doctor, I'm not feeling well. Oh, well, what can we do here? Well, it might be a kidney thing. Go see the kidney guy. Well, it might be a lung. Go see the lung guy. It's a brain problem. Go see the brain problem guide. You know, you , you sort of refer out and you get the details, the expert witnesses in their specific fields. So in a sexual assault case, you'd go find a sexual examiner, medical examiner expert witness. In a DUI case, you get a blood DUI analyst , expert witness. The government has their expert. You bring your expert and here the defense didn't even bring an expert to talk about any of this stuff, because they're not, you know, they're not going to be able to go toe to toe with a government expert witness in this thing, but they don't really need to because they're not trying to even contest anything that's on the video. So that's why, you know, to somebody like you de Del SPI , who obviously knows what they're talking about. You're sort of cringing at the idea that maybe there's , uh , there's no, there's, there's nobody who really knows what they're talking about. All trying to talk. We've got John Haugen says a pixel man, witness the drone film editor, man might play a critical role for any jurors who don't trust the government, hiding evidence of this quality cast, a shadow on all the evidence, this moved by the prosecution, made sure every single portion of this trial was ugly. Interpolation. I am sure the defense I'm surprised the defense didn't swing harder at the editing. Interpolation says the insertion of something of a different nature into something else. Ooh , that's a , that's a good point. They could have just come out with a dictionary from , uh , from the dictionary and just said, oh, interpolation , uh, Merriam Webster's dictionary. He says this, what do you have to say about that? That's a good point. And John Haugen, your point is way broader than that . This justice one guy they bring in Armstrong to talk about this new drone footage and Corey I'm sorry. Mark Richards comes out. I believe it was. One of them comes out and asks him to talk about specifically when this evidence was delivered, it was delivered on Sunday night in the middle of trial. We're already a weekend to trial on this thing. So the government here is disclosing evidence at the last minute, when trial has already started, all of this footage could have been disclosed. Uh, I don't know , during the last year and a half that they had it. Why didn't it take so long for them to produce it? And if you're a juror and you're going this that's weird, suddenly new evidence. What do you, what you just, you just did your editing on Sunday morning, like or Sunday night at 8:30 PM because Jim Kraus sent you a file and said, Hey, somebody sent me this. You have to look into this thing. We need to get it admitted. And so you've got Armstrong just there , you know, hacking away at the computer Sunday night . So they have it ready to go Monday morning. That doesn't seem very candid. It doesn't feel like you're playing in good faith. Does it? It feels like you're kind of hiding stuff until the last minute and then throwing it at the defense because you know, your case is garbage and you're doing whatever you can to make it stick. And you're a juror and you're sitting there and you're watching this and you're going well, that's a , that's an underhanded move. These guys are, aren't playing fair. And if they're going to do it with this witness on this issue, maybe they're going to do it with a bunch of other witnesses. Maybe that's why gage gross Cruz . His testimony indicating that he only got shot after he pointed his gun at a Rittenhouse. Why that testimony caused a literal face bomb because they were expecting other evidence to come forward. They didn't get what they wanted. So they call a hail Mary, last minute, we gotta get this evidence in. They bring this guy into testify. Now, of course, that timeline doesn't work because great gauge just testified yesterday. This video was done on Sunday, but their case was pretty much damaged, pretty badly by Friday engage was their last sort of saving grace. And he blew it pretty badly yesterday. Okay. So great question from John Halligan . Thanks for submitting that there V Antica says how pixels get filled in is pretty interesting, depending on the encoder computer, we'll use linear algebra to determine the borders , use pixels around the new pixels, to average out, determine what the color should be while trying to keep the borders. Unfortunately, this can have a deterring effect. Yeah. So the actual evidence is being changed. You know, it's sort of, if you, if you observe it and manipulate it, aren't you kind of changing it and doesn't that somewhat undermine the validity of the evidence, especially if it's relying on your visual perception to make a judgment, we're saying, we need you to look at this and make a judgment on it. You say, I'd be happy to do that, but we changed it. So you're not even looking at the real thing anymore. It's a computer's interpretation of the real thing again, in consequential , I think in this case, but still worth playing around with monster. One says, what do you mean the medical examiner wasn't important. He literally testified the Rosenbaum had a hold of Kyle's gun when he was shot in the hand. Remember that goes back to Richie's testimony. When he said, Rosenbaum said, F you and lunch for the gun. We now have confirmation. That was true. I guess what I meant monster one is that it's not important to the elements of murder, the way that it was with Shovan one. You need that person to come in and talk about the cause of death in this case, he sort of, you know, first of all, I didn't hear that. That said that that's exactly what happened, but I take your point. He did add something to the case, but he wasn't sort of , you know, he wasn't going to be breaking anything regulatory for us. Like in Chauvin's case, it was all about the respiratory doctor. I think it was Dr. Tobin . Now that somebody mentioned that name who comes out, gives us his medical expertise. And we go, oh, well that we know now we now know how to decide the case. Based on this person's testimony, a little bit of a different situation there . Uh , LA medics has no mention of the suit suit. Stippling shows the hand was near or at the muzzle. Really? Robert is from LA medic. I played it. Then I play the didn't . I play the stippling clip. I played that one sugar britches says, why did the prosecution even bring up the stippling? Sorry about the spelling. It only benefited the defense by proving the close proximity of Rosenbalm body also proved is lunging. I mean, falling momentum. Yeah, I think it was. I agree with you. I don't think it necessarily helped their case, but it, it, it, it does show an alternative angle. They're sort of relying on the jury to believe the falling claim, to believe the , the idea that he wasn't actually a threat and this angle shows the shooting yet again. So I don't think that it here's the equation. They needed the video in to show the other angle more than they were concerned about the stippling thing. And so, by getting that video admitted, they knew that on cross that they were going to bring up stippling, that they were going to ask about it. So what the prosecutor was doing here was actually drawing the sting. He knew that the defense was going to ask about it, knew that it was going to be problematic. So he brought it up first. So they didn't hammer it home on the backend, but they made that decision knowing it's going to be asked about, but we want to get the video in anyways . Good question. A couple others here. Before we go back into the trial, tremendous says there was a great part with the friend at pathologist where the defense got them to basically say that it was likely that the shot into the hand was caused because of the hand was so close to the gun. Prosecution brought out the gun again. So the defense that the demonstration pathologist told him where to put the hand, judge got the journalist in the courtroom to take pictures for the jury to be able to look at in deliberation. How did I, how did I miss that? Did I miss that today? Thank you for that. Tremendous. I think I missed that whole section that I clipped that anyways. Well, thank you for filling me in. That's why this show is so valuable because there's stuff I miss. I'm listening to double speed. And I was racing to get here today because we had the , uh, we had the , the long needed interview with Veeva . We did that earlier today. Uh, Greg Moran says, Hey, Rob , if the prosecution prosecutes a weak case, like it is with Kyle, any way of correcting that, for example, a future case against gross. Kreutz I mean, honestly, not, not really, right. It's a difficult thing to do. He'd have to file a notice of claim. He'd have to short of beat any of the qualified immunity claims that the government would bring back up. It's a tall order to Sue the government. They make it very difficult to do that. If they're not motivated to settle with you , you know , George Floyd got a big settlement of cause they wanted to settle that easily. They filed a claim, a lot of political momentum that helped that. I'm sure it gets settled, but in this case, who's Kyle Rittenhouse going to Sue gross. Groots how much money does he have? Probably not much. That's why he's asking for $10 million. So maybe he files a claim against gross. Kreutz I think the more interesting question is whether Rick , cause you got to find somebody with pockets, right? You don't want to just file a lawsuit against somebody that doesn't have any hope of collecting anything worthwhile. And so in written houses case, maybe it's not gross. Groots uh, maybe it's the city of Kenosha for, you know, some sort of malicious prosecution, something like that. I don't think that that he'd be successful on that claim, but it might Institute a settlement. But the other claim that might be a little bit more , uh, worthwhile would be something against the media company, something in the same vein as Nick Sandman , who was the , uh, the Covington high school kid who got maligned by the media publicly. So maybe something similar to that. I don't know what his settlement was. I'm not a civil defamation lawyer, but something like that would be, I think, a better claim than suing gross. Kreutz because he doesn't have any money. Does he? Uh, let's see, let's take some super chats over from YouTube. I saw a couple of those came in earlier today, says when you do your intro like this, you need theme music, maybe have a contest for it. I like it for my, my a big beautiful spotlight. Flagman says, let's go Graham bow . We're going to get to her. I think in the next segment here really soon. Uh, and that was yesterday. Let's see a couple others here. Uh , Joseph, sadly , I forgot those names. Miles Brandon says I should do an intro. Flagman says, let's go Greenbow then we've got Joseph Saslow . He says, do you think the adversarial and the kind of catty behavior of the photograph, her witness hurts the defense at all. Didn't add to the defense in my opinion. Thoughts. Very interesting question . So you're talking about a guy named Nathan, what's his name? Nathan Bruin , who testified near the end of trial today. We're going to talk all about him in the third segment here. That was from Joseph. I actually think it really hurt the prosecution. I think they beat up this guy a little bit too much, and I might be a big softie , but I , I don't think it was inappropriate. I don't think it was appropriate the way they sort of were overly aggressive with him. We also have, Jacob says the da cross of the Asperger kid was disgusting. There you go. So that's exactly what I was thinking, Joseph, sadly , that's exactly what I was thinking. Having Asperger myself has filled me with rage. They attacked and abused him because he refused to change his statement to what the da wanted. Yeah. I have a lot of empathy for that position there. Jacob, I've got a down syndrome brother. I spent a lot of time with people who are sort of in that, in that category. Not that Asperger's is in the down syndrome category, but you understand my point here, right? People with learning disabilities or any disabilities that get sort of a beat up, I makes my blood boil outrage . And I felt a lot of that today, Jacob, and I'm sure that other jurors had that experience because this guy came into court. I'll save it for that segment. Okay. I'll save it for that segment. But thank you for that. Just Kouzes here just says, Rob , do you help on insurance fraud that's for Sam and sell . We're going to get to them in the next clip. When we hear from Nicholas Smith, who was of course a car source employee who has absolutely demolished the salmon cell testimony. And we've got Dave G says, why the no pushback on the rewrap thing pulling the charging handle will be obvious on video. And yet can't be seen, also did the investigators really find all of Kyle spent casings, but miss an injected round from a rerock come on . It's a good point. Dave G. And so I don't know, you know, we don't know why they didn't object on that too much, maybe because he actually did. You know, I don't know. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. I don't know. I understand your point about the rewrap thing, right? If there was a jam and you had to, you know, charge, is it a recharge? I don't know if you had to, you know, I know it's not racking it because it's an AR it's sort of charging it. But if you had to, if you had to reset the firearm, does that necessarily have to be because it's going to eject a spent round or a malfunctioning round, you know, can he do that to , you know , just receipt the, the miss seated round so that it wouldn't actually be ejected? Can he , oh, okay. It's jammed, jammed it . Boom. And then, and then reset it, know it's ready to go. You know, I don't know. Or maybe his attorneys know that he did, maybe he did, you know, reload and get ready to go. So it's a good question, but you're right. If he didn't do that, they, they easily could have objected on that. And I'm sorry, not objected, but really, you know, contested that with their own evidence in response, Mr. Jack Black says, could gauge face perjury charges, love the look of his gauged bicep, by the way, should've put a ring on it. Oh no. Oh no. Oh no. I can't even laugh at that one, but it's, you know? Yeah. It's perjury charges again. I know a lot of people are asking about charging gauge , remember where these were , this prosecution is currently where they're standing right now. The prosecution, according to them, gage gross Kreutz is an American hero who was a highly qualified medic who was there doing good work in the streets of Kenosha, somebody who was out there only chasing after Rittenhouse, not chasing, but following him directionally on the road. Only reason for that was so that he could stop an active shooter. And he was , uh, you know , only touching his gun because he felt like he was being threatened. He's an American hero folks, gage gross crudes , all American hero was out there trying to save the date in Kenosha. So do you think that the prosecution is going to turn around? If they win , they lose this case? Uh, not putting the cart before the horse, knock on wood, all things , uh , included there, but if they turn around , if they lose this case, are they going to turn around and say, oh, silly us , uh , gauge by the way, you're a liar and an attempted murderer. And so we're going to charge you also. They're not going to do that because they have to maintain their credibility. They , they have to take their loss. They can't suddenly change the facts. And then re-institute criminal charges . I mean, they could technically they could, but they won't do it. Mr. Jack Black says could , uh , I think we got that one. That was from Mr. Jack Black says it's a big deal on the rerock because gage said, Kyle tried to shoot him and the rifle didn't go off. That is true. I totally agree with that. It is a big deal. That was his speculation. The only reason to do that he's thinking is because there was a misfire and he needed to Reese , you know , eject that round and reset another one. I think it is a big, a big deal. It was powerful testimony. And , uh, and I think it , uh, it mattered. All right. So somebody is telling me to wrench somebody. What does that mean? That's from Zulus. You lose says for the love of God wrench, somebody does that mean moderate? Is there a moderation problem happening right now? I have some people reach out to me. I'm going to deal with that. I'm going to, I'm going to, yes. We're going to get some moderators in here. Cause it kinda feels like amateur hour over there in the chat. Doesn't it. All right . Uh , not because of you because I'm not moderating the chat. I don't have any moderators yesterday was a free for all in there, but we made do all right . And so , uh , those were great questions over from a YouTube. Thank you everybody. For all of the love and the support there, we're going to pick back up with the trial coverage. Let's go right back into it. Kyle Rittenhouse, trial day seven, the state just rested. And so now we have the defense case in chief Kyle Rittenhouse, his defense team, presenting their witnesses, calling them in court today. Let's take a look at the board and see who made it into court today. We have of course, Kyle Rittenhouse here in the middle, the defendant we've got Mark Richards, Corey cheer FEC . Today. We heard from these four witnesses, we've got Nicholas Smith first witness. He came from car source. And so he's going to be here to rebut a lot of the testimony from Sam and sell that we heard from the government, from their case in chief. We're also going to hear from Joanne field Fiedler, who is also known as hashtag grandpa , the granny Rambo. I think Nicker Qaeda coined that term today when she was testifying. And it's absolutely true. It's about the most perfect thing that I have heard recently. We're also going to hear from this guy, Nathan Brewin videographer, who was a very, I thought powerful candidate , uh , I'm sorry, not candidate, a witness. We also have , uh , Lucas Zenon who was a very agitated witness. His stepdaughter recorded a video that the defense wanted to get admitted into court today. And he just didn't want to be there at all, like at all. So it's , um, a full day, let's get into it. First off, we're going to start with, they came back from lunch and the judge actually dismissed count seven. And so I didn't have time today to dig into this too far, but I brought this up. I was concerned or curious about a directed verdict or whether there was going to be a motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the evidence that was presented by the prosecution. And I don't really know what happened with that today because the feed was cut. I heard when I was on Nick ricotta stream today with a lot of the other attorneys, which was a lot of fun by the way. So make sure you go subscribe over to Nick ricotta because he's, he's hosting these mega S uh , streams with a bunch of attorneys. And so as stuff is happening in real time, you can all sort of a pine about what's going on. And so, as this was happening, I was asking about that with directed verdict. I thought that they make me , you know, make it may make a motion for a judgment for acquittal. Is that going to happen? Yes or no, kind of turns out they didn't do it, but maybe they did on the seventh count. So the curfew violation we're going to see was ultimately dismissed. But Robert Barnes was saying that they may be able to renew that motion at the conclusion of the defense case. So they wouldn't do it after the prosecution, after the defense. I don't know the intricacies of Wisconsin criminal law or their criminal rules of procedure there I'm licensed in Arizona, in California, but we were expecting something to happen at this moment. Something did happen. The curfew violation is going to be booted. Also the FBI testimony that testimony that we didn't see also gone now probably not needed because the other drone footage was , uh , submitted. And the foundation was laid from the Armstrong fellow that we just heard from. But this is the judge bringing everybody back from court, laying some foundation, some groundwork about the curfew violation, being booted and FBI testimony. Also being booted. Then we're going to jump into the defense case in full. Here. It is

Speaker 2:

First off the , um, there was testimony given by , um, Brandon Kramen an employee of the FBI, which was incomplete. It was interrupted. And , um , because it was interrupted, it wasn't hurting , fallen for that reason. Uh, I'm going to strike all of that testimony and you must disregard that entirely. Any question about that? Okay. Uh, number two , um, the seventh count of the information , uh, accused the defendant of violation of a curfew. And that case is no longer part of the action here. So the information remains with six counts in it. And I'll instruct you further on those at the close of the case. But the seventh count of curfew violation is no longer part of the

Speaker 1:

Count seven, no longer part of the case at all. So we're just going with counts one through six, which is of course good news. So that was the judge setting the stage. Okay . And now we have the first witness, Corey cheer , FEC calls, Nick Smith, Nicholas Smith. Of course, this is the car source employee that we've heard a lot about. His name has been bandied about all throughout this trial. Several different people have referred to him and Sam and sales specifically gave us a one version of what happened on that night in Kenosha. Now Nick Smith is called and he gives us a little bit of a version. And so we're going to start off by Cory , just calling him into court. Here it is today.

Speaker 7:

Uh, [inaudible] the defense. Yes, sir. We can call it Nicholas Smith from Adam Smith and I C H O L a S Smith, S M I T T H here at Kenosha. And how old are you right now? 23. Have you ever been Judy adjudicated delinquent in the past? Yes. I believe how many times? What does that mean? Can you clarify what that means? How many offenses were you a judge in juvenile delinquent? One, I believe as a delinquent. If I told you it was two, it might be okay. Now, are you currently employed, sir? Yes. Um , and what kind of work do you do? I work at a factory. And um,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So as you can see, started out right out of the gate, get rid of the criminal charges. You got two criminal charges and these were, he said that these were , uh , criminal adjudications because these were juvenile offenses. And the prosecutor mentioned that before he even came up, they said, oh, we're getting ready to call Nicholas Smith, your honor, by the way, this came out. So they're going to have to address that. So they did. So he's a car source employee car source of course is where a lot of this was taking place. And there's all sorts of different, you know, corners and different car source locations. And I think car doc and car repair, and it's kind of one of those corners, you know how those car corners are wherever it is you live. It's one of those. And we had previously heard from the government's two witnesses. These two gentlemen say hill Kindree and animal Kendra . These two guys were called into court saying that they worked at car source or their family owned cars. They had something to do with car stores , but the government proffered them forth and asked them questions about permission. If you recall, in a prior day of testimony, they said , uh , did you give Rittenhouse and his crew of , uh, you know, roving militiamen permission to be on your property? And animal said , uh , no , uh , no, didn't don't know anything about it. They said, do you know how many cars were a wreck? Don't have any idea, don't know anything about anything. In fact, say hill said something like why don't even work there. I don't even know what you're talking about. And the prosecution was like, okay, well, no further questions then. And so we get this one story about what was happening there. And the reason for this in my opinion was always about that theme, that narrative, that Kyle Rittenhouse was this reckless person who took a gun from Dominic black, had no position, no authority to have that went out of state, carrying a gun into a new state and was out there sort of involving himself, rubbing his nose in business. That is not his business. This is Kenosha. He's not even from Kenosha is the prosecution's line of thinking here. And so you just sort of, you know, domino one after the other. Now, in addition to all of those other problems, Rittenhouse is also on these guys' property without any permission at all, they didn't want him there. They had no idea that he was there in the first place. So in addition to everything else badly, he's done, he's also kind of a criminal trespasser, even though they didn't charge him with that. So the defense then brings out this next witness, Mr. Smith, who tells a little bit of a different story. Here's what he says. Those two guys did the night in Kenosha have a set

Speaker 7:

Of keys. So you can go in.

Speaker 8:

Correct? Well, he had had actually , um, we talked briefly and then he said he was actually heading home on that his brother Sal , uh, would give us a ride over to the 63rd street location because he was locking up and that his brother Sal would give me the keys.

Speaker 7:

And did you end up meeting up with his brother south ? Correct? His brother was there. And did his brother's cell then give you the keys? Correct. You had testified that there was a plan that you had a plan to be on the roof of that building? Correct. How were you planning on getting up there? A ladder. And where was, if you know, how did you know that there was a ladder there? I

Speaker 8:

Previously worked there and knew there were ladders and salmon also showed me where the ladders were.

Speaker 1:

So , uh , salmon cell , when you got there, did they , uh , say hello? Yeah. They gave me a big hug. They , they, you know , gave me a sandwich. They said here's a Coca-Cola , here's the keys, the roofs up on the roof, get the ladder to get up there. And so it's a little bit different than what we heard previously salmon and a Sal previously. I don't even know what you're talking about. Never worked car car, what cars don't even know. I have no idea. What's what you're talking about. So , uh , Nick comes out well , no, yeah , no, they, they walked me to the letter. All right. So we have another one here. Uh , also communicating the same thing. It says he made contact with cell and other people even made contact with cell . Somebody we heard from , uh , heard about previously here is Nick today

Speaker 7:

With sell . Correct. And are there other people there to help you protect the car cardiac ?

Speaker 8:

You're not at the moment. Uh, when we had arrived at 63rd street location, we stood around for about 10 minutes and that's when , uh, another group of individuals in their cars had pulled up and asked if we needed any assistance that night.

Speaker 7:

And what did you say?

Speaker 8:

I said if they want to we'd appreciate it.

Speaker 7:

Okay. Uh, did you know who they were before they got there? No, I

Speaker 8:

Did not. Do

Speaker 7:

You know the names of any of those people today?

Speaker 8:

I know one of the names and who is that? Ryan belch

Speaker 7:

And

Speaker 1:

Ryan belch . We've heard from him previously member. He was the guy who was kind of like Kyle Rittenhouse. His mentor kind of took him under his wing a little bit as they were, you know , rummaging all over the place. So Nicholas comes out, tells us , uh, yeah, you know, salmon cell knew all about it. They also knew all about ballsy ballsy . Also we know, through , through his own testimony had Kyle Rittenhouse under his wing. And so the whole little chain gets connected. Isn't that convenient there , Sam and south . And so I think that's why Jess cows was arguing about or asking about insurance fraud lawyers, because who knows what those guys were doing. And again, you know, their , their testimony, you know, is, is important. Yes. All the testimony here is, is important. It doesn't go to the crux of the, you know, if Rittenhouse had permission to be there or didn't, you know, it might bias the jury. It might say, wow. You know, there were a lot of , uh , series of events of criminality that led to the ultimate shooting and maybe Rittenhouse take some of the blame for that. But you know, not, not, not really right. Does it really go to self-defense about the actual time and place of that shooting? I think even Rittenhouse could have a necessity argument. If he's being chased by a murderous maniac to say that I deserve to be on that property, or I needed to be on that property, it was no harm to you. And so it was all sort of, you know, inconsequential to the ultimate issue here, which is about the shooting and the self-defense permission, ladders , knowledge, militia, all that other stuff is important. It crafts the narrative, but it's all incidental to self-defense and shooting the cause of death. And whether Rittenhouse was justified to exercise self-defense so by the government actually bringing in salmon cell in order to promote that narrative, that there was this sequence of events of criminality that then gets blown out of the water by Nicholas Smith, here is a major loss for them. I mean, what a , what a disaster, because it just shows the opposite of this. It's it's basically showing that every single witness that they put forward has some pretty bad credibility problems. And they just shattered two of their witnesses here with this one testimony, a car source employee who was there. It says they gave me the keys. They showed me where the ladder was and they said get up on there, on the roof. Thanks for being here. So that just so these not necessary. Okay. So now we have Thomas being who comes out and he's now going to do some cross examination of this fellow. This is again, Nicholas Smith. And he is going to be asking him about Rosenbalm and he's going to be doing the same thing that he regularly does where he's saying, well, did you see him throwing anything or chemical bombs or machetes or ninja swords? Or did you see , uh, you know, any BB guns or anything like that here as being her today in court?

Speaker 9:

So these rocks or chemical bombs or bricks or whatever was being thrown at you on the roof , you are not here telling us yes . Joseph Rosenbaum was doing that, right? Correct. I could not see who was throwing them.

Speaker 5:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

All right. So couldn't see, who was throwing them was on the roof. Cross-examination from Thomas being, her says, did Rittenhouse, when you reconnected with him, did he say anything about, you know, he just shot someone? Or did he say anything about who he shot? Or did he say anything about seeing weapons? And again, this is all deflection it at this point, I think that the , the cross examination team here from the prosecution, they don't really know what to say. They don't know what to talk about. So they just come out and they're like, well, did Rittenhouse tell you that Rosenbalm tried to attack him with a knife, same line of questioning that we got from a lot of the other , uh , even the government's own witnesses. And it's just filler. It's just fluff. I mean, you can get these questions answered. Did he have a weapon or anything that was being used as a weapon? That's it? That's the one question? Did he have a weapon? No. Anything uses a weapon, like a lamp that he was swinging over his head or like a skateboard, which is not technically a weapon, but maybe use like a weapon. It's it's pretty simple. But when you don't have anything to talk about, you run into lines of questioning that sound like this.

Speaker 9:

You indicated that after you heard the shootings, the defendant came back, you described what he looked like, and you said he had said he just shot someone and that he had to correct? Correct. Did he ever say who he shot? No , he did not. Did he ever say how many people he shot? I do not remember. Did he ever say anything about the condition? Like whether those people were armed? Uh, he did not say that anything about them being armed. Did he ever say that they threatened him? I do not remember. Did he ever say he feared for his life? Do not remember. Did he ever say anything about any weapons that he saw on any of the people that he shot? No . I do not remember. And he didn't tell you how many people were shot either? No.

Speaker 1:

So there you go. Just a bunch of, no , we didn't have that conversation either or that conversation or that conversation. Anything else you want to talk about? I don't know what he likes to do on the weekends. I don't know what his favorite movie is. I don't know what side of the bed he likes, don't know any of those things. So it's just filler. It's just don't know what else to say. So I'm going to come out here and spend a couple minutes here , uh , asking you some questions. And so that was Nicholas Smith. Of course. Let's see if we have any questions over from watching the watchers.locals.com on this one. See if we have anything news now says the most important part of the medical examiner was during the opening. The prosecutor made it sound like he was shot in the back because he was running away from Rittenhouse. That's true. They did come up with that narrative, which they were able to ask about. Jeremy says, Rob, I like how the defense attorney asked the video witness about synchronizing. The audio videos have timestamp information could be synchronized with the audio. The witness said he doesn't know how to do that, but it would be such a simple and basic task. Yeah, I do that. You know how I do that with claps? Because if you clap, then you can sync the audio with the video because you can see the clap spike. That's why you see those clappers, right. Action clap. Right. So everything can kind of sync up with the spikes. Yeah. Interesting. Another one news now says I did a video series on malicious prosecution and how different circuits treat it. Supreme court is hearing a case this month may make it easier or harder to Sue. Yeah. So check out news. Now, Wyoming he's over on YouTube also sounds like he has a video there Jack solely [inaudible] says I was discussing the case with a coworker . Brought up an interesting question. Now curious about good. The prosecution. Get into trouble with trying to change the statement that the photographer witness for the defense gave to the police. If it turns out to be true, if they did. I mean, it's a good question. I didn't clip that part of his testimony today, but he did come in and he was really, really adamant that they were asking him to change his statement. And I'm not sure if that's what happened yet. Right? There's, there's a lot that went on in that segment, but basically the long and short of it is, it sounds like he gave them a statement. And then they said, would you like to modify it? Would you like to change your statement? You know, any, any additions or corrections to that. And he took that to mean that they wanted him to change his statement. And the prosecution was very upset about that saying , no, we didn't ask you to change your statement. Don't accuse us of that in court today. We're going to get into all of that in the , uh, the next segment, LA medics , as the media is saying, even after gross Cruz , his testimony that he was shot with his hands up possible grounds for defamation blatant lie. Yeah. I'm not a defamation lawyer. They're LA medic or LA medic. But I think that , uh , certainly worth investigating was cool. Seeing you on ricotta, you are super quiet for that group. Well, I was kind of a late addition, you know, I'm still trying to feel out how that works, you know , do I just get out there and just start talking? It's like six, seven other lawyers there courts going on. Can I just say that's ridiculous. Can I just shout that out in the middle of a , of a stream with everybody? Is that, is that socially appropriate for me to start screaming at the court? Like I do in my office? Probably not. So , um , I'm trying to get my bearings straight. I hadn't even watched the trial when I joined. I didn't even know what was going on. Bittersweet says, is there a limit using the objection in trial? Like the number of times that you can use it? No, there isn't. You can use it as many times as you want. If you know how to use it. Sometimes , uh, some people might say that these people do not LA medic says, does the FBI footage then get booted as the FBI guy's testimony laid the foundation for the evidence? The footage is what the prosecution base , the theory of Kyle chasing Rosenbalm on. Would that not just destroy the prosecution narrative? So I think it is going to probably still be admitted. I don't know what his testimony was because we didn't hear it right. They shut off the camera. So nobody got to hear what he was actually talking about. So we don't know what he said, but we do know that the defense made their own exhibit off of the FBI drone footage, where we had the circles member of the, the , sort of the blue circle, the white circle, the red and the green, and they were all running around. And so I think that they want that to be admitted. So that is going be admitted. It's probably coming in anyways. I think they were just tossing his testimony. Remember that the foundation really wasn't established for most of the videos. It was all just sort of , uh , uh, agreed grade or stipulated to the guy. What I mean is the guy who admitted it all, all he did was just downloaded off the internet. That's it didn't record it. Didn't, you know, go out on the streets and actually film it, just downloaded it. So there , there was a lot of agreements about getting certain evidence in without fighting too much about it. Leafy bug says, Rob, I'm curious how trial duration estimates are scheduled. This trial looks like it's going to run about as long as Shovan, which seems like a much more complex case requiring greater exposition of facts, analysis, argumentation. And even that trial took longer than it should have because the prosecution included so much duplicate testimony. Are there guidelines that specify approximate trial length, like a DUI should take a couple of hours murder a couple of weeks. What other factors are used to estimate during the trial? It's a great question. Leafy bug and what the courts will often do is they'll ask both sides to estimate it. And so they'll say , uh , you know, defense, how many expert witnesses do you have? How many witnesses do you have? Are you going to be presenting anything that requires a significant block of time? And they'll ask you to flesh that out for them. And so literally it was how many witnesses this, this, this, and this, this, and you , uh , in some courts you'll prepare, what's called a joint pretrial statement where you'll say, all right , uh , we're, we're bringing in a blood expert, we're bringing in a DNA expert. We're bringing in a sex crimes person to talk about whatever. And we're going to need this much time. We have 25 witnesses. We think that the doctor is going to need eight, a full day for the doctor. Uh, the, the, the nurse is going to be three hours. The streamer is going to be two hours. And so you just, you know , come up with a plan, essentially, it's sort of like a business plan. It's like a trial plan. Both sides have a conversation about it. And then you submit that to the court. In a case of this severity, you don't just wing it, but you would actually submit a plan. And that's how they know that's how it gets. It gets created. Thunder seven says, Carla guys re didn't really lie. As they were asked, if they gave Kyle permission to watch over their property, they didn't want to get involved. They weren't there. They don't know anything about what happened. The night of the shooting. That's from thunder seven let's check in over on YouTube had some super chats coming in. Zulu said a wrench, someone. I think I wrenched somebody. I'm not sure if that happened or not. Eddie Oliver says I'm a veteran and very familiar with the AR 15. There was no rerock from Eddie Oliver smart man. Uh , 17, 19 79 Iceman says prosecutor witness confirmed 22 unfired rounds left in the 30 round mag. Eight spent casings found 28 , uh , 22 plus eight equals 30. So sort of reverse counting what took place , uh, in Kyle's firearm, we have rag rag Jr . 9, 9 2 says there's three common stoppages in an AR platform. One fired casing doesn't inject properly. So that's a spent round round. Doesn't properly enter the chamber or three. The magazine is empty. So that's what I was talking about. So in , in point number two, and that's from Rodriguez , pull that one back up on the screen, says round two, if it's a number two, if the round is not properly chamber, is that Kyle maybe not, you know, re racking , but he's just resetting it. The re resetting the round, making sure it's ready to go. That's kind of what I was speculating. A C Reed says votes for Mogis came back, lean, just cows, K bean and Zulu Zeit results on the vote was amazing. Well , I love all those people a lot, so that's pretty , uh, that's a that's I think that's directionally pretty good. We've got Nick D says the re-ranking running. The action could have been due to a failure to feed, which caused by the bolt, jumped over the round in the magazine and either getting stuck, open or closing on an empty chamber, explaining the issue. Yeah. Thank you for that. Nick D that's very, and that's sort of what I was talking about. You know, he's not, he's not introducing a new mag. He's just sort of, you know, making sure that it's ready to go, whether he did that. I don't know. Joseph says , Lee says, do you think the jury actually goes home and follows the judge's direction and not watch his streams? Like yours are the trial human nature can suggest otherwise I know it's a tough thing. You certainly hope so. You know, you certainly hope so. I think that there, there are probably a lot of little white lies. You know, people are on their Facebook feed and they see something about it and maybe they go , uh , should I click that? No, maybe they do. Maybe they don't. I don't know. But you know, the judge, the judge could, could throw them off if he gets a hint of it. And so some people, I think, you know, they , they, they, I think people instinctively want to do good and be a part of something good. And so they try to be honest about these things. Hosted says the AR 15 has a forward assist. So maybe that helps with , uh , stopping situation. Number two. Uh , great question is my friends over from watching the watchers.locals.com and from YouTube. Thank you for all your support. We're going to keep on moving here, go back into the trial. We've got. Now we're picking up with Joanne Fiddler. Love it. Kyle Rittenhouse trial day seven, we're talking about Joanne Fiddler also known as hashtag grandpa Rambo, grandma. Pretty amazing knicker . Kate , I think coined that phrase during his infamous live stream that took place today. So we were going to take a look at the defense board. We know that Nicholas Smith already testified. We're looking at Joanne Fiedler. Rambo is in the house. Then we're going to jump into Nathan Bruin. And Lucas is an in both a little bit shorter , uh , testimony. So we're going to start off with Joanne and she is somebody who's a little bit of a fireball. And she came into court today and use the little bit of colorful language, a lot of, bit of colorful language, including the N word. So we're going to play the clip of the testimony today. I don't not endorse the word. I do not say the word, but she did. She got permission from the judge to do it. It is public it's on the record. And so just before Warren in the next little bit here, we're going to be hearing from grandpa who is not using the word herself, but who is actually saying that Rosenbaum Joseph Rosenbaum was the person who did it. And the reason why I want to make sure that we cover this right now is because the jury heard this. This is exactly what they heard. And it came from this woman and it was powerful testimony. And I think stuff like this is consequential in the minds of the jurors. Because as I've said previously, the jury wants to do the right thing. If you think of it as a unified body, they , they don't want to go to bed at night and have done injustice. They don't want to wake up in the middle of the night at two in the morning and say, what did we do on that one? So they want to get it right. And if you can make one person in a trial, look like a bad guy, just like the prosecution has been trying to do with Rittenhouse saying time. And again, a series of criminality is leading to what ultimately resulted in the deaths of two people. He's a bad dude is what they're saying. And so now this is powerful testimony from the defense saying, no, he's not it's Rosenbalm who was making threats even to this lady, herself sweet little old grandpa . So here's Corey cheer , FEC in court today, bringing her in Joanne Fiedler in court today. Rittenhouse trial day seven,

Speaker 7:

Courtney that evening. Do you remember seeing the man in the front? Yes. Okay. What I'm talking about the man with the red shirt, correct. Okay. Did you know who he was that night? No. You didn't know his name? No. Okay. Do you remember him from that

Speaker 10:

Night? Very distinctly.

Speaker 7:

Okay. Can you tell the people on the jury why you remember him?

Speaker 10:

I remember seeing him with his red shirt and the thing that caught me was the green earring . And this was when BLM had just come down in front of us. And there was some other gentlemen that were talking with Ryan, they were talking, things were calm. And then I saw him and , um, it was kind of a back and forth because I had some of the female protestors that were standing in front of me, taunting me. So they wanted, they were doing black lives matter. Right. And I just, wasn't taking a side. I was just there to protect a business. So I would look and survey and go to them and I would look and survey and I would see Rosenbalm , I'm standing there and I saw the plastic bags on his back pocket. I didn't know what it was. Um, and then can I kind of go on, will ,

Speaker 1:

Can I go on, so do you recognize man? Yes, I do distinctively. I remember him very well. Y she lays out the story and here she picks it up again, content warning . So it's past the bedtime for the little ones. So she does say this and again, the reason it's not to be gratuitous with this stuff, right? It's a vulgar word, but she didn't use it. Joseph Rosenbaum did. We're talking about a murder trial where we're talking about Rittenhouse going to prison for, I don't know , a couple of decades if he gets convicted here. And so this is the type of stuff that is bringing the jurors back down to reality. They're saying this lady, you just heard from her, this nice lady out on the streets of Kenosha, who was trying to be a good person and help protect businesses who was trying to, you know , be somebody credible on the streets. She gets verbally assaulted by Rosenbaum . And he says some of the most vital things that exist in the English language. And this is the same person that the prosecutors wanted you to believe had nothing to do with this was just kind of, you know, out there doing whatever. And Kyle Rittenhouse murdered this guy here, she says it warning on the ear, Muff, ear Muff warning.

Speaker 7:

Is there anything that he had said that evening that you took notice of or would remember?

Speaker 10:

Yeah, that's the part I was kind of getting to is , um, I know you guys call them Mr . Yellow pants, and that's kind of what we called him . He jumped up on the car and everybody started screaming, get off the car and black lives matter was screaming and he was shouting and Rosen bombs started shouting back at us that he's gonna pardon me, judge for saying this and everybody else. But he was gonna kill us mother , and cut our hearts out

Speaker 7:

That gentlemen on the screen there said that. Yes,

Speaker 10:

Multiple times.

Speaker 7:

And , um, what was everybody , what was your group's response to that? If any,

Speaker 10:

He said that none, we just kind of are frozen at the verbiage and the threats coming out of them . I mean the whole night was quite shocking, but we didn't really do anything. We just kind of stood there. You have to ignore that.

Speaker 1:

I have to ignore that. Right? She's be even being the bigger person there. You have this lunatic, who's out there saying, you know, dropping the N word who is, is screaming at her. Uh, you know, we already heard previously from ballsy that this guy's gonna effing kill Kyle Rittenhouse. If we see you again. So we've got that testimony from him. It's been corroborated by a number of other witnesses, including the , the government's own witnesses. Uh, Corey Washington said the guy was a lot of trouble trying to light stuff on fire, causing a problem. You bring little old grand Bo out here. She says the same thing. Guy goes right into her face. I'm going to effing this. And you effing , you know, it's like, whoa. And the jurors, Robert Barnes made this point. Previously, this woman he said, you know, is, is, is very symbolic of the demographics in Wisconsin. You know , people are going to identify with somebody that looks like this, who is a person of the same values of the same style, kind of somebody who's just trying to, you know, live her life in peace and do the good thing. She's out there in the middle of a war zone. Somebody is scolding her. She is very empathetic. She's going to look at somebody who's very sympathetic as a witness. And so she gets accosted by Rosenbalm and tells him like it is. And the jurors now are hearing that the whole facade of the prosecution, that Rosenbaum was this innocent bystander who tripped over his shoelaces as he was chasing down Kyle Rittenhouse, who wasn't lunging, who was falling, just a nice guy that nobody ever saw with a gun, a knife, a machete, a bazooka and Apache attack helicopter. None of those things, nobody ever saw him swing a knife at anybody else. He's this hero, a person who just got caught up in a bad situation. Not at all. That whole thing is a lie. He is a raving maniac who threatened little old grandpa. So what we have now is we fast forward to the shooting. So we know that she saw Rosenbalm previously a lot of good testimony from her. I would really encourage you to watch the whole thing. It was good, but we're going to fast forward now just to the shooting. So now let's, this is the , this is the crux of the case. We can talk about all the stuff, the other stuff until we're blue in the face, but here, what was her per perspective or role in the actual shooting? Because she does meet back up with Kyle after the fact. And so we're walking through the timeline. Here is Joanne Fiedler, grandpa from

Speaker 7:

Your location. You don't see what happened with Mr. Rosenbaum, Mr. Semi-finished with Mr. Rosa by Mr. Huber and Mr. Gross crates , right?

Speaker 10:

Yes. Correct.

Speaker 7:

Do you see Kyle after?

Speaker 10:

Yes, I do. When , um, I think after everything had happened , um, he had come back up. I heard from the guys on their roof. They're like open the door. It's Kyle. So I opened up cause we had to keep the front door locked. Um, I opened up the door and he kinda came running in and kind of fell into me. And there was a chair right there. So he sat down there. I saw me , saw him after everything had happened. How

Speaker 7:

Did he look to you?

Speaker 1:

How did he look? So Kyle comes back up to her. How did he look? And she just tells him right. What it is. It's it's , it's all the truth. Somebody in the comments here said, it sounds like she was testifying to her neighbors, which was a brilliant comment. I'm sorry, Mr. Name. But yes, that's exactly right. It's exactly right. It's a Stute as hell saying that she was just sh just talking to them. Like you talked to your friend at a dinner table, Hey Joe, listen to this. This is crazy. Last weekend I was out there , uh , you know, near the car source. You're not gonna believe what happened. This is nuts. She's just talking like that. It's different approach than what you saw with gross crudes gross Groots every time a question was asked, you can see the gears turning in his brain. He's like, all right, I got to come up with something. Then he looks over to the jurors. Here's my BS. Answer back to the question, processes it, oh, here's my next BS answer. And does it over and over and over again, when I go to these CLS or control called continuing legal education, these trial workshops and things like that, they tell you, I mean, and this is not a joke that I think on the last one that I was at in Arlington, Texas, I actually broadcast from there. They were telling us that something like 87%, according to some study, whatever of human communication is absolutely. Non-verbal telling that to a bunch of lawyers in a seminar, Hey, dummies, whatever you say about 13% of that is going to be consequential. The rest of it, 87% is what you do with your body, how you move and your facial expressions in those things. And so there's something to that, right? And I don't know if it's 87%, but there's something to that. And there's this, this idea that the judge is reading the room, the judge can see what the jurors are acting and how , how they're acting and how they're responding. And if the judge is bored out of their mind with the government's case, jurors probably are too. And if, if you're looking at a gross crude, somebody who looks very formulaic and robotic and who is slowly pausing and articulating every single question, it, they feel like they're lacking in, in being genuine. It feels like it's very fabricated. This lady is the opposite. Just having a conversation with the jurors and you can sort of see the emotion on her face. It feels real. So now she's describing this as it relates to Kyle Rittenhouse, Kira Rittenhouse, we just heard from her, she is now sort of he's in her vicinity. How does he look? He just shot two people. Three people, two are dead. Tell us about it here. She says the following ,

Speaker 10:

Uh, totally in shock. Can you give me some physical descriptors that would make yes, I'm sorry. He was pale , uh , uh , shaking , uh, kind of stuttering, stammering, his words sweating. Do you recall him saying anything? Yes. He , he had come in and he did see , you looked at me. He said it. He said right out that he had shot someone and he kind of sat down in the chair and that he was looking for his brother. He's asking for his brother Dominic. And he sat down. I remember pulling his hair back and he pulled it back really hard. And just as common was my God, my life might be over. And just where it's just like, okay, calm down.

Speaker 1:

Oh. And you can feel that right. You can feel that he looks sick. He looked like totally in shock. Why does it ghost? Couldn't talk stammering, stuttering, all over himself, pulls his hair back. My life might be over, which is all, you know, it, it's very similar to a lot of the testimony that we saw from the prosecution. If you want to , you know , give them the benefit of the doubt. Remember we heard from aunt and she also kind of came back and had some emotional testimony. Now she was not there. She was just hubris ant . And they called her for some reason, this lady was there. And so she can tell us specifically what Kyle Rittenhouse was feeling, not what Anthony Huber was thinking speculating about as he was running into the scene. So her testimony was also sort of emotional members . She was like, oh no, I think she actually did that at one point, she's like, oh, you know, no , gosh, it's very difficult for me to testify about this. And I'm sure it is because her nephew is now dead, but it is a different feel from grandpa . It feels a little bit more authentic. She was there. She was really observing all of these things. And when she communicates it, it sticks, it lands. So the prosecution then came out and they wanted to ask Graham some questions. And so they did. And remember what the prosecution has done here, largely impeaching even their own witnesses, meaning they call somebody up into this, into the stand, ask them a bunch of questions, try to get out some positive facts from them. And then almost at the end of the line of , uh , examination of the direct exam, they flip around and they say, well, you're also a liar because on Tucker Carlson, you said that, or you're also a liar because you told the FBI this or the media said that you said that, and you really didn't. Did you jerk? And that has been going on this entire trial. And so now, as we flip over to the cross-examination of grandpa , Thomas Beyer does the same thing and he's trying to undermine her credibility. And what he does is he uses this conversation that Grabow had with Kyle Rittenhouse. His mom says, after this all happened, you reached out to her didn't you and you told her something, you gave her some advice. What was that? Here's Thomas binger today in court, Rittenhouse trial day seven.

Speaker 9:

And you told them that you contacted the defendant's mother the morning after all this happened and told her to be strong. Is that right?

Speaker 10:

Probably. Yes.

Speaker 9:

You also said that after this incident you had been in contact with the defendant's attorney, is that right?

Speaker 10:

Uh, no, I don't. I read that and I don't know what he meant by that because I wasn't, I've never spoke to him.

Speaker 1:

So , so they go into that a little bit further and I don't know if she's confused or the prosecution is confused, but remember Rittenhouse had like a number of different attorneys. Remember at the beginning, I think it was Linwood . And then , uh, John Pierce , where there was a sort of a smattering of them and then it moved over. And so, you know, she may have talked to somebody else doesn't really matter, but you can see what binger is trying to do here. He's trying to say that you reached out to the mom, oh, you offered words of support. Hmm . Maybe you're a little bit biased, kind of the opposite of what they did with gage gage . They came out and said, oh, very interesting that you filed a $10 million lawsuit. Might that impact your testimony? Might you be a little bit biased? Might you want to see Kyle Rittenhouse get the ax so that you can get paid 10 million buckaroos there , buddy undermining his credibility. Everything that comes out of his mouth now is sort of tainted by that idea that maybe he's just doing this for the cash. So they're doing the same thing with her. They're saying, oh, except she doesn't have $10 million. She, the only thing she did was just call somebody mom and say, Hey, hang in there. Hope your hope. You're going strong since your son was just involved in an, almost a triple homicide. So they bring that up. You know, her words of encouragement are gonna undermine our credibility. Maybe she's overly biased for the Rittenhouse family because she called the mom and lended , uh , an ear for a little

Speaker 9:

Bit.

Speaker 1:

So now they ask about the videos. So being her saying, did you see him or hear him say those words because it's not on video. And if it's not on video, you might be a liar. Here is binger versus grandpa .

Speaker 9:

Yeah .

Speaker 10:

I've watched some of them. Yeah .

Speaker 9:

Yes . The reason I ask is because you referenced this, these words that Joseph Rosenbalm allegedly said to you and the members of your group, that's not on any video anywhere, is it? No. So you are from west bend , correct ? You don't live here.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So , uh , not on video now . I'm not on video. So I guess that means , uh , her testimony should just be stricken. Totally gone. Final clip here from grandma. She is getting back into it with binger and he's saying, oh, but you had a gun on your hand. And I think Thomas binger has a real problem with guns. I mean, honestly, it's like a, it's like a guttural reaction. He doesn't like people having them walking around with them. I think there , he sort of offended by them. And we're going to hear from him in a quick minute where he's going to be asking her about the gun that she had. And he's going to be kind of shocked when she says , uh, yeah, I had it for deterrent effects. I mean, the reason you have a gun is so you're safe. And one of the ways that you're safe is by having people see it so that they don't attack you when you're in the middle of a war zone, showing that your arms . So you don't end up as a victim. And , um, we're going to see what that testimony looks like here in a quick second. Here is Thomas binger in court, Rittenhouse trial day seven.

Speaker 9:

How are you going to use that pistol to protect products ?

Speaker 10:

Sometimes the presence speaks louder than a lot

Speaker 9:

Of things. The presence of what

Speaker 10:

The presence of having the gun and being there at the beach .

Speaker 9:

Were you openly carrying the gun? Yes, I was. So you didn't have it in a holster or in a waistband?

Speaker 10:

I'm sorry . It was on my side in a holster.

Speaker 9:

But you figured if people saw that they'd be scared off

Speaker 10:

Somewhat, like I said, it's a presence it's knowing that somebody is on the, on the , um, in the area, on the ground standing there, it's kind of a deterrent to keep them away from the business.

Speaker 9:

Yeah. And you'd agree with me that the AR fifteens that the rest of the group had was an even bigger deterrent. Correct?

Speaker 10:

Gone is the gun.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So a pretty obvious answer to anybody who has a firearm or, you know, uses one, maintains one for personal safety. It's like, yeah, there's a, there's a deterrent effect about it. Not that you're running , you know, running around brandishing your firearms. This is a woman in the middle of a war zone. Thomas binger, according to his own witnesses, by the way, this is pep Moretti, who is a former , uh, current police officer out of Kenosha use that language during direct exam. It was a war zone, Thomas binger. So now he's sort of questioning this lady. You were just open carrying that around and you might even have used it and she's yeah , yeah. Dummy. That's what a gun is for. It's a , yes. All of those things. How dumb are you? So , you know, grandpa absolutely crushed it in court today. Let's take a [email protected]atchersdotlocals.com and over on YouTube. And then we're going to wrap it up today. We've got one final segment with the last two witnesses we have VNT is prime says if I were a juror, everything on my notepad after gross Cruz would have been nothing but doodles, by the way, I wanted to check real quick. If you got my email, if it was to Dave , auntie kissed and I haven't even looked at it. So probably not, not, not to my recollection, but I will take a look tonight after the show is , uh, is over , uh, [inaudible] says the following I sent this when Viva was on, had to step away in our redundant. If redundant, ignore it. Uh , thank you for convincing me to take a breath and stop my frustration from getting the better of me. I reside Minnesota witnessed the destructive summer of Floyd. There were no consequences for people who destroyed the city yet first offenders who peacefully walked through the Capitol on January six , over a year later, still sit in jail. The current political climate has jaded me. I wanted Kyle's lawyers to fight tooth and nail as if their lives depended on it claws out. But whoa, it's obvious that Kyle was defending himself. They can give them everything. Even Kyle's phone, no need to hold everything close to the chest. They can be completely transparent. Allow it all the spill out without extending clause . Kyle will be waived of any serious charges. Now, if they charged Kyle with anything other than maybe possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, I'm going to take this all back a smile. Thank you for doing what you do. Keeping hope alive, making me a better person. Well, that's a really nice comment, GM giga . I appreciate you saying that. Honestly, I feel the same way about this relationship and I mean, that is genuinely as I possibly can. I have a ton of fun doing this show. I love spending time with everybody here. I learned a ton from all of the conversations that we have, and there's absolutely no way that I would be engaged in this work to the depth that I am, but for all of you and , and the , and the community that we're building and the relationship that we have. So thank you, Jim Gaffigan for that. I appreciate it. Okay. A couple other questions here we've got, [inaudible] says, I feel like the FBI testimony no longer needed. It's been effectively debunked Rittenhouse, clearly didn't chase after Rosenbalm, as literally every witness had attested to seven count was selectively asked for dismissal. There was no foundation or law for it to go off of effectively. The TLDR is that the prosecution didn't really present evidence of violating a law. When it comes to curfew might be outside. The bounds of the state here , um , might be outside the bounds of the courts. Maybe . I mean, if it's a superior court where they're only dealing with felonies and that's a misdemeanor level offense, they may have just booted it , uh , for that reason. Or they may have dismissed it because it's not a jury eligible offense. You know, curfew violation may not be something that the jury has to consider. Maybe that just goes up to the judge as just a bench trial , uh , rule. It's a good question. I don't know what the specifics are there, but it's gone. Monster one says next time you're on Nick stream. Just start yelling. Objection. Objection. Objection. That seems to work. Oh, I see. On how to get on how to get in into the ricotta livestream . Just start screaming. I can do that. Tremendous says, I thought you held your own with the other lawyers. You were a little quiet at first, but I think we're , Katie does a great job. Making sure everyone gets included. You got a classic line after grandma was done with her testimony. Something about unlike when the gross Cruz was done testifying, when grandpa was done, no one at the defense table was doing a face Palm. Yeah, that's what I said . I said that. Yeah. So we were comparing and contrasting Graham Bo's testimony versus growth's Cruz testimony. And some people said, oh, genuine, not genuine, blah , blah , blah , great astute observations. But the one obvious thing is that Mark Richards in Cory , cheer, FEC , as soon as grand Beau was done, we're not at the defense table like this going, oh, what have we done? So that's just an obvious indicator. You don't even have to listen to anything. You could just watch the, both attorneys, their tables at the conclusion of their own witness testimony and just see which side has better facial reactions. And that's it. That's the whole trial and you'll know how this one is going to go. All right. And so a couple of other questions from [inaudible] says, I suppose the good news about watching news is that really only Fox news and independent news outlets have been covering this trial. Most of CNN, MSNBC, everyone else there on the January six trials. Yeah. So they pick the stories that serve them. Don't they? We got, Jeremy says, Rob, I'm glad objections. Aren't like timeouts in basketball or football. Imagine if you had to start calling audibles during the trial, because you use all your objections, the defense calls objection, but is out of them. So the Baylor throws a flag on the courtroom floor and says the jury will disregard the defense's last five statements. A floor goes back to the prosecution. More ideas for your TV show. Monday night trials with Robert Mueller . That's not a bad idea. Sort of gamifying the law. Maybe we could displace judge Judy. I think she does pretty well. It's not a bad idea there. Jeremy, maybe you could be a producer on that one. All right . Let's check over on , uh, on YouTube and see if we've got some super chats coming in. And it looks like we do just cow says me and Zulu both own an MNP great rifle. Hashtag grandpa shout out to Zulu and Jess cows. We have Matthew self says I've been watching since the day. You first covered the Rittenhouse case long time ago there, Matthew, I appreciate you being here all this time. It's been a long time and I've been so invested in it. And here we're here, we're getting an outcome. Finally says you have found the YouTube energy while also sticking to your intellectual brain juices. LOL. Thanks for all you do. You're killing it. Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate that. Having fun, still learning the ropes. I still feel like a kid who's, you know , on a bicycle, maybe even with one training wheels still on, did you do that? You start with two training wheels, then you get the one and then you sort of you're on your own. I think I still got one training wheel on over here. So thanks for bearing with me, but I'm appreciative that you're here. Matthew, we have taluks says kind of disagree on grandpa . If a juror has TDS or is woke left, they will write her off as deplorable. Won't buy a word. She says depends on the jury. And it's a good test. It's fair. Right? You might have some people that are sort of put off by her, a folksy approach. I can see that full metal says, understand something for a person protesting the death of a black man would not use the hard, ER, I watched this at work and the logic of what he would say versus the way she said it says a lot about Gamba for a person protesting the death of a black. Yes. Okay. Yes. Great, great point here. Full metal. And I skipped over this when we were talking about this, the point that full metal is making is that if Rosenbalm was this really heroic BLM protest or somebody who was out there trying to help or support a cause, right? Make his voice heard , uh , in the name of BLM, why is he out there dropping the N word with hard RS at the end of it at nice little old ladies, it's a good point. Joseph salads he says could or would the judge find Kyle not guilty by taking the jury out of the equation with double jeopardy apply ramifications of that? Thanks for the insight. So I don't know the specifics of this Joseph, we were all sort of kicking this around , uh , on Nick's show today. But a lot of people are sort of, I think unclear about what the sequence of events would be and , and how this could go. Because , uh , Robert Barnes was saying that at the conclusion of the defense case, they could ask the judge for a judgment, notwithstanding the verdict. So I don't know, I don't know the details enough to opine on that, but you know, we're going to see soon enough. I don't, I hopefully it's irrelevant. Hopefully nothing needs to be taken from the jury because the judge can read the room. The judge can see that that's not going to be necessary, but who knows. And again, the judge wants this to be done legitimately. He doesn't want to take it out of their hands in any way, shape or form. Kincaid says, why are jurors often not allowed to take notes? I understand why some evidence might be overly impactful on repeat, however, considering the complexity of legal cases, why would the court hinder reasoning was something so important? The research is well-established explains how flimsy memory can be. Is it intentional to have the gut and emotional collective agreement? Reign Supreme? Yeah. It's just sort of , um, it's sort of a , you know, a tradition to some degree that, that you just, you got to remember, what's in your brain. Other , this is why it's so important for, you know , exhibits to be properly admitted and published to the jury. It's why we fight over these things all the time is because the jury is going to be limited to a very narrow universe about what they can observe, what they can use in making their determination. And so you fight over that in motions and eliminate and motions to suppress evidence. And it becomes a big part of the battle. Like most of what we do is pretrial work. Preppering prep prepping for the trial. So you want what the jurors have to be sort of like this finely tuned, highly crafted message. And in many situations, you know, some judges, some courts will allow you to take notes. Others will not. And um, I think there , there are certainly pros and cons both ways. Let's see what else we have here. News now says, I didn't understand those questions to grumble about talking to mom or the attorney should witnesses who talked to the police, be treated the same by the defense saying that they are not credible because of their bias. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. So I , I, I think that he, he said that we could not talk about your conversation with the attorney. The only reason that she couldn't talk about the conversation with the attorneys, because all of that is privileged, but the conversation with the mom is not okay. So we're going to jump back in. We got a couple of other witnesses to get to and the night is a speeding by. And so in our final segment, Rittenhouse trial day seven, we've got two new witnesses we're going to be covering here. We've got Nathan Bruin , who is a videographer and Lucas, Zen in , who was a driving a car. His stepdaughter was sort of hanging out the passenger side of the vehicle and was , uh, filming a lot of the , uh , events, a lot of the activities that were taking place right near that corner, where the car source was located. And so we're going to start off with Nathan Brewin , Nathan Brewin . Very interesting , uh , witness, very interesting guy that has, you know , a little bit of , uh , of quirkiness about him. Something that I think some people are making fun of him about, which I don't endorse that at all. Some people saying that this was a very bad move for the prosecution to beat up somebody who presents this way, which they sort of did. We're going to get to that here in a minute. So we're going to look at the cross-examination of this fellow, Nathan Bruin videographer. He was there on the night taking photographs and videos the night of the 24th and the 25th. Here's what he said today in court. When he was being examined by the defense

Speaker 11:

During the night of the 24th, you took a lot of still photo photographs. Yes I did . And you also took video photographs, correct? Yes, I did. And a lot of those still photographs and video photographs were of interest from that evening to law regarding the arson that was occurring in the community, correct? Correct. And you provided all of your information to the ATF FBI? Yes, I did you let them download your cameras and phones? Yes. And eventually that same information was turned over to the Kenosha police department, correct? Correct. And you met with detective Howard sitting at the table? Yes, I did. Okay. And you told him about your observations of that evening? I did . And correct me if I'm wrong, but you were able to tell the story through pointing at pictures that had date stamps times and you were able, because you're a resident able to tell places you phrase your question. When you took a photograph, did you know where it was taken? I did . Did you know what time it was? I did. How'd you do that?

Speaker 12:

Stamp on their camera and then my knowledge of being a resident in the city most of my life.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Okay. So you see what happened there ? Very good example of the difference between a direct examination types of questions, which are open-ended questions and cross-examination questions. I'm sorry. Yes. Which are leading questions. And so what you saw Mark Richards doing was sort of leading his witness as though he was doing a cross examination , isn't it true? Yes or no. Isn't it true that you were there on the 24th? Yes, I was. Isn't it true? He didn't say isn't it true, but that's sort of where he's going. And you were there on the 24th, right? Yes. And you were taking photographs that night, weren't you? Yes, I was. Objection, objection, objection from the prosecutors. And they did that a lot today. And Mark Richards got caught on it multiple times, but you see how he just flipped it from a close ended question where he's, he's fishing for a yes or a no into an open-ended question. So , um, instead of you took photographs on the night of the 24th, right? When did you take photographs? The 24th. And what did you use a camera and what did the camera do to the photographs? It timestamped them. Okay. So open-ended questions versus close ended questions and , um, interesting way of, of sort of , uh, appearing in court because today he brought with him something very interesting. Or when he approached the defense, he brought something very interesting. In fact, he brought his own exhibits. He's a photographer, he's a videographer, takes photographs, probably very happy and pleased with them and proud of them and wanted to be useful, wanted to be helpful. He's a citizen photographer. He's a hero out there recording these events. I'm talking about what this guy believes about himself, what he thinks to be true. He is helpful and useful, and he's trying to participate and do a good job. In this case, he brought his own exhibits. Here's what he said.

Speaker 11:

And you're the first witness that has ever done this. But you brought your own exhibits, correct. Okay. And I didn't ask you to do that. You did not. Okay. And there's a series of like 24 big photographs. What I'm going to go through with you. Do you know who took these? I did . Okay.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So Mark Richards walks over there and you see that whole stack of papers, photographs, big, big photographs, all printed out.

Speaker 11:

What's been marked as defense exhibit one 11. Could you tell me what that is?

Speaker 12:

I am standing on the corner of Ruth there's central high school parking lot. I'm just about to walk towards Sheridan road. And

Speaker 11:

What does that picture

Speaker 12:

Depict? Uh , the police lining up as they started to clear out civic park.

Speaker 11:

Do you know what time that is about?

Speaker 12:

Um , 9 0 3. So I do believe 10 0 3 because my camera was off one hour. Yeah .

Speaker 11:

You and how detective Howard worked out that problem, correct?

Speaker 12:

Yes we did, but it's not going to reflect on it's . Okay .

Speaker 11:

Because your time is rough by one hour, correct? Correct. Compared to all the other evidence. Yes . And you know ,

Speaker 1:

Okay. So he, he's the reason I wanted to play that is cause I wanted you to see the detail that this guy goes through. He's volunteering all of this. He comes in with a big stack of documents. He met with the detectives. He tells Mark Richards. In fact, you know, we're a little bit off on this and I've got all these photographs, but the time is off because my camera time was off. I just want to make sure we're crystal clear on this thing. I'm trying to be useful. I'm trying to help. I brought in all of these exhibits and Mark Richards says , uh, never happened to me before, but uh, you brought in all of these exhibits on your own, didn't you? I didn't ask you to do it. You wanted to come here and be useful. And so he does, he's very clear about that. And so Mark Richards asks him a little bit more about this specifically. Uh, tell us a little bit more about what happened. They go through all of the photographs, one by one, it's like another, you know , 20 something exhibits. A lot of them, a lot of objections about some stuff doesn't make it in some stuff does, but asking him specifically, what did you observe now? So anything strange when you were heading south, there were people running in that direction. Tell us about this here . Nathan

Speaker 12:

Southbound.

Speaker 11:

Okay. Did anything strange or out of the ordinary happen as you were heading south?

Speaker 12:

Yes. Um, I saw a gentleman , um, stopped running and then a crowd kind of followed behind them. Okay .

Speaker 11:

The individual who you saw running, do you know who that is?

Speaker 12:

Not at the time. Okay.

Speaker 11:

Did you notice significance of him running at the time? I did not. Had you heard anything before you saw this individual running edge? Not running at you, but running? No. Okay. And do you know who that individual is now? I do. And how do you know that?

Speaker 12:

Through identification? Through photographs and the media, I guess I could say.

Speaker 11:

Okay . And who is

Speaker 12:

That person? Uh , Kyle Rittenhouse.

Speaker 1:

Okay. And you know , nice general observations. You know, I think a very relatable guy talks about people screaming at Kyle Rittenhouse as he's running down the street and then gives us a detail about how close he is during the final altercation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum . Here is Nathan once again,

Speaker 12:

Seem to be like a firework. And then I heard, I could tell between them , um , there was multiple gunshots.

Speaker 11:

And then what did you

Speaker 12:

Observe? I observed Kyle walking down the same driveway that I witnessed him going up and then pick up his pace as he continued northbound on Sheridan road. Okay.

Speaker 11:

Was anybody taking note of Kyle as he headed in the north or direction?

Speaker 12:

Um , sure enough . There was people screaming at him. Um, and also following him.

Speaker 11:

Did you see anybody run up to them ? I did that . And how close were you to Kyle? When this individual ran up to him?

Speaker 12:

15 feet

Speaker 11:

Maybe. Okay . And that individual who ran up to him, what happened?

Speaker 12:

Um, what I seen was an individual run up to him with a skateboard and swing it at him, letting go of the skateboard and it hit Kyle between the neck. And I would say the mid back and the skateboard. I don't know if Kyle kicked it cause he was running when the skateboard fell, but the skateboard flew off to the side. Okay.

Speaker 1:

Okay. Yet another witness. This is a defense witness saying the same thing that we've heard previously, you know, uses the word chase. I believe people screaming at him running after him. Somebody hits him over the head with a skateboard. Skateboard hits him so hard. Kylie either kicks it or it rolls off into the sunset, but also, you know, detailing Kyle not being the aggressor in the whole situation. So that was Nathan Bruin . Now you can see in his testimony, he he's delivering a lot of the same stuff that we've heard, but using the defense framing that he's following behind them, people are chasing Rittenhouse . People are screaming at him. He gets hits over the head. He gets assaulted by a skateboard now on cross-examination they start digging into him a little bit about this. And I think it was a mistake because it is a little overly aggressive and unnecessarily. So I think let's see what you say about it. Here is the cross-examination of Nathan Bruin .

Speaker 3:

I gave the statement 17 days after the shooting. Is that accurate?

Speaker 12:

If yeah.

Speaker 3:

And you're still saying that property was being destroyed and there were protests these later, let me finish my question please. 17 days later.

Speaker 12:

So not nothing to the extent of this, the week of the shooting, nothing to that extent, but there was no in the police station.

Speaker 3:

So, so the fact that there was no window made it so you could not give an accurate statement.

Speaker 12:

I'm not saying that. I said it it's given . It gave me anxiety. Yeah. So make sure you say when I'm saying,

Speaker 3:

Okay, so not say he didn't make an accurate statement. That was your words. You said, you said things were left out of your statement.

Speaker 12:

Not on intentionally. I mean, those are little details. That's a traumatic situation that someone has to go through. I just witnessed someone dying. It's another person getting their arm almost blowing off

Speaker 3:

70 days

Speaker 12:

Prior. It doesn't matter how long it is. I still suffer that from that traumatic still to this day. Do you have ,

Speaker 3:

Uh , you said you've been nervous. You said you were anxious. Does that really affect your perception of events?

Speaker 12:

It might . No, it's not gonna change, but like right now I'm anxious . Like I have anxiety right now.

Speaker 3:

Did you have anxiety when you spoke to us in our office?

Speaker 12:

Absolutely.

Speaker 3:

Now,

Speaker 1:

Absolutely. He did have anxiety. Lot of people have anxiety here and a good way to alienate a jury is to beat the hell out of somebody. Who's got anxiety and who's showing vulnerability and who may or may not, you know , have something else going on there. I don't know what's what's happening there, but he is somebody who wanted to be useful and helpful. He came prepared like that. Student in class on the first day of class comes prepared , has got his lunchbox, has his homework done, read all the books, did all the assignments ready to rock and roll, presents everything. And then they turn around and call him a liar and say that , uh, your T your statement doesn't match up with what you said 17 days ago. Uh, why are you lying to us? He says, I'm not lying. I , I mean, I'm anxious. I'm somebody that has anxiety. And I didn't have a window in the police station. I couldn't see out the door. So my statement is incomplete. Why are you beating me up about all of this stuff? And so, I mean, goodness, when you have a vulnerable person like that already on the stand, you know, you can coax them along a little bit, but this guy, this prosecutor comes out. It's like, okay, so you gave this statement 17 days after the shooting. And you said this and, and you were anxious. So you can't even give a coherent statement and you were anxious in our office where the good guys, why were you anxious in our office? We're going to help you. And so you could see the prosecutor Krauss here, visibly frustrated, you know, visibly angry and , and sort of irritated with this witness and to , to punch down is not a good look for a prosecutor or for a defense attorney. If you have a witness who is trying to be clever, and who's trying to outsmart you, or who's trying to be kind of a, kind of a jerk to you. Yeah. It's appropriate to, you know , exercise the verbal backhand as it were. But in this case, that's not what's happening here. This is a very sympathetic person who is trying to be helpful and useful was out photographing this thing, regardless of what side of this you want to put them on. He is sympathetic as hell and the prosecutor just keeps beating into him on this. Here's another one video.

Speaker 3:

So did you observe him say that or did you see it on a video?

Speaker 12:

I saw him. I heard him say it in like , like what , what's your question

Speaker 3:

On August 25th as you were there that night. Did you see Mr. Rosenbaum say that? Or is that based on video after

Speaker 12:

I saw him? Oh ,

Speaker 3:

I heard him say that, but it's not in your statement, correct.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So you didn't say it's because you were anxious and uh, now you're just making it up at trial is where he's going with that. You said that Rosenbaum said those things. We , we, we sort of hear here from the testimony here, from this gentlemen that he went into Richard's office and sat down with him and, you know, there was a conversation about what did he hear? When did he hear it? Did he actually hear it from Rosenbalm or did he see it witnessed on a video and then sort of fill in the gaps in his mind later on down the line, but he's unequivocal about it in court today. I heard it. I heard it stop asking me about it. If you're going to compare and contrast my statement here today, with my prior statement that I gave to the FBI or gave in the prosecutor's office, don't do that because it's not appropriate. I had anxiety and they didn't let up on this. I thought it was very ineffective from a prosecutor's standpoint, got a sympathetic witness, who they made look a lot more sympathetic. So our final witness Lukin in was basically the opposite of the prior witness Bruin . This guy just did not want to be there at all. Let's just very unhappy that he's even being hauled in here. And , uh, you know, you can blame him who wants to be dragged into a criminal trial? Not most people. This is what this guy looks like. Name is Lucas Zahn in here. He is what happened when Mark Richards called him to the stand today. Your name, spelling,

Speaker 11:

Your last name for the record?

Speaker 13:

Little Gus Zanine Z a N I N.

Speaker 11:

Mr. [inaudible] . Where do you currently reside? The city Kenosha where you're present in the city of canola show up on August 25th, 2020. I was directing your attention to approximately 10 before midnight on the 25th. Where were you?

Speaker 13:

Uh, I was parked in my car , uh, on 63rd street and the corner of Sheridan road across the street from the car lot.

Speaker 11:

Okay. And can you look behind you see that map? Yes . Can you, if this is north and this is south, this year is labeled Sheraton road. And this is 63rd street. Where were you? Do you want me to point out on the map yet ? Um , I think this is right here .

Speaker 1:

Okay. So they go through this a little bit further, hold the button

Speaker 11:

Down

Speaker 1:

And they go through this a little bit further and the guy would not have moved. Had Mark Richards not required him to turn around. I mean, you saw his testimony sitting there. Yeah. Driving by the car source lot . August 25th. Next question. What do you want? But Mark Richards asks him. Okay. So where were you showing me around? And he says that I was driving in a car, had my step-daughter right next to us , uh , in the passenger seat. And she was filming as she was hanging out the, the, the roadway hanging out the car, looking at the roadway because there was a lot of activity going on. Of course it was Kenosha. It was a war zone as pat Moretti told us. So this is what the video looks like. The gunshots, the shooting that took place is not in this video. This is from the scene of Lucas Zan in's car. This is his daughter who was filming. And you can see what it looks like. You see a bunch of rioters, protestors, looters people, wrecking cars all over the place. And so I think this is really the reason they wanted to get this admitted, to show that there was a ton of property, damage and destruction that was going on all over the place here is what the video looked like. So you can see a lot of these cars actually have their windows already blown out right here. And you can hear the sound, the audio, You can see this guy jumping on the car over here. You see people swinging stuff at the windshields . This guy's kicking the windshield in right there. So this guy stepdaughter Zanny and is just building all of this right here. And this is the other side of the car lot. Okay . This is where the shooting took place. So again, these are things, those loud audio, that those loud claps, those aren't gunshots, those are people who are hitting things.

Speaker 14:

[inaudible]

Speaker 1:

Okay. So you can just see it, right. And this is the other side of the car source. So when you saw Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbalm and they sort of turn that corner into the darkness, that this is that angle, we saw the other drone footage that was submitted previously by Armstrong, which is sort of a different angle sort of this direction. So now this is kind of the third angle from really behind. And they get that admitted in. So , uh, Lucas describes the gunshots. Now, again, we don't see it, but he describes it. Here's what he says.

Speaker 11:

Whose voice is that? That's my stepdaughters . Did you hear those gunshots? Yes . Could you describe them for the jury please?

Speaker 13:

I heard multiple gunshots.

Speaker 11:

Was there a first gunshot and then a series of gunshots? How did you,

Speaker 13:

Yeah , I heard one and

Speaker 11:

Then bang, bang, bang. Okay. And after the shots, did the people then start to move? Yeah , they started running. Okay. Before the shots, nothing was disturbing them. They were just bashing in cars. Yes . Now.

Speaker 1:

Okay. So , uh , can you describe to the jury , uh, what you heard w w regarding the gunshots? He turns to the jury. I heard multiple gunshots. Oh, okay. So can you describe how those gunshots happen? Well, he says I heard one gunshot and then bang, bang, bang right afterwards. And he's like, what are you asking me? These questions for bro. Well, what do you want to talk about? Yeah, I heard, I heard multiple gunshots. That's what happened. And then his final question here, we don't get much out of this guy who was a very short witness, but his final question was from Mark Richards . Gonna show him this document. Do you remember when you signed off on this statement, you remember you , when you submitted this document, it had a date on it. Can you confirm, confirm whether that's accurate or not? Here, here he is in court today. Amazing. C'mon let's play this one. All right. We're going to play this. I have to scroll out of this thing for some reason that video's not playing, but here let's scroll on down here, here. This is from the slides.

Speaker 11:

We're looking at your statement that you signed, tell you the date that you've met with the detectives.

Speaker 13:

If it has a date on it here ,

Speaker 1:

Uh, w we're looking at this document help refresh your recollection about the date that was on your report. And he says, well, I mean, it has the date on it, I guess then. Yeah. It could help

Speaker 11:

Looking at your statement that you signed, tell you the date that you've met with the detectives.

Speaker 13:

Well, if it has a date on it , yeah .

Speaker 1:

And then he just sits there and Mark Richards runs it on over to him to have a conversation. It did. In fact, have a date. He did in fact, confirm the date and the video was submitted and admitted as evidence. And so let's take a [email protected] That was the last witness of the day. We're going to pick back up tomorrow, of course, and see what else the defense has to bring out for us. We've got John Halperin from local says I really enjoyed the lawyer up upstream during the trial today, it was looking forward to tonight . Show got pulled away by a few fire calls. At least I got to see some grandpa I'll go enjoy the clips. Love it, John. Hopefully those calls went well and sure. They did hope you and Heather doing well over there. We have another one from Greg Moran says probably a general question on the law, but can a jury actually disregard once it's heard, for example, at the start of the case, the jury heard that Kyle was part of a militia. Can they completely disregard that once it is heard? I don't know. Greg, what do you think? Could you do that? If you were told to disregard something, can you just completely disregard it? Like it never happened? Probably not. Right? Which is why a lot of this stuff is supposed to be dealt with before court. If there's an error on the part of the defense, that's it right? That word should never have been mentioned in there, but it was, and it's going to stick in the jury's minds. Isn't it? We have geo Mancy games . Subscribe on YouTube says, even though I'm battling cancer, I still hope and pray for Kyle. He needs to be shown, not guilty on all charges. I feel as if our country depends on it. Geo Mancy games is over on YouTube. Good dude. Go subscribe to him. If you're looking for some good content about gaming, because that's what he does. We have another one from okay. Personal. All right . So that's a , I think that's a private message. So I'll deal with that one. VNC . Cause prime says with how much attention this trial has gotten, Kyle's probably going to spend at least the next few years being a celebrity young kid and girls will probably throw themselves at him. Whoa, do you think Sophia auntie kiss America's self-defense savior. Maybe it's pretty attractive details . He says , uh , what the heck is a video photograph? Is that what we refer to as video? Or maybe in attorney Richard's words, a movie film. I don't know. I didn't catch that detail to me, but that's hysterical, man. Oh, a movie film. I love that. I don't know. I didn't catch that, but that's pretty funny. All right. We have Ty live and says , uh , great to be here on the live feed. 11:00 AM for me now, normally much earlier in the morning, over there. Sorry. I missed the live chat. Hopefully I can join in for the next one. Great coverage and analysis. Thanks for putting the legal ease into layman's terms. That's from Thai live and she says, cheers, cheers. Back to you. Ty live and appreciate you being here. John Haugen also says as a father of a young of a wonderful young man with special needs, I immediately spotted the condescending way. The prosecutor attacks, Nathan prosecution mist took his speech impediment for an indicator of lower intelligence, major mistake. I was thrilled to see his response is I'm sure the jury was not pleased with the way he was treated. I think it's clear. He's been up against bullies before he knows exactly how to handle himself, swing away . Nathan. Now I want to buy one of those photos, right, John, right? It's like, you know, like if you have close proximity to this part of the world, you instantly saw what was happening there. And it was, you were disgusted by it. I was, I was like this mother, you know, I was not happy about it, but , um, I think, I think people are going to agree with us. John monster one says, love the photographer guy. He absolutely murdered the prosecution entire cross exam was the prosecution trying to save face and failing about the fact that the corrupt asses tried to get him to lie. This guy was very smart. Despite what some might think the prosecution really underestimated him and they were condescending. John John used that word per perfectly. It was condescension disdain, just dripping Kincaid says what a sweet, honorable kid. Some are closer to the divine when their mind is quieter to the earthly, profane and swine. I'd like five minutes. That's from Kinkaid. Interesting , interesting comment on that one. Uh , see rose says, Rob, I think Krauss is aggressive. Cross of Nathan will be extremely off putting to the jury. Not only has the state rested on a Swiss cheese case, but now cross Ms. Handles a relatable and vulnerable witness. I think you're right. The verdict comes back Friday, not guilty on all counts. That's from sea rose. We can only hope there . See rose. I'm looking forward to that, that, that outcome as well. We have a D Delta . He says, if you want, it would be hard to articulate from the stand. But I think Nathan's point in the whole situation was that when you're anxious, we're in a place you don't feel comfortable in because it doesn't seem secure or you're giving potentially incriminating testimony to the police. You want to get out quickly and may accidentally not as be as detailed as your memory actually is. Kraus was a complete and total jerk to this witness and should feel like a. Can't think of a better non vulgar word for this. It's a, it's a, it's an exact word. It's a good word for treating this witness as effectively hostile because the witness said the prosecutors tried to change his testimony in their office. Yeah. Even if you're mad, you can't show that to a witness like that. You have. Yes. I , I understand. Let me be extra empathetic, just double down on it because it looks really bad if you do the opposite. Chairman of the board says, wow, watching that cross exam by the prosecution made me go from just wanting to see Kyle walk , to wanting to see the prosecutor go down for his conduct. That was infuriating. Also I heard the prosecutor during opening say that Rittenhouse shot someone in the back. That was the first I heard of that. Is that true? Don't think so. Also, if it's not true, can the prosecutor just say that? Well he did. And um, the defense can clean that up on their closing. Are there repercussions for lying during opening statements to the jury? So , uh, yes, there are right. You can't go into court and just lie and make stuff up. You can, you know, you can sort of, you know, be aggressive in your cell selling of what you're going to show the jurors, but you cannot out and out lie. Now, if, if the, if the defense wanted to be, you know, nitpicky about this, I'm sure that they could get the judge to say something , uh, during , uh, what's the , uh, w where they're writing the rules for , uh , the juror rules when they're, when they're drafting those. We'll see if the judge does any corrective behavior, because the judge has already said, right, disregard that, or include this and made some manipulations around the margins in order to keep the train on the tracks with the trial. Okay. A couple other questions it's getting late is starting to stop working. Tweak says, Hey, Rob, I don't have any specific questions. Just want to say hi. Thank you for the early morning show was a nice surprise to wake up and see that you were still going well . Shout out to tweak and good morning tweak my friend. Hope you have an amazing day over there. Let's see. Monster one says the last guy was, was just to get the video and shows that Rittenhouse was running towards the mob. He was trapped in between Rosenbaum and people with clubs. What would any reasonable person do in that situation? It's a good point there . Monster one. Let's see what's coming in over from YouTube. I think we had one or two more. Joseph salesly says, I think we got that one. Patrick says prices for everything are skyrocketing with the exception of salt, which is being handed out for free from the left in every comment section. Yeah, I think Dave Pac-Man and his show. There's a lot of salt being mined over there. Uh , also the young Turks, Annika Sperry. And I think that , that they're also sort of just rolling out. I think they have like a conveyor belt. It's just dumping salt into a dump truck. Not applicable says that the photo, the photographer was the real MVP boy, BFG division dot MP3. The BFG that's the big f-ing gun. If I remember from my doom days, Royal Wolf says, I almost know nothing about grand bow and already wanted to adopt my dad. So she can be my grandma. Grandpa is, is hot right now. Absolutely appropriate name. And again, Nick ricotta coin that I did not make that up. Not applicable says bingers voice sounds like a bad sitcom character. And he's extremely slow. When he talks very painful. A Royal Wolf says I spelled Gramble wrong and now I feel bad. You got to correct their Royal Wolf clearing the record. Uh , Reiland Davis says at this point, what can the prosecution even argue during closing arguments? It's going to be the same thing that Rosenbalm. And , uh , everybody else over there was totally innocent. And that Rittenhouse was shooting people unnecessarily. A reckless teenager didn't even deserve a gun who was out there on other people's property with exactly what you heard. He's just going to summarize everything that you heard in his , uh , diluted fashion. Mike Keeney says you should invite Andrew Brock as a guest. He's one of the top self defense attorneys in the country, big fan of Andrew Branca. Uh , I'd love to talk to him anytime . I actually am a supporter of his over at his , uh , law of self-defense dot com blog. I think he does great work. Yeah. And I think that defense attorneys who do good work should stick together and I'd love to talk to him . Yeah. So maybe I'll reach out to him. I think I follow him on Twitter too. He's been doing great work on the Rittenhouse stuff. So go check him out. Andrew Branca law of self-defense dot com I believe. And I think he's also affiliated with a legal insurrection. So maybe go check out some of those places, really good coverage, more good coverage of legal events. It's more transparency. We need more of it. So make sure go and support them over there as well. Not applicable says everyone new to firearms. Go watch Paul Harrell. Now I don't know who that is, but a follow not applicable as advice. And go check that out. Taluk says, judge makes the call on this in summer 2020 will look like a pillow party saying that if the judge takes this away, if the judge sort of removes this decision from the jury, 20, 20, 20 is going to look like a pillow party because people will be mad about that. Dapper Dave says he is innocent. Curious, say absolute worst case scenario. Kyle is actually convicted for Rosenbalm case . Can Rosenbaum hospitalization come up in an appeal? Um, may so appeals are , are based on what came out in court. So you can't introduce new evidence. So I don't remember if they talked much about that other than the fact that he was just released from the hospital. Right. They thought it might've been a hospital bag. So yeah, I think some of that might be able to come back in, but you can't make it. You can't introduce new evidence. It's only to talk about what happened in the lower , lower level court. You can't bring in a new witness, for example. So I don't remember specifically what was allowed in on that topic, but it's a good question. Uh, Eddie Oliver says, Rob I'm with you. I know about your brother. And there was based innocence with people that might be, that might have a mental handicap. I thought he was awesome. The way he handled that smug prosecutor. Yeah. And that prosecutor was, I don't know if he does have anything like that at all. Seemed very smart. Seemed very capable to me. But the prosecutor latched onto that, making fun of the lists or , or, or sort of trying to capitalize on something that he thought was weakness and it was transparent, his help. And I don't, I did not appreciate it. Uh, Rob, get the popcorn hands. Crypto portfolio is blowing up. Oh my gosh. Crypto has been out of control. Yeah. It's been blowing up it's down a little bit today. It was, I think 67,000 earlier. Right now I'm looking at it . It looks like it's back down to 66,000, which is all right. So it is man, the crypto markets are going out of control. Benny Tuto says rule number one of carrying a firearm. If you don't feel comfortable in a situation without a gun, you shouldn't put yourself in the situation with a gun. Kyle forfeited, any reasonable expectation to his own personal safety. In my opinion, whoa, that's a contrarian opinion. And I happen to love those. Thank you for that. Benny Tuto saying that I think a lot of people feel this way. A lot of people that I talked to early on in the Kyle Rittenhouse case said a lot of that. Well, what is a 17 year old kid doing in Kenosha with a firearm? And if he's going to get, you know, voluntarily in a situation like that, maybe he's going to have to suffer the consequences. I think the response of course, is that people saying, well, he, he did he put himself in that situation? Yes, that's true. But at some point he has the right to defend himself , even in a situation like that. If the other people are the provocateurs, if they are the instigators of the altercation in the first place. But I understand instinctually, a lot of people feel that way, know you wouldn't want your 17 year old son on the streets and Kenosha, of course not. But he was there and he and his parents obviously weren't too concerned about that. And he was out there living his life in a way that he saw fit that doesn't entitle people to kill him or to harm him. We also have William [inaudible] says to two tons of font accused him of trying to sell the pics on the cross. Yeah. So that, I think he's talking about James Crouse , two tons of fun. Who was cross-examining Nathan, about those pictures saying that he might even try to sell those because he's a photographer and that's what they do. Eddie Oliver says, Hey, Rob, if I picked up charges for punching that prosecutor, Krauss in the face for bullying, would you represent me? Eddie? I happily represent all good people charged with crimes. And I think you'd still be in that category. If you , uh, if you happen to do that, I'm not advising you to do that. This is not legal advice. This show doesn't encourage punching. Anybody also says, Eddie says, I feel like the prosecutor going after this guy was completely a bully move. It was a very meta narrative. Considering this case. I also feel that the people were chasing Kyle Rittenhouse were nothing but bullies. Yeah. And it's the same. It's a great, oh, that's a great theme. Bullies, bullies all over the place. Even gage gross Groots was kind of a bully wasn't he, when Rittenhouse was sort of rummaging around or running around the streets, gage made that video of him calling him a stooge because gage was a highly qualified, very sophisticated EMT. Kyle Rittenhouse was just a 17 year old kid with a bag on his hip. And so what does he know about saving lives? Gage? Absolutely did though. And so engages video. He calls Kyle a stooge for what, for going out there and trying to help people. F-ing stooge is what he said. And so now you've got a situation where you have , uh , you know , multiple people showing in Disha of bullying. You've got people just, you know , all over the place, shouting F bombs at people you've got gage grows . Kreutz shouting, you are a stooge. And you've got even the own prosecutors in this case who are bullying witnesses who maybe speak a little bit differently than we do or they do. Yeah. I think it's powerful. Uh, Jacob says he is clearly on the spectrum trying to be helpful. They are abusing him. This makes my blood boil abuse. Someone like that is evil speaking my language brother. I appreciate that we'll code . He said he called out the process, the prosecution and it was possible perjury. Yeah. So they were, there was some, some hinting that they were trying to get him to change his statement. I don't know that there's any , any merit to that, but he certainly felt like it. He felt like that they were trying to get him to lie when they were asking him to make any additions or changes to his statement. And he was very stern on that. Didn't let them push him around. TAPO musi Cali , Topo, musi Kali says it's possible when he shot Huber, the shell wasn't injected perhaps after a second trigger poll . So he pulled back the charging handle to eject spent casing and load a fresh round. Okay. There you go. Yeah . That's another sort of a possibility for what great gage gross groups was talking about that re racking moment. Let's see, Mr. Uh, Mr. Jay black says, why does it look like the prosecution is learning about the case on the fly? Shouldn't they know this information before bringing it up to the trial. That's technically how you prepare for trial as you investigate your case. And you know what you're going to talk about, but you're right. There's been a lot of times in this trial where they ask a question and there's an answer and they go shoot. And we've heard it multiple times where there's long pauses after that question, like, oh, that's not what we were expecting there. So I'm not real sure what they did. A 20 Bob. Billy says the prosecutor is meal team six. Oh no, that's a, that's an overweight joke, which you know is true, but what can you say about it? All right. Those are over from a YouTube. Thanks for all the support over there. Uh GKM geekdom says, love how the caption had grandma, grandma say, pardon me for saying this. He was going to kill us mother. I can't read that. I can't read that, but I understand what you're saying. Uh , news. Now there it is news. Now Wyoming says jury instructions. That's the word? The jury rules. Uh , it's too late for me folks. The brain shuts off about nine 30 monster. One says he was shot in the back. Just not the way it sounds the shot to the hit made Rosenbalm bend over and a bullet hit his back. Right? So he was sort of, you know, kind of in the, in the motion of, of twisting. And so it's not as simple as all four shots went indirectly to his back. Thanks for clearing that, clarifying that up for us. Uh, monster Juan de Del SPI says the prosecution is the best kind of right. With respect to the shot in the back. Technically right. The medical examiner went through and the bullet entered his back above the shoulder, traverse through the liver to Rosenbaum technically the back, but not the back. Like you might expect from the movies where it's perpendicular to the spine. This was nearly parallel with the spine. Okay. So that's from de Del SPE . Yeah. And I sort of skipped over some of that testimony today. So thanks for the clarification on that. Uh , former Lao telling me jury instructions, Greg Moran says, sorry, last question. No , no, nothing to be. Sorry about Greg . Just on that militia word , slip up . How does the judge determine if it was intentional or accidental? How many errors are allowed until it becomes serious? Is it subjective on the judge? It is Greg. Yeah. So the judge, if, if one side continues to do something , uh , enough than that, then the judge might actually sanction that side. Right? If , if it's something that is not an innocent error, if it feels like it might be intentional, the judge can sanction the other side or, or in a sanction could be something very serious, right? Some of your evidence doesn't come in or you get to, you know , you you've sort of poisoned the pool on this topic. And so you don't get to talk about that topic anymore. It's all now by bite because you broke the rules. That might be some sort of a sanction, but it is subjective. There's not a hard rule about, you know, if you make five clearly erroneous things that you get, you know, a witness thrown out. It's not like a board game, but the judge could use their, of course their discretion and make decisions. Chairman of the board says that haters make me laugh when they point out the written house was 17. My response is always the same. So you're telling me if you were 17 weeks earlier, making him 18, you'd be on his side then. Yes, I agree. There is lots of free salt being handed out in droves, load up it's free miles . Braeden says if I have my facts, correct. And there was someone in the ricotta chat who came up with the term [inaudible] well, whoever came up with it , uh, outstanding, right ? Full credit to the person who came up with that because it's like, perfect. Kincaid says, let the salt spice, our righteous fees , Kincaid that's like poetry. Let the salt spice, our righteous feasts. That's that's like a bumper sticker right there. Oh my goodness. Let the salt spice, our righteous feasts take all of that salt. That's being generated over from the young Turks. And you just put that right on your Turkey and your mashed potatoes and your stuffing and your cranberry. Now you don't put salt on the cranberry sauce, but you get what I'm talking about and you enjoy that Thanksgiving, feasts of justice and victory. If the antique is prime says, I'm pretty sure the prosecution's closing arguments. We'll just have to be , uh , just forget everything. You've heard these past couple of weeks. And how about we just go ahead and vote guilty. How's that sound it's might be a good strategy. We'll see if it works for them . The Antica says, I think it's good. That bullying has been brought up. I think we've kind of forgotten that it's the representation of the past few years. A bunch of people cry, bullying others and saying it's okay when we do it. Yeah. It's a big problem. And it really rubs people the wrong it's it's it's not right. Monster. One says since when did militia become a bad term? Pretty sure it's in the second amendment. I also understand what you're saying there. You know, it's like, is that necessarily bad? But it has a pejorative connotation because everybody in the media beats it to death. LA medic says, you should go back and watch the defense with the pathologists about the hand, both the defense and the prosecution try to demonstration. It was amusing. I think I will go back and check that out. That was from LA medic. And those were amazing questions. All of those came over from watching the watchers.locals.com along with some amazing, super chats from our friends over on YouTube. And the chat over there is rocking and rolling away . Shout outs over to our Amigos on rumble. We've got Adam CSE isn't allowed is over there. We had a one 10th angel on rumble chatting away. And so before we get out of here, my friends want to welcome some new people who joined our [email protected] big welcomes to the next unicorn who signed up official glitch is in the house. We have duboeuf who signed up custodies P new Robert Emery chip Von shoulder. We've got para LA crime junkie JECA future freedom. Now Briggs , get, get, go, man. We've got PWS MKZ, CPO forever, and speed all in the house. Part of our amazing community [email protected] And I hope you can come check it out and join us over there. That's where we get all of our questions. There's a free copy of my book. It's called beginning to winning how to fight your case and succeed in the criminal justice system. All the slides that we go through on a regular basis, all the charts that I use, they're available over there. We do live streams sometimes in the morning, before the day gets rocking and rolling. We did one this morning today. And so you get a little bit of a , you know , extra content over there. And it's just a good place with a bunch of good people. We had a monthly locals meetup that took place this past Saturday, we talked for three hours on zoom. We got to meet a bunch of people, got to put names to faces because it's all about that community. We're living in this world where it feels like everything is, people are being disconnected at breakneck pace. And so we want to keep things together. Keep a community being built. We're doing that [email protected] I hope you can go check it out and join us. If you're new here would love a subscribe on the channel would love a light before we get on outta here, we are going to be back here tomorrow to cover day eight of the Rittenhouse trial might be the last day of the defense before we close up for veteran's day. So want to make sure that you're with us and you join us as we endeavor to continue to cover this case, pushing for a good outcome. Join us here tomorrow. It's at 3:00 PM. Pacific 4:00 PM. Mountain 5:00 PM. Central 6:00 PM on the east coast. And for that one, Florida man out there, everybody else have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I will see you right back here tomorrow. Bye bye . My first .