Rittenhouse Trial Day 9 Recap: Defense Rests, Use of Force Dr. Black, Drew H Live, Video Evidence

Kyle Rittenhouse trial day 9 concludes with the defense team resting. We have the latest clips and a full recap on the day.​

NEW! CLIPS FROM THE SHOW GO HERE:​

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

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

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

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

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

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​
🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​
📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​
👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​
✂ Watching the Watchers Clips Channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsDWHogP4zc9mF2C_RNph8A​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

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

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

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢 TikTok: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMdCFry1E/​
🟢 Homepage with transcripts: https://www.watchingthewatchers.tv​

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVE PLATFORMS:  ​

🟡 ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@WatchingTheWatchers:8​
🟡 RUMBLE: https://rumble.com/c/RobertGrulerEsq ​

#WatchingtheWatchers #KyleRittenhouse #Rittenhouse #FreeKyle

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers live. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney 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 justice. And it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with your help, we can shine that big, beautiful spotlight of accountability and transparency down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today, we've got a lot to get into day nine of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the defense rests. The jury has been excused for the weekend. They're going to come back. We're going to start closing arguments. And then deliberation. We've been talking about an over under on the time for an acquittal in this case, not to be overly presumptuous, but we're talking about a verdict over, under being two and a half hours, two minutes, I'm sorry, two hours and 45 minutes that comes over from John Howell greens. So think about that cause we're going to be having that conversation on Monday, but not to put the cart before the horse, we got to make sure that this thing wraps up nicely. And so we've got a lot of testimony to get through today. We have Dr. John Black, who was called by the defense. He's a use of force expert, but didn't really get into much of that today. He was really brought in to talk a lot more about timing, the timing sequence of the bullets of the rounds that were fired by Kyle Rittenhouse. And so if you remember, well, we'll get into that in a minute, but then we're going to hear from a couple other people guy by the name of Hernandez, drew Hernandez had some very interesting testimony about Rosenbalm and what he saw and drew actually was on the scene there yet another witness with body camera footage and iPhone footage telling us about what happened. And so we're going to hear from him, we're going to hear about that[inaudible] bullet that was just sort of magically discussed, but never found because we have a Kenosha police officer, somebody who is receiving the evidence who testified today. And I didn't find that that round, but they're talking about. And so then we spent a lot of the afternoon on some really technical stuff, and it was really sort of diving into the minutia very important, obviously, because all of this evidence, this digital evidence, videos, photographs are going to be submitted to the jurors. And they're going to be able to just look at all of these different exhibits and play around with them, just go up, oh, look at this one and open it up and zoom in and out on it. And so they spent a lot of time passing through these rules. When you pinch to zoom on a photograph, are you actually changing? The photograph is the computer through its algorithms, going to be filling in the pixels as they spread apart. And so we've got a lot to get into if you want to be a part of the show, the place to do that is over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which is our home base, where we have a form that looks just like this. At this website, you can use the form, submit a question. We're going to get through them in the show. Also, if you're looking for clips of the program for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we are now clipping a lot of these into witnesses. So you can sort of go back on the clips channel and say, who was that guy who was gage gross? Kreutz what was he lying about over there? You can just go and find it right on the clips channel quite convenient. And of course the questions are coming in on local. Super chats are also coming in from our friends on YouTube. When they come in, they look like this, they hit up on the screen just like that. And I have my screens oriented correctly so that I will not be missing them today. We've also got some new mods in the chat. Thank you for that. If it's, if you don't want that, I just threw those out there. If you don't want that, let me know and I'll undo it, but I appreciate your help today, uh, and indefinitely into the future. Okay. So enough of that let's get into the meat and potatoes. Kyle Rittenhouse was in trial today, trial date, nine of Kyle written house's case. And we're always taking a look at the board. This has not changed. We are nearing the end of the case. So no real permutations here. Hopefully we don't lose any more jurors. We picked up recognizing that the government called a ton of witnesses. And so this was the full smattering of everybody that they called. Number of different officers. We see a number of different crew people, uh, Corey, Elijah YouTuber livestream, or Richard McGuinness, another reporter, they called a forensic pathologist. They called James Armstrong and it was a lot of different individuals from sort of a, a wide range of people. Uh, Carrie Ann Suarez, Rosenbaum's fiance, Anthony Huber's aunt was called in here, Susan Hughes. And so that was their entirety of the case. Today. We learned that the defense presented the entirety of their case. They are now done. This is what their witness list looks like. You can see it's a lot smaller as is usually the case. Lot less investigators and police officers and all the people that the government uses to incriminate people. The defense doesn't use those people. And so here we saw that today we had testimony from these four people, uh, Dr. John Black, which is an expert witness. We're going to hear that he was hired. We're going to hear how much he was paid and all of that, because being really wanted to get into it, then we're going to actually hear from two, uh, law enforcement people, James Armstrong, who we heard from in the government's case in chief, he was the forensic video person, the defense called him back because like I said, we're going to be fighting a lot about this photograph that came from the magical drone that was delivered on the doorstep, like a, a, I guess, an Amazon prime package or something to the prosecutor's office. We're also going to hear from Brittany Bray, Brittany Bray gives us a little bit more clarity that the magical ammunition, that magical round, that Kyle had to eject and then recharge his rifle, that bullet that was supposedly thrown out of there, it was never found. So we'll get into that. And we're going to start the day off because today is a holiday it's veteran's day. Quick moment to honor the veterans. Thank you for your service to this amazing country saying that here on this channel. But the judge also paid tribute in court today causing a lot of people to be hyper triggered out there because this drug is just judges, maybe overly patriotic. So here is judge Schrader today in court giving a round of applause for our veterans

Speaker 2: 6:43

To just observe that it's veteran state and, uh, any veterans in the rope on the jury or anywhere else. Well, that's unusual not to have at least somebody in here, but when Dr. Black is I, what branch. Okay. And, uh, I think we give a round of applause. All

Speaker 1: 7:04

Right. All right. All right.

Speaker 2: 7:10

So you may proceed

Speaker 1: 7:12

Now. Very interesting. Uh, thing happened. We were taking a look at the judge. Remember in this little clip here, we're taking a look at his tie in some people were speculating, oh, what is on this tie here? He just sort of wished the veterans, uh, you know, happy veterans day, what's going on with that tie. And, uh, you know, early on in the morning, he's a little bit tight. Things are a little bit loosened up. So he's moving around and you're like, oh, what's going on there? What's that pattern look like a lot of tie commentary based on the ties the attorneys have been wearing, uh, lately, but we've got a lot of, uh, commentary about this judges tie. And the afternoon came by and things loosened up a little bit. The judges robe kind of opened up and we got to get a glisten at this miraculous tie and take a look at this on veteran's day, judge Schrader, the American flag baby wrapped around the chest. God bless America judge. And so he, he just plasters that tie all over the place. And he has probably maybe seen, I don't know, maybe he's looking at some of the media stories about his phone going off yesterday. God bless America goes off and large portions of the country have meltdowns about it. I talked about that with Megan Kelly today on her show, which was a wild experience. So go check that out. Uh, I retweeted it on Twitter, but it's, it's a, uh, you know, it's an interesting thing. People are latching onto the fact that the judge is playing God bless America and his ringtone as like, oh, he's overly biased. He's overly prejudicial. He's talking about the constitution and you go, Hey, he's judged. Uh, he's basing all of his rulings off the constitution. It's kind of important that he thinks it's pretty good since it's the founding document upon which all the courts are based. It kind of want to have a judge that has some reverence for it. I would think in order to adhere to the rules, how do you have somebody who says those rules are terrible, but I'm going to uphold them. I mean, do my due diligence, I'm going to do my very best to execute those rules that I think are horrendous and racist. And, and, and just the worst thing that's ever happened. It's kind of a disconnect there anyways. So let's get into the actual trial now. Uh, we have Dr. John Black. He is the first witness that was called into court today. And he was actually a little bit of a asterisk on this segment. Dr. Black was, his testimony was broken up into two segments morning and afternoon because during the cross examination, the prosecution said, well, we need some more information from this doctor that we can review before we can continue our cross examination. And so I'm not actually going to present it that way. I'm going to take all of the cross examination that happened this afternoon, and we're just going to put it where it should have gone earlier this morning. And so, uh, let's jump into it. This is where Mark Richards defense attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse calls in Dr. Black asks him about his credentials a little bit. Are you even qualified to be here? Here it is

Speaker 3: 9:58

Dr. John Black to the witness stand doctor. I'm gonna hand you a series of documents and then ask you to testify in authentic case to number one, excuse me. Defense exhibit one 40. Yes, sir. And what is that? This is the, um, Brooklyn by tape may annex a, that was re uh, tendered with my expert report. And how long is that document? Four to three pages, sir. And does that include your life and professional experiences? It includes the highlights of them, but yes, sir. And what I want to get into is a little,

Speaker 1: 10:58

Uh, these 43 pages here, my curriculum, VTA my 43 page resume. Some of the highlights, not everything though. There's a lot more in there. What would you like to know? So, uh, you know, that's kind of a big[inaudible] expert witness coming in and just laying down, you know, the resume, just kind of like what we saw in the Shovan case, where the guy wrote the book on respiratory respiration. Like the guy, I think he invented lungs or something like that, got a patent for it. He wrote the whole book on it. And so everybody goes on, well, he wrote the book. So I guess we can't even cross examine him, I guess that's the rule. So it kind of a same concept, nice big appeal to authority. If you want to look at it that way, I've got all these credentials, therefore I'm highly qualified. So Kyle Rittenhouse brings him in here and they lay that down and he is highly qualified. He talks about his military career is, you know, higher rankings there, a police background, 20 something years certified to analyze video evidence got that credential, that credential that credential. So Dr. John Black comes in now, this is a little bit interesting because he actually doesn't talk, uh, almost at all about use of force or about reasonableness or any of those things. He's sort of really testifying to his analysis of the video and the timing of the gunshots, which is where most of the crux of his testimony came in today. And that's because the state well it's because that, that was part of the defense strategy. And earlier during pretrial proceedings, they were having the Dobber hearing where they were qualifying their expert witnesses. This is a special hearing before the trial starts to say, you say, you're going to use an expert witness. Uh, why do you need them first of all, and are they even qualified to talk about the thing that they're opining about? Are they actually experts? So in a DUI case, you need somebody to come and talk, talk about the blood test, who did it, how was it analyzed? Why do you need that? Well, because you got to prove that they had blood alcohol content levels over a certain legal limit. So you justify it, the person who's coming in to talk about the blood, are they really an expert? Are they qualified? Can they talk technically about these things, got to qualify them here, though. They weren't qualifying the experts for the use of force stuff. That's why we didn't hear from a use of force experts. In the government's case in chief, you typically hear from those people in police shootings, where there is a use of force policy or protocol kind of don't really need that you don't need that hierarchy of working up. You know, the, the law, the law enforcement's first step is, you know, physical presence being there is a deterrent. The next thing, you know, verbal command, the next thing, uh, you know, a physical force, maybe next thing non-lethal force then lead. You don't have to go through those tears. When you're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, he's not a police officer, maybe one day he will, but he wasn't just a regular citizen. And so all of that conversation about reasonableness and use of force was really not, not applicable here. So all of that was left out. Instead, we got a lot of conversation about the video evidence about the sounds and about how this all works. Now, remember, for those of you who've been around a quick tangent indulge me for just one minute. When we first started covering Rittenhouse, I mean, it had to have been like August, probably 25th, 26th of last year, really a big reason this show is here. And the reason this channel got the momentum that it did was because people were interested in the work that I did on the Rittenhouse case. And I did exactly what he's about to explain. So for those of you who have been around for awhile, rewind back your memories to those videos. And what I did is really what a lot of these investigators did in the case is they went around the internet and they downloaded all of these videos and they were assembling them. We heard from several officers that was their sole job. What'd you do? How'd you investigate the investigate this case. I went on Twitter and downloaded a bunch of stuff. Oh, great. So did I, but the point is when you do some rudimentary analysis on that, even before this evidence, probably before a formal probable cause statement was even released, we were taking a look at those internet videos and you can easily throw that into just a simple video video editor break up the video. So you could see frame by frame, look beneath it at a parallel audio file, and you can see the wave form, so you can see the spikes very easy so that when you scrub the timeline, when you're sort of going back and forth on the timeline in the video editor seeking forward in, back in the video production suite, you're going to be looking at how the sound, the audio matches with the frame. So what you can do, if you're sort of trying to piece together, what happened is you can see the audio and you can say, I see a spike right here. I heard that, and I can correlate that with a frame of frozen frame in the video file. And so that's exactly what we did on this channel. And we were able to tease out from the online videos that Kaminski, or we didn't know it was a Minsky at the time, but we were able to see that there was a spike in the audio that correlated with multiple videos, where there was a flash in the image. And so you could sort of corroborate the multiple different video files and show that there was a gun that went off that matched the exact location, where Kyle Rittenhouse was because there was all sorts of banging and popping all over the place, but there was a flash and you can match it to a, an audio spike at that exact frame. So you knew it was coming from that person, that gun, that gun was right next to Kyle Rittenhouse. And so we were able to sort of, you know, piece all that together a year ago before any of this stuff even came out. And now it's amazing to see it, but this is exactly what this guy is describing this expert witnesses saying, here's how I measure the distance between the shots. Here's how I was calculating the distance from that first shot to that next shot, same exact process, frame it out and then match it, correlate it with the audio beneath it. So here is Dr. Black with that preface describing exactly that

Speaker 4: 16:41

Into so away from if you've ever seen him as those things that sort of have the big spikes in them and this type of stuff of gunshot. For example, a gunshot has a loud percussive noise. I listened to the thing as it's playing, I see a big spike within the wave form. I can now mark that spike and say, that's the beginning of the gunshot. I listen to some more. I watched the wave form shift. There's another spike. So what it allows me to do is allows me to see a visual representation of sound. And now I don't have to be sort of hitting the space bar or using a stopwatch to opine at or around the sound. I can actually mark that sound within it. It's the same. If I look at it for two minutes or 20 minutes, the sound still occurs in the same place.

Speaker 1: 17:32

Okay. So same process sort of matching it up, corroborating the two. And it is pretty obvious that when you do that, you can see the time at which the bullets were fired. You can see the, the ejection point, or at least here the spike in the, in the audio. So he goes through, he details a lot of technical stuff. It's, it's actually quite boring testimony. If I have any criticism of this, it is quite boring. They didn't have a lot of the stuff in order. They were sort of, they had to relabel a bunch of files and it was kind of, kind of sloppy. It felt sloppy. It felt like they could have rehearsed this a little bit better. So it wasn't so much, well, uh, are you talking about clip 30 or clip 20 while I'm talking about clip 20? Okay. Well, let me pull up quick clip 20, because we just had to relabel everything. And so there was a lot of that. It was sort of like a lot of clerical minutia that was just quite, quite boring, but then we get down to some meat and potatoes. We, we sort of get all the technical stuff out of the way, remember that when they do that technical stuff, it's necessary, you've got to lay the foundation. There's sort of a, you know, uh, uh, a necessity to do it. So we'll move on from there. But here, finally, we're getting to the nuts. Now we want to know what are your conclusions? Give us some data that we can use because you've given us all the how to now we want the sausage here is where the prosecutor then sort of objects saying that this new data is outside the scope that he's not allowed to talk about this because these timings are not pertinent to what has already been allowed to be provided in court as evidence here's Dr. Black today in Rittenhouse trial day nine.

Speaker 4: 19:09

Understanding what this point is, this is from, if you can see on your screen, the parent file, this would be the point where friendly, friendly, friendly is heard within the soundtrack. And obviously we can play that as well. Please. I'm going to object. This is beyond the scope of the court's order

Speaker 1: 19:35

Beyond the scope of the court's order says Thomas binger,

Speaker 4: 19:40

This is all timing, five minutes.

Speaker 1: 19:43

All right. So the judge then excuses everybody. And what is being her talking about being is talking about a prior court order saying that there were these, we've talked about these, these things called motions in eliminating, which are pretrial motions, which are filed so that you can sort of narrowly tailor some of the evidence that comes in so that you can say, well, we're not going to use the word militia on that video, which maybe they should have done. But what happened here was, was basically there was some conversation about what this expert can testify about being, or saying this expert went outside of the bounds of that went out of bounds, not allowed to talk about that. And he's talking specifically about the timing. And so remember, we're sort of, you know, we can, we can set a window timeframe that, that really ranges any range. We can say a five minute timeframe from when Kyle first entered the scene until he left after the shootings, you can really set any parameters you want. And so what being or was saying is this guy is talking about something that is too far outside of the scope of that timeline. So here's his full objection in court today?

Speaker 5: 20:56

The court has signed an order that specifies the scope of Dr. Black's testimony. That order indicates that he is going to be allowed to testify to what is contained on paragraph 19 of his preliminary report dated July 31st, 2021 in subsection three, a one that subsection reads the report page 19, subsection three, a one this pertains to the shots at Joseph Rosenbalm that subsection reads the four shots occur in approximately one second with the chimes in hundredths of a second of 0.2, 6.25 and 0.2, three, respectively between shots 1, 2, 3, and four. The court has also ruled that the defense that the witness can testify as to the information contained on page 22 of his report and paragraph four, a and four, a one that pertains to the timing of the shots in what counsel describes as the second event, uh, where the defendant shoots at the unidentified individual, Mr. Huber, Mr. Gross Cortes. And there's some timing information there.

Speaker 1: 22:21

Okay. So it's quite boring. Really? That clip basically, he's going through, and he's saying, look, I'm looking at Dr. Black's report. He said, uh, from point a to point B, he analyzed that from point B to point C. He analyzed that from 0.0 to point a, he analyzed that, but from point B to point a seven, even though he analyzed that we never said that that could come in. Now he's talking about points zero to seven, which includes ABC and all those D but now it's so conflated that he's outside the scope because we didn't properly clarify this. What Bangerz trying to do is to get them to just narrow that scope only a to B, B to C and C to D can come in. All of those other conversations are not, are not included because it wasn't hashed out properly in court. So being her then says, he's kind of doing the switcheroo yesterday, you know, in, in, he was trying to sneak something in yesterday that maybe shouldn't have come in when he was questioning Kyle about that prior statement from the CVS video. Now he sort of trying to keep something out that maybe the rules should have led in, and he's using this, this technicality of this report to say, well, it's not clearly delineated in here. And therefore I'm asking that the court, you know, throw it out. So, uh, let's see where this continues on judge trader.

Speaker 2: 23:37

Exactly what's being pursued by the state at this point is timing sequence for time between the friendly, friendly, friendly, and the surrender to the police, which he says is a total of 400 and some, or attempted to surrender to the place, which she says is a total of four minutes and some seconds, all of which is, uh, every second of which I think has been analyzed here in this courtroom. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 24:06

It's all been included.

Speaker 2: 24:07

Um, that was certainly my vision at the time we discussed all of this.

Speaker 1: 24:12

So he's saying that, uh, if you go through that report, technically binger, maybe you're right. Maybe you're seeing that there is something that is technically included or not included, but my sort of vision was that everything that is part of the timeline, that part of this sort of sequence of events would be included. Does that sound reasonable? And so he continues on, he says, my judge goes off on a sort of a long soliloquy here and then comes back and says, well, here's my, here's my inclination. I kinda like it when the jury can see more of the evidence rather than less. And so I'm inclined to let it in. Here's what Schrader said today, issues

Speaker 2: 24:50

We're here, you know, and you you've practiced here. You were assigned here for quite a long time, some years ago. And, um, I think, I think that most people would say that I'm pretty open to, I want to have the whole thing presented to whomever is finding the facts and whether it's me or whether it's the jury. I want to know as much as possible, rather than try to isolate particular things and say, well, that is, uh, uh, I talked, I told the story the other day about the, um, judge from Madison who, uh, who was tormented. Uh,

Speaker 1: 25:27

Okay. So he goes off another judge for Madison who was tormented. He goes off into a story, but you can see what he's saying. We're, we're inclined to let the jury hear the evidence. And so we sort of pick back up with Dr. Black, he comes back out now, testimony restarts again, and we're able to hear more about the timing between the different shots. And so here's what that sounds like. Now, the reason this is important of course, is because Kyle Rittenhouse was in sort of a, a split second decision multiple times that night and was acting out of instinct, almost gut reaction, training, whatever he had was happening there, but it wasn't like he was this slow, thoughtful, cunning, lying in, wait, methodical murderer, running around the streets of Kenosha. That was not the thing that actually happened, even though Thomas binger has been trying to craft that narrative by creating the domino effect by showing that Rittenhouse has been lawful every step of the way. So that narrative is now going to be, I think, rebutted pretty competently by the idea that this all happened within three quarters of a second. Here's Dr. Black

Speaker 3: 26:36

Using your program regarding sound and video, you have determined how far apart shot one and shot for work. Correct? I have. And that's by using the frames per second and the audio graph, it's a

Speaker 4: 26:52

Combination between them both,

Speaker 3: 26:53

But yes. Okay. And if I label shot one as zero time, when does shot two occur

Speaker 4: 27:03

Approximately three quarters second by the different timings 0.739.

Speaker 3: 27:07

Wait, I want to get shot number two.

Speaker 4: 27:10

Sorry. My fault. The second shot shot one as a zero point would occur 0.2, six, three seconds after shot one.

Speaker 3: 27:22

Okay. And what is the time distance? The time between shots, what is the second and third shot?

Speaker 4: 27:32

The time between the second and the third shot would be 0.2, four,

Speaker 3: 27:37

And the time elapsed between the third and fourth shot.

Speaker 4: 27:43

The time between the third and fourth shot would be 0.2 to nine.

Speaker 3: 27:47

And the total of those four shots fired by Kyle Rittenhouse occur in what amount of time?

Speaker 4: 27:55

Oh 0.739, or again, approximately three quarters of a second

Speaker 3: 27:59

Now.

Speaker 1: 28:00

Okay. So three quarters of a second. I mean, that's super fast, obviously four shots. Now you can see there at the beginning of that clip, there was a little bit of, a little bit of sort of stuttering, you know, between their conversation, a shot, one shot to shot zero. And if you listen to the full sequence, there, there was a lot of that going on. And it was very kind of difficult for even me to understand what they were talking about in when a shot zero was that Zemlinsky shot or was that written houses shot zero, or was it shot zero? What they did is they would say a shot Sierra zero in event two, when you said, okay, well what's event to event to must be Huber. And then event three must be gross. Kreutz right. And so they were sort of, you know, kicking around the numbers. A lot of it was inconsequential and I probably got the numbers wrong there, but it was, it was a little bit just tedious. But the point here was made three fourths of a second, very, very fast there. And so we get a little bit more testimony from the Dr. Black here about the time between the Kominsky shot, which of course was the first shot. So it was a Minsky was the shot that went off before any of written houses, rounds went off. It's that same shot that we were referencing back here one year ago in the video that I did specifically about that here is what Dr. Black says about the time between that shot and written houses. First,

Speaker 3: 29:18

How many shots or shot we were heard before those four forces

Speaker 4: 29:23

Mother's gunshots throughout the evening that I examined, but there's one clear shot that's heard prior to that.

Speaker 3: 29:30

And that occurred how many seconds before shot zero or shot one, which is the same shot.

Speaker 4: 29:41

So the shot you referred to two shots is shot one. So shot shots, zero. The difference between what we're calling the first shot and then shot zero. Is that correct?

Speaker 3: 29:50

Well, no. What does it, what I will refer to as a Minsky shot counsel, we agree that for showers, Mr. Kaminski does a Minsky shot. Kyle shot zero.

Speaker 4: 30:04

The time between this Minsky shot, as you referred to it, and the shot pivoted to Kyle Rittenhouse as his first shot would be approximately About, about two and three quarter seconds. Again, I can look at the exact thing if you want. I just don't have that.

Speaker 1: 30:33

Yeah. So it was, it was a little bit frustrating. You can see he's a little bit frustrated here because they had to sort of relabel a bunch of stuff. And so it's know he's calculating those numbers in his head in real time. And this is a guy who you could tell, right, is hyper, uh, you know, detailed 43 page CV. My goodness, my goodness. That's a lot, right? Every single minute thing is checked and punctuated appropriately. And so he had to get in there and change a bunch of labels. And you've got Mark Richards over here. Uh, there's a Minsky shot. We'll call it as a Minsky shot. Is that right? Is that okay? Prosecutor, can we just call it as a Minsky shot? And then it goes back over to doc. He's like, all right, we're going to call it as a Minsky shot then is it shot zero or shot? What, so, you know, it's sort of the fun of, um, two different styles mashing together in the courtroom. And we have a little bit more now this is Zinsky, uh, no, this is not some Minsky. This is Dr. Black telling us more about the jump kick man and the kick to the face because there's a sequence of events that happens. Does Kyle shoot first and then get kicked in the face or did Kyle get kicked in the face? And then shoot, first, these two events were very close in time, almost on top of one another, but if you super slow Mo it, can you see which came first, he gets asked that question, binger, of course objects again. Here's what that sounded like.

Speaker 3: 32:00

There is what's commonly referred to as junk kick man entering in the video. Do you know who we're talking about factor? I do. And when you analyze this video, did jump kick, man, kick Kyle in the face first, or the first shot go off before the kick. I'm going to object, your honor. This is beyond the scope of the court's order regarding witnesses.

Speaker 1: 32:27

So same, same objection that we heard earlier.

Speaker 2: 32:32

Uh, you're asking him to make an identification that the jurors could make themselves.

Speaker 3: 32:38

I'm asking him based upon his video analysis, what happened first, the kick to the face in the first gunshot in event number two or the gunshot in event number two, and then the kick to the face.

Speaker 1: 32:59

Overruled, go ahead and ask it. So it comes over to it. Uh he's objection. The objection. It's beyond the scope. Mark. Richard says it's not beyond the scope. We're just trying to see if he got kicked before he fired the gun. So judge says, overruled question can come in here is how that sounds.

Speaker 3: 33:16

Yes. Based upon your analysis of the video and sound analysis, what occurred first? The kick to the face by junk kick man, it's my client or the first gunshot.

Speaker 4: 33:30

Yeah. Based on my analysis, the kick to the face occur prior to the gunshot.

Speaker 3: 33:36

And after that was Kyle's first shot in the second event, correct?

Speaker 4: 33:47

If I'm understanding the question correctly after the kick, the first shot and the second event occurred, that is correct.

Speaker 1: 33:56

First shot. Second event could have been, the second event could have been the missed shots. Uh, Huber could have been Huber could have been gross groups, but they're going through this. You can see the sequence point there of that clip was he got kicked in the face first, which I think we all knew, but now we have an expert with 43 pages of credentials to help settle that for us. Then binger comes out it's cross-examination time. So we have Thomas binger, the prosecutor comes out and is asking him about the time from the first shot at Rosenbalm all the way to the final shot at gross Pruitt's. And here is what that sounded like how much time elapsed between all the gunshots. Do you have any idea? Here's what he said.

Speaker 6: 34:49

Observation point number eight is the first shot that the defendant fires at, uh, Joseph Rosenbaum. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And observation number 26 is the final shot that the defendant fires at Mr. Gross, court's correct. Also, correct. Can you tell us the amount of time that passes between the first shot? Uh, observation number eight to Joseph Rosenbaum and the final shots to Mr. Gross, which is observation number 26.

Speaker 4: 35:24

I can, again or so. And just to make sure that I have the numbers again, we're looking for observation 26, correct. As the stop point.

Speaker 6: 35:37

Is that correct, sir? Yes. Okay. Observation 26 across me one minute and 20 seconds. One minute, one minute. And approximately one minute, 20 seconds, the defendant fires all eight shots that we see, is that correct? Yes, sir.

Speaker 1: 35:58

All right. So, and that sort of matches up with everything else that we were seeing. Kyle Rittenhouse has that first exchange with Rosenbalm. He is running around and then he gets sort of assaulted by everybody else. And that's when the final, uh, chase scene that we see happens in the final rounds are shot in gross grit. So, okay. So now what you can see, what he's doing is the exact opposite of what Mark Richards was doing. Mark Richards went and brought this expert and said, oh, how long was it? Point one to point to 0.2 around three round three, round four. Uh, what was that? He says 3, 4, 7, second 0.7, six of a second, man. That's fast. Right? That's pop up. Gotta get that out. Now that is to show you that Kyle Rittenhouse was acting instinctively. He was acting, he was reacting, not acting. He was taking information in making a split-second decision and responding immediately. And so if there's a margin of error argument to be made on this, if the jurors go back and they say, oh, that's pretty close there. I'm not so sure I'm questioning about that. I got a little, you know, I'm Teeter tottering to some degree. Well, if it's a split second decision, maybe they say, well, look, it was just a split second decision. He did the best he could. And that weighs in Kyle's favor. So what binger then wants to do is come out and do the opposite of that. Say, oh no, he had a minute and 20 seconds. Why did he just continue to wander around for a minute and 20 seconds? He could have just thrown his gun away. He could have thrown it in a Bush. He could have done something else. And he didn't that's because he wanted to kill some people. He came in from another state, he brought a gun illegally. He was driving around without a license, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Not even supposed to be on cars, source, curfew violation. He plays call of duty, right? All of those arguments. And so the one minute and 20 seconds we're going to hear on closing is just a ton of time where he could have made a lot of better decisions and he didn't, and that's why he should be convicted today. That's going to be the closing argument I can already, uh, I can already see it. So that's why he's expanding the scope. The more time he can elongate this thing, the better here is, uh, another ridiculous question, but I want you to pay close attention to this. We're going to watch this one, I think twice. We'll watch it first. And then we're going to watch, uh, we're going to watch it again. So here is Dr. Black being asked by Tom, his binger. How much money do you make for 43 pages of credentials? Here's what that sounded like. You,

Speaker 6: 38:32

You indicated earlier that you're being paid hourly for this. How much in total, so far, have you build the defense for the work you've done in this case?

Speaker 4: 38:42

Uh, estimated, uh, probably, um, little over$9,000,

Speaker 6: 38:49

Your honor, we asked earlier for some data that he can generate for us. I'd like to see that before I finished my examination.

Speaker 1: 39:00

Okay. So, so being her then needs some more information before he can come back and carry on his cross-examination, but it's kind of that bias question, you know? Oh, you're getting paid for your opinion. You know, and an obvious question to that is, uh, Hey, dummy, dumb, dumb, Tom is binger. How much are you getting paid there? And who's, who's, who's writing your paychecks all the time. Is it the same government that's writing the paychecks for the police, for the judge, for your assistant over here for this building, you want to talk about payment and bias, get the hell out of here. So, uh, you know, obviously that's a pretty easy response to deal with, but the other thing that you can take a look at is this fellow here in the back now, uh, some interesting facial expressions been going on here today. And, uh, we have this fellow back here. You can see gonna give him a circle back here. He's sort of fixing his collar. And he is very interested in this question. And I was watching this and I was cracking my crack and my, my tail off in my office today. Watch what happens when he realizes he's in the wrong line of work 9,000 bucks for working on this case. Pretty good deal. Here's what he thought about it.

Speaker 6: 40:05

It earlier that you're being paid hourly for this, how much in total, so far, have you build the defense for the work you've done in this case?

Speaker 4: 40:16

Uh, probably a little over$9,000. Ooh,

Speaker 1: 40:22

Ooh. That's pretty good.$9,000. Ooh, I like that number. Yeah. So that guy, a lot of those facial expressions today from that guy, if you were watching him very interesting character, but then he sort of gone later in the day. You can see here. And so, uh, let me show you another clip here. This is Thomas binger who is continuing his line of questioning. So I think this is back in the afternoon. So yeah, so the, the Megadeath guy in the back he's gone cause we come back in the afternoon, they take a break and uh, then binger gets the information that he needs. They come on back and they ask him questions about this. Give us some details about the image manipulation. How does this all work, Dr. Black,

Speaker 6: 41:06

With regard to this video in the report you gave us. Um, since we last talked, it indicates here that you trimmed the video and you, it indicates you enhance the levels. So you say you adjust to the contrast of 14.4 and the brightness to 1 75 0.1. Am I reading this correctly?

Speaker 4: 41:28

You are reading incorrectly. However, if you take a look slightly for them, or these are mashed estimated values, post-production in other words, I didn't capture it at the exact moment I was working on this. And during the last time we talked and I matched the levels, consequently,

Speaker 6: 41:44

What do you mean? You matched mesh levels to one

Speaker 4: 41:47

To the, the appearance of the video. In other words, what you're doing is you're adjusting contrast on one side of it. And if you want, I can show that to you. Okay. That's fine. And you're adjusting brightness on the other. There are two slider items, so to speak, sure. One slider goes up from zero to whatever the other goes down.

Speaker 6: 42:05

I think we've done this a lot on our own personal cell phones, but I'm wondering is how did you arrive at those settings for contrast and brightness? What were you comparing them to? Or where did you get

Speaker 1: 42:14

That from the original image?

Speaker 6: 42:18

So you had a raw video from the source with ed, which had a certain contrast and brightness level,

Speaker 4: 42:26

The video that was given to me that yes, sir. I had a raw video with the,

Speaker 6: 42:31

And then when you did work on that video, you, you adjusted the contrast and the brightness on your work to try and match the original.

Speaker 4: 42:38

No.

Speaker 1: 42:39

Okay. So I want to, so that goes on for like another two, three minutes. I just wanted to give you a taste of that. It's not anything interesting. It's a lot of boring nonsense. It's basically the prosecutor who is having a very difficult time understanding how sort of video manipulation works. And it's, it's what Dr. Black is trying to explain. I'm going to show you, he actually gives us an example of this here in a minute, but quick thing I wanted to point out. So first of all, it, it's not really a good idea to let an expert witness who is oppositional to you to give them a full floor and just let them go to just let a, anybody who is not on your team, give them a full floor and just say, tell me how that works, because then you can see, they do exactly what he did. He just goes and goes and goes and goes and goes and goes, and they start going down this technobabble road and you just get all discombobulated. He's the expert, he's got 43 pages of this, of this stuff under his belt, Thomas binger. Doesn't probably a smart guy. More or less, maybe not, but he is in, he's a lawyer. He's not a forensic videographer. You know, whatever that guy's credentials are. So you can, you can lose control of an expert in that way. And so you gotta be careful about that. So it felt to me like binger was sort of grasping a little bit trying to, you know, fill this thing up. Well, we'll just tell me more about it and you change things right? And so on and so forth. But he did do something good when Dr. Black asked him, well, I can show you, I can give you an example on how I do this. He said, Nope, Nope, Nope, Nope. Don't need to see it. Don't want to see you showing anything, not going to give him the glove. Right. Don't give the defendant the piece of the evidence to tell him, to try it on and ask him if it fits. No, it doesn't fit. Oh, isn't that nice? So, you know, it's one of those things where you gotta be very careful about how much control you give over to the expert witness. And so Thomas banger to his credit, didn't do that. Now, Mark Richards, as soon as binger was done, asked him to do that very thing. And that's what this look like. Now, this is pretty cool. I'm going to play this out for a minute. So you can see how he turns a video that you can't see anything on into something that you can clearly see. Here's how that looked

Speaker 3: 44:42

As you sit here today. Is there any clip that you could take and just show by moving the bars color and contrast with happens, not color, brightness and contrast? I believe.

Speaker 4: 44:55

Yeah. Can actually,

Speaker 3: 44:57

Could you demonstrate that for the jury, take one of those standard clips

Speaker 4: 45:05

And you just want the, the idea of brightness and contrast? Correct.

Speaker 1: 45:08

Okay. So watch, it's pretty cool. I fast forward through some of this stuff, he's just giving us an example, input a software he's sort of, you know, telling it what it should do,

Speaker 4: 45:19

Correct.

Speaker 1: 45:21

Input an output is going to do some encoding.

Speaker 4: 45:26

Well, you can see on the screen are these two sliders up here and I'm going to go down to a place. That's got a little bit of something in it. And all I'm going to do is I'm going to slide this in that direction. Do you notice it lightens up or it keeps sliding in that direction? Lightens up some more. If I wanted to get a little bit more contrast to it. And then as, um, Mr. Bear has already described, I moved them around to a place where I can get hopefully a little better understanding or clarity or,

Speaker 1: 46:03

Okay. So we have him that w we wrap up with that testimony, and then we're going to come back to a lot of this video evidence here shortly, because we're going to spend most of the afternoon talking to, uh, Dr. Armstrong. I'm sorry, not doctor, a police officer Armstrong about a lot of this video footage. And so different sides are getting different documents admitted in. We had Dr. Black got a lot of other video evidence admitted in that was actually quite good. I didn't clip it here because you are watching the shots go off in ultra slow Mo and you can see exactly man, what's happening. It's really, really nicely done video footage. And I think it supports Kyle's case better, you know, better than anything, but it, it, it was introduced. We can see the timing and it's, it's all gonna, you know, go in front of the jury. And so we'll see what they want to do with it. Our next witness here is Brittany Bray, officer Brittany Bray. So she comes in and she is the person who helped to gather a lot of the evidence. So she's taken a look right here at some of the exhibits that are going to be submitted also in front of the jurors. This is, uh, Mark Richards called her a police officer, somebody who works in evidence to the stand and asks her about this. She's taken a look. Do you, do you recognize these things?

Speaker 3: 47:23

Yes, I'm familiar with all of them. Okay. And what are they? They're shell casings. And are they all the same caliber? Yes, sir. And are they all the same make or brand, And those were found in the middle of Sheridan road? Correct. And did you find or log into evidence any and fired? Well, let's add that location of that caliber and that brand. No. If there had been an Annette fired bullet matching those empty shell casings, is that something you would have taken as evidence? Yes. Thank you. Move those exhibits into evidence.

Speaker 1: 48:23

Leave that there for the chat for a quick minute. So she kind of disproves that magic bullet theory, right? If you, if you would have found that ejected shell casing there, then you would have, uh, categorized that you would've logged it into evidence. We'd be looking at it right here. What didn't you if Kyle Rittenhouse ejected that thing? And we know that there are eight shots because there were eight other rounds fired. We got those accounted for if there was an injected shell. That was unfired because he rewrapped it as gauge gross. Crits says alleges, you'd see that somewhere. Guess what? Nobody has seen it. So she comes in and talks about that. Absolutely supports the idea that Kyle Rittenhouse, as he said, did not retract the weapon. And then this is the cross-examination. So Thomas binger comes back out and says, uh, uh, tell me about guns. Uh, Madam officer, Brittany Bray. And he even gets rude with his own officers, people who were on his side. Normally, here's what that sounded like. Um,

Speaker 5: 49:26

Are you familiar with AR fifteens? Yes. How are you familiar with them? I

Speaker 7: 49:30

Own them I've shot them. I've trained with them.

Speaker 5: 49:34

Have you ever had an experience where one has jammed on you? Yes. Can you tell us about that?

Speaker 7: 49:39

Clear it usually to wrap the side back to inject the jam, whatever the round is, it's champion there, send it forward. And another bullet would go into the chain.

Speaker 5: 49:49

Okay. When you have to eject whatever's in the chamber, the thing that's being objected is that, uh, uh, spent showcasing, or is it an

Speaker 7: 49:59

Unfair? It could be either, or

Speaker 5: 50:02

We need to make sure we're not talking at the same time for the benefit of the court report. Um, so in your experience, have you ever had a situation in which you have pulled the trigger? The round has fired, but the spent shell casing did not automatically eject like it should. Yes. And then that process you've described would be the way of ejecting that spent shell casing, correct? I have nothing further.

Speaker 1: 50:28

Okay. Thanks binger. Thanks for, thanks for working through how firearms work, uh, with, uh, with her today in court weirdo. All right. So, uh, that was Brittany Bray police officer talking about evidence going once again to support the idea that there was no rerock Kyle Rittenhouse was not singularly trying to execute gage gross, quits without any justification, like he says. So all that took place. Lot of testimony there, as you can imagine, we get to our next witness. Drew Hernandez. First name is Frank goes by drew. He was there on the scene. Now this guy is very interesting, very aggressive witness. He was somebody who was not happy with being or didn't sound like he was happy with this prosecution at all gets, gets hot. Right? And we see this back and forth between the prosecutor and Mr. Hernandez, who is from Arizona, by the way, shout out to my brother from Arizona. And let's listen in on how this testimony sounds here is him being sworn in to court today,

Speaker 8: 51:32

The whole truth and that's, but the truth to help again.

Speaker 9: 51:37

So would you state your name and spell your last name, please?

Speaker 10: 51:41

My name is Frank Andrew Hernandez, also known as drew Hernandez, uh, publicly. I'm a last name. H E R N a N D E Z. Okay.

Speaker 9: 51:50

And Mr. Hernandez, can you tell us a little bit of your background in terms of what you do for work?

Speaker 10: 51:56

So I'm a professional commentator on real America's voice. I commentate on the news. I commentate on what's in pop culture, uh, on a daily basis. And I also do on the ground reporting, uh, specifically on protests, uh, and the 2020 riots.

Speaker 9: 52:11

And as it relates to the, uh, you're on the ground, kind of reporting is what I'm interested in. Um, were you in Kenosha, uh, on the evening of August 25th, 2020? Yes. And were you there to cover what was happening with the civil unrest in Kenosha? Yes. And were you able to do that? Um, with some type of video equipment,

Speaker 10: 52:38

I use my iPhone and I also use a body cam and specifically on this night, that's what I was using to document the riots.

Speaker 1: 52:45

All right. So that's good stuff there. I phoned body camera. You know, that that's stuff that you really want if you've got a police officer involved, cause you can see exactly what happened. This guy has it, he's down there on the streets running around. So we've seen a lot of footage. Now we see stuff from his perspective and he's a defense witness. They're calling him in to say what he saw. So that's good stuff. Now he is here tall telling us a little bit more about Rosenbalm and his testimony is pointed. He's very concise. Gives us a very clear, distinct recollection of what he saw. It's not good. It's talking about Rosenbalm pushing a flaming dumpster into a car full of here's what that sounded like,

Speaker 9: 53:26

Where you saw him originally, if you count

Speaker 10: 53:29

The first time I saw Mr. Rosenbaum was when the police were pushing the riders back to the gas station. I'm on Sheridan. Ultimate, I believe. And, uh, Mr. Rosenbaum was pushing a flaming dumpster on fire, into police vehicles that were occupied by officers and human beings.

Speaker 9: 53:50

Um, Mr. Hernandez, I'm going to show you what has been marked as exhibit 1 49. Can you identify that? Tell me what that, what that is.

Speaker 10: 54:01

Uh, this is a photo of the event I just described.

Speaker 9: 54:05

Okay. And does that photograph, that's a still photograph of a video that you took, right? I'm going to ask that you look to your left. Okay. If you can play that, can you tell me if that's what you captured?[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 54:26

Okay. So they go through a bunch of video footage and I'm seeing in the, in the chat, somebody says this guy might've flown out last night here from, uh, from Arizona, which is a big deal. So very interesting that he showed up he's there. And, uh, now he's being asked about this. Did you, did you record all of this in real time? Did you hear what you said about, Rosenbalm literally pushing a flaming dumpster into a police car, filled with people. Did you hear that? Did you watch that in a video on Twitter or did you like hear that, see that and hear that? Here's what he says.

Speaker 9: 54:59

Did you see, um, what Joseph Rosenbaum was doing as he was chasing Cairo Rittenhouse?

Speaker 10: 55:08

So I was at the corner of the car source and the first thing I did identify was that Rosenbalm was charging Kyle Rittenhouse from behind. And then as he's charging him into the car source parking lot, uh, a firearm goes off. You can see it in the frame at the top of the car.

Speaker 9: 55:26

Can I ask you this, stop you for a second. You hear that

Speaker 10: 55:29

Real time here. It and solid in real time. Okay, go ahead. And as, uh, the first firearm goes off, Roseanne bond is already charging Kyle from behind, uh, attempts to throw a bag at him. Not sure what's inside of it. And, um, Kyle is right at the corner right there in the color car source and turns around and Rosenbaum is lunging towards him very clearly. And,

Speaker 9: 55:58

And do you see that with your eyes? Yes at night. Okay.

Speaker 1: 56:03

There you go. Folks. That's an, that's a strong witness right there. Rosenbalm was lunging. So now you've got somebody on, you got multiple witnesses. Now you've got, uh, uh, McGuinness who said that specifically? Remember they had this entire battle about what Rosenbalm was doing. Thomas binger really? Hasn't given us an alternative explanation about what happened there. I guess, Rosenbaum, I keep joking about it tripped on his shoelace, but I'd like to know if there wasn't a reasonable explanation there. Like, is there a hole in the pavement or something was, did he just trip? Like, is that the explanation there? Because we have two people saying that's not the case. It looked like he was chasing, looked like he was lunging. We have Richard McGuinness who said that. Now we have this guy drew Hernandez saying the same thing corroborated. And he was there. We don't need a bunch of videos to prove that claim. The guy was there. McGinnis was there. McGinnis is an alleged victim in the case. And he said the same thing. Rosenbaum was lunging, not falling. They had a big battle over the semantics on that word. So the whole thing is now being buttressed by the defense. That was a very nice clip for them to just kind of show the jurors. Rosenbalm was the provocateur here? Not Rittenhouse. All right, next up, we have another clip from drew talking about contact with Kyle. You were there all night. You got all of this video footage that we are very excited to admit to the jurors and question for you. Did you ever see Kyle causing a ruckus? We know that a lot of people saw Rosenbalm running around starting stuff on fire. We heard from you that he was going to throw a dumpster into a bunch of police officers. How about Kyle? Did he do anything that was overly aggressive? Was he out there acting a fool? Like Rosenbaum was

Speaker 9: 57:46

Your contact with Kyle that evening was just in terms of what you observed, I'm asking. Did you observe him acting in an aggressive manner to anyone that you observed in no way, shape or form? The first time I saw Kyle, he actually deescalated a situation. Did you observe him at any time, uh, that evening pointing his firearm at anybody or threatening anybody with that firearm? No.

Speaker 1: 58:16

All right. No further questions then they wrap it up there. I believe so. They, um, got him to come out and admit that there was no aggressive mannerisms from Kyle, nothing that was overly provocative, nothing of the sort, actually deescalated the situation was putting out fires and all of that. So what we have there is Corey to your PC wraps up the direct exam, moves all of his videos into exhibits. So those are all going to be going in front of the jurors. And they're explained by him, right? It's his interpretation. He was there. And you know, you can, you can sort of see how you can balance between the two, you know, video footage. Yeah. It tells you a lot, but it often doesn't tell you the full story and somebody who's there at the scene, they can tell you a lot, but probably also not the full story. And so now you've got to sort of, you know, weigh and balance those, those different pieces of evidence, his direct testimony and the video corroborated by Richard McGinnis and many others and see how they do with that. So couple other clips. Now this is drew Hernandez. Cross-examination with Thomas binger saying, uh, why did you even get an attorney in this case, in the first place? I mean, if you're such a nice guy and you're such an innocent guy and all that, and you just wanted to give us this evidence, all this video footage that is so authentic and it's so complete, and you're not hiding anything and we can trust it. And you're a credible guy, then why did you need to go hire a lawyer before you gave us this evidence? I mean, if you're just an independent journalist, who's just posting stuff on YouTube and on Twitter. Why get a lawyer? Here's how that sounded.

Speaker 5: 59:59

What you did is you took a portion of your body cam video and a portion of your cell phone video, and you splice them together.

Speaker 10: 1:00:08

Um, I don't know if I would say splice, but I

Speaker 5: 1:00:10

Put them together. That's an old fashion movie term from when they used to have actual film. Um, why did you do that? Um,

Speaker 10: 1:00:20

Because it's the same exact event. Like I said, you can take a look at the body cam footage as well. You can see it as,

Speaker 5: 1:00:28

And you've, you're testifying here today that through your attorney, you have provided the defense and the state with that entire incident recorded on both your body cam and on your cell phone. Yup. But what we just saw was your editing of them together. You guys asked

Speaker 10: 1:00:47

For my footage, so I gave it to you

Speaker 5: 1:00:49

Through your attorney. Yes. That's an attorney that you have out of Madison

Speaker 1: 1:00:55

That's relevant to this. All right, judge. A lot

Speaker 5: 1:00:58

Of questions about other people

Speaker 1: 1:01:01

In front of the jury.

Speaker 5: 1:01:03

I would like to know why he felt the need to retain an attorney to provide video in this case. I think it goes to bias. I think it goes to credibility. It's been asked to other witnesses, the lunch break.

Speaker 2: 1:01:16

Um, please don't talk about the case during the break.

Speaker 1: 1:01:20

All right. So the judge excuses, everybody, and this is where things start to get a little bit dicey because Thomas binger has already been scolded about commenting on Kyle written houses, constitutional rights, really his right to remain silent, but not gotten into his right to counsel, but that's another very closely related, right. That's sort of, you know, right in that, uh, same constitutional penumbra. And so we talk about the idea that Rittenhouse, uh, the prosecution almost crossed that line by asking Rittenhouse about that, by trying to introduce evidence that was previously precluded. Now he's kind of getting, getting close to that. He's asking somebody else about some of their constitutionally protected rights, like getting a lawyer. And so we have a long conversation about this and here is what ends up happening. The judge ultimately allows the question to come in saying that it is, it could go to bias. There's sort of this weird relationship that's going on. Apparently the lawyer that's drew Hernandez is the same firm that produced a report on a cell phone in the written house case. So it's not unusual that you have a big firm or you sort of, you have sort of, you know, third-party contractors who do legal services for you. So for example, here it at our law firm, the government tests, somebodies blood, right? They test somebody's blood. When you get pulled over in a DUI case, they draw two vials out once for them once for us, because we don't trust their test. And if they open up their blood vial, while they're going to taint our test, they're going to taint our sample and we're not going to be able to test it in its raw authentic form. So they give us two vials. Now we take that second vial and I don't have a chem lab, uh, back here behind this corner over here where I just, you know, do blood analysis. So if we want to do a second test, we send that second test out to somebody else. And so it's a third-party person, just like a vendor, right? Just like you, we need this blood tested. Okay. We brought a former forensic crime lab person who does that work for us. And so same type of thing happened here. Now what the prosecution is saying is that drew Hernandez, his lawyer is somebody who has some sort of close proximity or might even be the same law firm that tested. I think it was the cell phone in Kyle Rittenhouse, his case, or made a copy of it or whatever it is. So prosecution objects, this shows there's bias that shows their collusion. Maybe the defense is trying to buy off drew Hernandez. And so that's why I have to start to inquire about this. Here is what happens now, judge Schrader says, sure. Ask him about it here. Is that question

Speaker 5: 1:03:59

You had indicated that you have provided with, uh, both the defense and the state with your full footage from the night of August 25th. Is that right? Yes. And you did that through an attorney from a law firm from Madison, correct? Yes. And that's an attorney whose firm is also providing services to the defendant in this case.

Speaker 10: 1:04:22

Today's the first time I'm hearing of this. So I don't have any bias because I just heard about this today.

Speaker 5: 1:04:29

After this incident, the shooting occurred on August 25th, 2020. You posted a video is in support of the defendant after that, correct. Can you repeat the date one more time? After the shooting on August 25th, 2020, you posted videos on social media, in support of the defendant. Didn't you,

Speaker 10: 1:04:50

Uh, define support

Speaker 5: 1:04:53

You posted videos that you felt would help his case by showing aggressive behavior on the part of Joseph Rosenbaum. For example, I posted

Speaker 10: 1:05:03

The same video that is evidenced

Speaker 5: 1:05:04

Today. And in that, in your commentary associated with that video, you made some disparaging remarks about Mr. Rosenbaum. Didn't you?

Speaker 10: 1:05:13

What would you say is that

Speaker 5: 1:05:15

He's do you remember what you said?

Speaker 10: 1:05:18

I'd like to hear it listen. So you don't remember what you said. I don't have no idea. I post on Twitter many times a day. I posted many videos. If you could specify what exactly you're talking about, I could correctly answer you.

Speaker 1: 1:05:31

All right. So this witness now getting a little bit squirrely. What do you mean by a disparaging? Their bigger She's getting squirrely on this. Now, Thomas binger then is going to sort of ratchet this up a little bit. He's a prosecutor. He does not like when you talk back to him, he's used to ruling with an iron fist. He's used to just having the whole stinking system sort of catering to him. And so when he gets a squirrely witness on there, what is he going to do? Well, he's going to throw a little temper tantrum because baby binger over here, doesn't like it. And the judge is going to scold him for a very inappropriate tact with this witness. It's okay for witnesses to get squirrely. Right. That's why you're a lawyer, but you can't know, you can't really cross some of these lines and he does judge doesn't like it.

Speaker 5: 1:06:18

So I'm going to ask you a question under oath.

Speaker 2: 1:06:22

Yeah. I will tell you that I don't permit, uh, lawyers to remind people that they're under oath and that it's happened to watch in the case here. It's not permitted. I don't think most judges do allowed. Of course they're under oath. So it's, it's actually, it's actually a suggestion by the question or that the witness is not being truthful. And you're welcome to argue that at the end of the trial, but don't, uh, don't use it as a preface to your questions. Okay. Have you ever

Speaker 5: 1:06:53

Posted anything on social media? Ooh. In support of correctness,

Speaker 10: 1:06:59

One could argue. Yes.

Speaker 1: 1:07:03

All right. So lot to unpack there. Now I'm going to ask you again under oath, you liar. That's kind of what that saying, isn't it, it's kind of a threat. You better answer the way that I want to or else I might think you're lying. So the judge didn't allow him to do that. Got scolded for it as he should have. And when the judge finished his scolding, did you notice this? I'm not going to play the whole clip again, but did you notice that he didn't acknowledge the judge? The judge said, yeah. Uh, so just don't preface your question with that next time. Okay. Being or didn't say yes, your honor. Apologies, your honor. Thank you, your honor. He just jumped right into his next line of questioning. Ooh, man, that judge, he, he picked that up. I'm sure of it because I picked it up and I'm sure you did too. Okay. So then we now get the objection is overruled. So the cross examination can continue to CA CA can continue on here is the followup to that question. So there's an objection. The judge says stop using that language continues on with the next line of questioning here. It is very,

Speaker 5: 1:08:16

Uh, when that person on the roof is shining that laser pointer at you. When you think that they're pointing a gun at you, that made you fear for your safety, didn't it? You didn't answer that question.

Speaker 9: 1:08:29

Okay. What did you say yesterday answered? You said,

Speaker 5: 1:08:36

Do you, do you recall the question? Yes,

Speaker 10: 1:08:38

Because I didn't want to be misidentified as,

Speaker 5: 1:08:41

And you were fearful for your safety at that moment, weren't you?

Speaker 10: 1:08:45

I'm always fearful in the midst of riots,

Speaker 5: 1:08:48

Sir. At that moment, when that person on the roof is pointing a laser pointer at you and you think there's a gun pointed at you, you were fearful for your safety, weren't you?

Speaker 10: 1:09:00

Because I didn't want to get misidentified as a writer.

Speaker 5: 1:09:04

Are you able to answer that question with a yes or no? Oh

Speaker 10: 1:09:08

Eight. The witness has answered it. Fair enough.

Speaker 5: 1:09:11

I have no further questions.

Speaker 1: 1:09:15

All right. So again, right. He's getting just kind of jerky about it. Can you answer that question? Yes or no? Yes, please. He just kind of look, it's just like this long drawn out. Just Weiner. Now look, it's not that you can't get aggressive with a witness, but man, after nine days of this, the binger routine is starting to get old. All right. So the redirect happens. Now, the redirect that we didn't get for Kyle Rittenhouse yesterday, we now get a redirect for drew Hernandez, miraculously. So the, uh, I think it's Mark Richards might be Corey. Let's see. They come back out. They try to rehabilitate drew Hernandez here a little bit.

Speaker 9: 1:09:54

Do you believe that posting videos of what you saw was done to help Kyle?

Speaker 10: 1:10:05

No, because at the moment I posted all these videos on social media. I had no idea who Kyle Rittenhouse was or Joseph Rosenbaum, the night of the riot

Speaker 9: 1:10:16

And the purpose of posting the videos was what

Speaker 10: 1:10:20

To report. I'm a journalist, I'm a reporter.

Speaker 9: 1:10:23

Um, Mr. Bringer had showed you a picture of the video of the green laser thing. Any idea who did that? I have no idea. Nothing else.

Speaker 1: 1:10:35

All right. So he wraps up and then I think we get a recross and this doesn't end well. So, uh, drew Hernandez, you can see him just, he's just sort of smirking at, at binger, extremely irritated about the, the idea that he's injecting his stories are sort of manipulating the reporting that he did in order to be overly biased. So here is binger. Now this is the final recross, a final segment with Mr. Hernandez.

Speaker 5: 1:11:03

You say you're a journalist and a reporter. Yes. Earlier you identified yourself as a PR professional commentator, all the umbrellas. Is it your practice as a journalist to interject your personal opinion into the stories you're reporting on? No, but you did that here. Where on August 25th, a few minutes after these shootings, you posted on Twitter, your opinion as to whether the defendant in your mind was right or wrong in doing what he did, correct? No. I said apparently at the beginning of that statement, Ooh, what effect does that have? It means, apparently it doesn't mean that that's, this is 100% my opinion. You had already jumped to an, a conclusion and apparent conclusion at that moment. Right? That's what apparently means, but that's not what journalists do. Right? Where we're headed here. Yeah. I'll be done. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 1:12:04

Yeah.

Speaker 5: 1:12:05

Okay. You may step down, sir.

Speaker 1: 1:12:07

You see a smirk there at the end. Yeah. Nobody knows what the hell bingers talking about. Judge says, I don't know where we're going here. Cory cheery. VC says judges is argumentative. That's not what journalists do there though. Is it drew? Oh my gosh. The guy is like, oh, you know, it's, it's almost like, I might feel bad to beat up on binger every day, but I don't, the guy just deserves every single ounce of it. Okay. So drew Hernandez, uh, then wraps it up there. It gives that little smirk there at the end. And uh, so w w we'll let, let's give some shout out. Love to our brother on YouTube drew Hernandez. This is his channel. Go check it out type drew H live or drew Hernandez over there. Uh, that's what it looks like. So make sure you go subscribe to him for his, a nice performance today in court. Love drew Hernandez. Okay. And so we're going to pick back up. Now the trial continues forward. Corey chiro FEC. Now calls back Mr. Armstrong. This was a police officer, somebody who was a witness that was called by the government previously to tell us about some of the video analysis that took place. And so we are wrapping up the defense case in chief. They're going to rest after we sort through this Armstrong stuff. And it's very technical. It's all about this footage that has been enhanced, that came from this drone that was sort of magically airdropped on the prosecutors door. On Sunday night, this past week trial was already well underway. And so they called in this guy, Mr. Armstrong to come and do all of this last minute analysis on this, on this new drone footage. That was not the same FBI drone footage that we saw. Not that aerial footage. It was sort of a consumer level drone that popped up on the other side of the car source that we had not seen previously. And so Armstrong comes out and talks about blowing it up. And we've already had a lot of, a lot of conversations from the expert witnesses in this case about what that does when you pinch to zoom, it's sort of blowing up the pixels, right? And now you have to fill in those pixels with other information. The judge had a, an interesting example today. He says, look, if I take a piece of paper and I draw a bunch of squares on it, and then I want to blow up those, those, those squares, they got to get bigger. They got to move. Like something's got to change. Like I might expand that piece of paper. Something's got to change. So how does that work? You know, and he acknowledges that he doesn't understand technology all that well, but he's got some logical capabilities just to understand that something's got to change. If you take a pizza and, and spread it out across a table, you don't suddenly get a bigger pizza. You have a bunch of empty space and a bunch of unhappy people who were expecting more pizza there. So he knows that instinctively. And he's trying to, you know, wrap his head around that. So we spent a lot of time with this today. Extremely boring, extremely tedious, but important. So let's take a quick minute and see what's happening here. Here's Cory cheer, FEC. Now bringing back out Mr. Armstrong, to talk about this stuff,

Speaker 9: 1:15:04

The pixels that you expand, what do you do to make it better?

Speaker 11: 1:15:09

It's based off of the enlargement, uh, is the interpretation that is, is used. Um, so with regards to this, this references a video that was, um, interpreted an output. It are you speaking to, I'm sorry, are you speaking to the photo?

Speaker 9: 1:15:29

Speaking to photo? Um,

Speaker 12: 1:15:33

It's the one of the,

Speaker 1: 1:15:36

Okay, so he's talking about this, right? Breaking this down, talking about pixels, talking about getting these photographs in, and the reason why these photographs are so important is because they're saying that Kyle Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at Rosenbalm previously saying that he sort of in a, in a, an aggressive, you know, I'm, I'm going to shoot you type of a stance. Somehow that is him. You know, maybe having a motive. He had some reason to do this. He was trigger happy. There was a, you know, a, a bias there, some reason that might cause the jurors to think differently. And so now you're taking a look at that allegation that this photograph exists that might in fact be critically important and change the juror's minds. And you want to make sure that that evidence is what it is. It's not actually changed evidence. It's not that pizza that we talk about that spread across the coffee table, that you then expand. What is filling the gaps in between the slices? What is that? Are those pixels showing Kyle Rittenhouse showing a gun? Is that empty space going to be finding him guilty? Because some computer algorithm somewhere just filled it in. It's a scary thought. And so that's why you have to fight over this stuff to the end. Now, this is where the questioning picks up. They're asking him specifically about this, Mr. Armstrong, can you tell us, what does the computer do? He's not a computer programmer. He doesn't know he didn't invent these algorithms. He's just a computer tech person who works for the crime lab. Who's just basically following the instructions on a piece of software. And I'm not, I'm not trying to belittle the work that he does. I'm sure he's a nice guy, very competent, very intelligent, but he's not a computer programmer. He's not gonna be able to come in here and say, judge, you know, the algorithm that I programmed is based off of, uh, this numerical code, therefore it's going to do X, Y, and Z. He's just sort of just following the procedures. Can't open up the can and explain how it works. Exactly. Here's how that sounded the day.

Speaker 9: 1:17:29

Another, um, interpretation type of program that you're aware of, that when pixels are expanded, wouldn't would keep their color constant through the expansion.

Speaker 11: 1:17:46

I cannot speak to that.

Speaker 9: 1:17:49

Would you agree that the work pixels that you add, the more percolation habits? Yes. So the question that I have heard is when you expand the photograph, you're adding pixels. When you can't tell the court what color is being added event, I cannot speak

Speaker 11: 1:18:16

And all that, it comes down to the program. Again, programming the algorithm.

Speaker 9: 1:18:21

So the original has colors and pears. It's expanded most pixels expand. The question is, do the colors staying constant? I do not know.

Speaker 1: 1:18:39

Okay. So that's kind of a big deal, right? Because if you are filling in the pixels with, let's say, uh, you know, blackness, well, maybe it shows that there's nothing there and that's not something that could be mistaken for a gun because it looks like a shadow. Let's say now it's a shiny metallic object that the computer fills in the pieces between the pizza slices. It says, oh, that's a black, we're going to put a black, shiny metal. They're not black night darkness in that space. Well, now it looks like you've got a gun there where maybe it's not really supposed to be there. It's just the computer guessing this guy. Can't tell you about that. And if their government's going to be saying that, that filled in space, that interpolation, that expansion of the, the, the density between the pixels that is filled by the computer is Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at Rosenbaum. That's pretty important stuff. Don't you think? So this line of testimony continues, cheer, FEC, then make some motion to the court and says, judge, none of this stuff can come in. All this drone footage is inappropriate. All of this expansion is problematic. Here's why

Speaker 9: 1:19:51

I have a motion, but I don't have anything else to ask. Um, you can step down, sir, um, based on his testimony. So what, what the state is trying to do is introduce up a photograph that has been enlarged, where this person, Mr. Armstrong can not testify that in fact colors, weren't added that weren't there originally. And the photograph I know I can. I'm going to tell the court that the photograph at the state intends to offer. I believe they will be arguing shows Mr. Rittenhouse doing something with his firearm. If it is not the same as the original and colors were added to that, that is a distortion of what, in fact, the original photograph was, it should not be admitted because it's not relevant. If he can't testify that there's been no appropriate foundation. That in fact it should be admitted if he can't testify that it didn't add colors, that colors that originally weren't there still aren't there. And I think under the circumstances, based on the evidence that you've heard today, you should not admit those photographs because they are not what I would consider to be a mirror images of what the original photograph was.

Speaker 1: 1:21:21

All right. So the main argument, any of the enhancements, any of the things that have been blown up should not be admitted because it's not the original it's taking the pizza, spreading it out, and then telling everybody that there's more pizza in between those slices, but it's not more pizza. It might be, it might not be probably as a guest between the two. And it's just a computer. That's trying to figure it all out. Now the, the prosecution here is going to go bananas as you're going to hear from them that, you know, basically, uh, this is the same thing that they do on most of these arguments and this type of garbage happens all the time in criminal law. It's sort of a, let's just trust the technology argument from the prosecutors, because that's what they do. They just come up with these technology devices, these machines, they call them and then say that they work perfectly all the time. There's never any doubt about their accuracy, their precision, any of the mechanics of it. It's always in perfect working order. Every time there's maintenance done. It's perfect. It's not because there was a problem with it. It's just regular routine maintenance. I mean, I can't even tell you the nonsense that goes on with these machines. I spent six days in Arlington, Texas learning about them and visiting them in a crime lab. But it's all this technological stuff that's going on. Very complicated, very scientific. And they know this and they use it to their advantage. That's why it's very important for defense attorneys to know and learn the science. Otherwise you're going to get steamrolled by other attorneys that do or buy expert witnesses that do. So you've got to be cognizant of this. They do it all the time. I can't even, I can't look even in a DUI case, you'll see what are called peaks in a gas chromatogram. And what happens is there will be noise at the bottom of this chart. And sometimes there'll be a little spikes in the noise that they don't like. So what do they do? They just raise the baseline. They just go into the machine, into the computer code and they just raise the baseline. They just say, we don't like that noise. And so before they give it to the defense, they just go, oh, we're just going to raise the baseline up. So it hides the noise is like regular practice. That happens all the time. So when you see stuff like this, this is what's going on. It's the prosecution. Just trying to sort of rely on standard accepted evidence because it's works on your phone because you can pinch to zoom on a map or on a photograph and zoom in on somebody pours in their face. They're saying that this should apply in criminal court. This is not an iPhone court. This is not having lunch with somebody wanting to show them a photograph of your daughter and zooming in. So you can see the pretty bows or whatever. This is a criminal court of law. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt about how this algorithm works or how the interpolation happens in a criminal case, if you have Armstrong on the stand and he can't tell you how this works, because it's on the scope of his expertise, he's not a computer programmer. Well, then that doesn't meet the standard. Does it sounds like there's some pretty good doubt about what is being filled in there, but the prosecutor is going to do this thing. Well, if we, uh, don't allow this in, well, then all of our DUI evidence won't be able to come in. Yeah, well, there's a lot of problems with that too. You want to have that conversation also there, buddy? Boy, I'm happy to have it, but they just default to this. It's our technology. It's credentialed, it's certified. They've got a bunch of letters after their name. Therefore, judge, you have to accept it and it works just like it did here. Here's what that sounds like

Speaker 13: 1:24:52

All due respect to your honor. I think the defense is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology, which you've expressed. Um, with the defense argument, you can never have an enlarged digital picture. All of Nathan. And I understand we didn't object to them, but all of Nathan to pictures that he brought in, um, on his own on these prints are enlarged digital images. If the defense is now trying to argue that enlarge digital images are not reliable. Um, I mean, it's first of all, hypocritical, but second of all, this is just not the age we're in. We are in an age where software is able to, uh, enlarge and do things. And yes, this image we believe, although, uh, blurry because of the enlargement does show, uh, in rebuttal to Mr. Rittenhouse, his testimony does show him, uh, pointing his gun at individuals just before, uh, Mr. Rosenbaum chases him. That's your fence. Uh, this is clear the drone video. We try, we pointed it out in the drone video. The defendant denied it. This is an enlargement of that drone video so that we can see a better picture of it. This whole canard of adding pixels and changing color. Is it just honest argument? And I believe that defense knows that.

Speaker 1: 1:26:17

Wow, whoa. That is, uh, that's a pretty big accusation there, buddy. Boy, because you heard from Mr. Armstrong. He says that when you expand it, there is interpretation happening there. So how, how is the defense being dishonest? If the argument is based on the testimony that came from your own witness, how does that make sense? And did you hear the argument? It's exactly what I said, judge. This is just not the age that we live in. If you listen to this ruling, then we're never going to be able to use an enlarged photograph in your courtroom. Again, that's not the argument. The argument here that Corey and Mark Richards sounds like they're okay with is the photographs can go in. That's not a problem, but when you expand them and you manipulate them in order to enlarge them, he said that they are blurry. The computer is filling in the gap between those pixels so that it can be enlarged. It's guessing. And you might have a computer expert who comes in here, a computer programmer and lays the foundation for it and says, look, Rob dummy, uh, it's, it's, you know, 99.9 9 9, 9, 9% sure that it's going to get it right. And it's just, you know, it's accurate. And uh, show me 35 different algorithms and all of that stuff. If you want to do that, that's fine. Those documents can come in because now you have some foundation for them. Now, you know that it's pretty accurate, but you don't because Armstrong was just sitting in court today saying, I don't know. I don't know if it changes the color. I don't know if it adds any value. I don't know what it does. I just adjust the sliders. Prosecution comes back out, not even a really coherent argument other than this is the age that we live in now. So the judge takes a look. Here's what he says. Let's see here. All right, one second. Let me reopen this. Uh, let me reopen this, this presentation because the videos were not working real quick. Sometimes that happens. If I have a lot of videos, let's see here,

Speaker 13: 1:28:26

They're expert using it, very similar software to zoom in and edit and change things. Because if these things are reliable and they are reliable and that this is what is used by digital for, or by forensic imaging, forensic scientists, it's the industry standard industry. So if we're going to say that no technology can be brought in, no one large images can ever be brought in. That is a ridiculous standard. And that, and we've heard from two experts now about how these algorithms are used and what they do. And simply because this evidence, um, maybe not beneficial to their client and in fact, show their client is lying. What, um, they're, they're, they're stupid at this level of try and keep it out. And, uh, to me, I think making a dishonest argument, um, based on science, based on a number of science, forensic scientists that have emailed me to discuss this issue with the apple zooming, which I think was also a very similarly, um, uh, I don't want to say dishonest, but inaccurate argument, uh, simply trying to keep out these enlarged or cleaned up images that show that their client is lying. He pointed a gun before Joseph Rosenbaum chased him

Speaker 1: 1:29:44

That, oh my gosh. When I was listening to that in my office, there may have been some profanity when I was like, what you, what did you say that they're stooping to some level, your own witness told you that it adds pixels. So what are you talking about? It is changing the evidence. It's look, I'm not a computer programmer. I'm not an expert forensic person. I do a lot of the, the video editing here. I know how to do, you know, a lot more than most people, but I am not an expert. So let's just say that the only evidence I have to rely on is your own guy, Armstrong. Well, he says that, uh, it changes when you enlarge it and he doesn't know how it works. So the whining from the, the, the seat of that prosecutor was just contemptuous, man, sitting there saying the defense is stooping. This is the new age. This is the industry standard. There's no argument there. He's just ranting. And he's upset about it. Calling the defense dishonest, calling Kyle Rittenhouse, a liar right here. Now the jury of course is not in the courtroom, but it's, it's it, he's making judgements on evidence that is been adjusted by his own team. So the judge now starts talking about a response. Here's what he says. Uh, it's your burden. First of all, it's your evidence. Then he continues from there

Speaker 2: 1:31:06

And wait a minute, a couple of things. Number one, you know, this is, this happens. Sometimes lawyers sit there during the trial and all kinds of stuff comes in and out, and there's no objection raised. And then when, uh, when there is an objection, raise, the party says, well, this went on before in the trial and, and it was admitted and I think, okay, but there wasn't an objection. So it was never scrutinized by the court. It just came in that's number one, number two, you're the proponent of the evidence. You have the burden of proof. They don't have to disprove the accuracy of it. You have to prove it. Number three, the witness was just here. And when he's asked, what does it depict in terms of what, whether the color is going to change or to what color he says? I don't know. Now is the person who is providing your information to support your claim. That, uh, it is an accurate depiction. I will tell you that. I totally agree with your comment about my, uh, lack of, uh, uh, familiarity with these concepts. Uh, although a logic I have, uh, I have some logical skills and when you start adding, If I take a piece of paper and they start drawing squares on it and I, I, uh, uh,

Speaker 1: 1:32:43

Yeah, I'd expand the paper, you know, and then you're going to see that it, uh, it needs to be filled with something. So it's the pizza analogy. So he goes through that sort of long, long winded answer there. And then he sort of works it through his mind and he just says, you know what, let me look at it. Let me give me the documents. So they start giving him the documents and he kind of gets up off the bench and then it goes down to the screen and actually just takes a look at it. He wants to see it before he makes a decision. Here's how that looked very interesting. So he just got done looking at it on his computer. Now he's looking at it on the monitors,

Speaker 14: 1:33:23

Mr. Stewart,

Speaker 1: 1:33:25

They're playing the video on the monitor, just kind of rounded around the judge just says, you know what? I've had enough of this. Let's just go take a look at the video right now. We're going to go down, put this puppy on and 4k. All right, let me go see the pixels. I'm going to go count these pixels here one by one. So he just takes his time and he's walking on over there. So we can probably talk about something else. So he doesn't say anything. He just, he kind of just gets up and walks over. It's kind of weird. Everybody's looking at him like, what are you doing? Kind of a way, kind of a weird, kind of a weird deal. People taking pictures. All right. So he goes over there now sitting there with a Crouse. Here's the footage got his pointer Saying, do it again. Krauss is saying he, he pointed a gun at Rosenbalm judges looking at it.

Speaker 14: 1:34:49

[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 1:34:50

All right. So the judge is watching One more time And guess what happens? Judge continues to watch it and then says something. See if you could make this out.

Speaker 2: 1:35:10

Um, I think what I'm going to do is allow it in a witness. It's going to be cross-examined

Speaker 1: 1:35:27

All right. So the judge then lets it in, says I'm going to let it in. And we're going to allow the jury to make their own decision, which was not a good decision judge, not a good decision at all. Uh it's again, changing the evidence if you want to do admit the original thing. Okay, that's fine. But they didn't lay the foundation. Their own witness came in and said, I don't know how it works. And so the judge allowed it in. Now, why did the judge look at it and come to a conclusion about its weight? Did the judge take a look at it and said, that's I can't nothing change. You know, it's irrelevant. It doesn't change the equation at all. They can make the argument and get it admitted, but it doesn't, you know, it's not going to be any different than any of the other evidence that we admitted. And so it doesn't have any real bearing on the ultimate case. He could be thinking something like that, you know, who knows what is to see what his decision is ultimately based upon. But speaking in terms of evidence, it's not good evidence. It's changed. It's manipulated. This happens all the time. I rant about this all the time with DUI cases and other types of technical data, the government just kind of makes stuff up and they just say, it's close enough. It's science. It's close enough because the computer has some estimates and we have a bell curves and we have all this different data. It's 99.6% of the time. Right. But then you reverse that down and you say, yeah, but the, the, the yard stick, the measuring stick that you're using to measure your stuff. That's where the problem is. So all of your measurements say that you're using a correct measuring stick, but you're not. So all your measurements have a problem with precision and accuracy, don't they? So that's where this goes. The judge ultimately ended up admitting this. And a lot of people are upset about it, I think. Rightfully so. So here, now we're going to wrap it up. We've got the prosecution talking about rebuttal witnesses. And so they're, they're sort of whining now that because Kyle Rittenhouse testified he might have incriminated himself or he might've lied. And we're going to bring in some witnesses to talk about his lies. Here's what Mr. Krauss sounded like today.

Speaker 13: 1:37:36

Um, we're just made aware of a couple of issues with the testimony we believe we could potentially get a witness here this afternoon to report it. You were just made aware of it. Um, so we be, at the end of this, he asked me to keep a bottle open

Speaker 2: 1:37:53

To win.

Speaker 13: 1:37:54

Well, where were you see him to get witness? It'd be a person from the Grayslake police department to a robot. The fact that Mr. Rittenhouse was issued a Bulletproof vest by them. The NBA did not issue him. One also, I can't imagine find someone, but the,

Speaker 2: 1:38:11

Uh, Arizona state or whatever university that the defendant claims to the attending says he is not enrolled there and is not going to college there. I don't imagine we get a witness for that will be, of course we'll work on that. So I'm not going to cut off their right to no battle. Um, all right. Are we ready for the jury? Yes. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:38:37

All right. So they're going to bring out some rebuttal witnesses, and they're going to talk about a, a vest in the fact that Kyle is not actually in college at Arizona state university. And so Mark Richard says, uh, he is in college. We can just open up the student portal. They're dumb, dumb, and you can see what his curriculum looks like, but all right. So call whoever you want. Kyle is a liar. He's not actually in college. So you saw what happened there. Now, something very interesting happened here, uh, in that same clip. Keep your eyes on Corey Chira. Feesey remember earlier we saw the Megadeath guy behind Thomas binger. When he was asking Dr. Black, about how much money he got paid$9,000. That guy said, Ooh, that's pretty good. Maybe I should be an expert witness one day, but now we have another little facial expression. This one from Corey cheer FEC. Now, if you were watching the clip and you were actually listening to Mr. Kraus, explain why he wants to bring these pathetic rebuttal witnesses, and then you probably miss this, but it is too good for me to allow to skate by. So let's watch this one more time. This is Corey cheer, FEC. He's doing, I don't know what to call this. It might be a cheer, FEC bypass, or a cheer FEC shuffle. I don't know what it is. Maybe you can help me with this one, but watch what Corey does here.

Speaker 13: 1:39:53

Just made aware of a couple of these.

Speaker 1: 1:39:56

Look at that face. One more time. One more time. Watch the bypass. This is the shuffle going right by him. Here it is. Watch his face

Speaker 13: 1:40:05

A couple of issues.

Speaker 1: 1:40:07

Oh, he's so grossed out. Look, look at that. He is just unhappy that he's got a squeeze by that fellow. Watch this

Speaker 13: 1:40:19

A couple of issues.

Speaker 1: 1:40:20

Oh God. Oh God. Oh, geez.

Speaker 13: 1:40:26

Just made aware of a couple of issues with the defendant's testimony.

Speaker 1: 1:40:31

Oh, look at that. Oh, Okay. So enough of that, thanks for indulging me. I, you know, it's going to be the cheer FEC bypass or the cheer feces shuffle, or it could be, I was thinking also it could be Cory cheer, FEC. Don't touch me. See something like that. You know, I don't know what it could be, man. He is just grossed out. As you can see, he doesn't want anything to do with it. And I think that's fair because Thomas binger was talking about Kyle Rittenhouse is a little dip and Dodge, you know, a lot of, a lot of colorful language here. So the cheer FEC bypass or the shuffle I think is appropriate. But again, here is the rebuttal testimony from Armstrong. So now we're in rebuttal territory. So they bring out Armstrong again and they're going to get all that drone footage admitted. Here's what that sounded like.

Speaker 3: 1:41:25

So we'd move into exhibit 1 42 at one 40 and we would rest.

Speaker 2: 1:41:33

They arrested any objection, uh, one 40 to one 40.

Speaker 13: 1:41:37

Uh, so there's a final review of 1 42.

Speaker 2: 1:41:43

Uh, I'll wait to receive. Um, did you wish to present rebuttal

Speaker 13: 1:41:48

The GM's Armstrong consent?

Speaker 1: 1:41:52

Okay. So the same guy again, and they're just going to fly through this. Okay. So we settled that issue. The video is coming in, the photographs are coming in all eight of them. Here is, uh, uh, this guy, you know, here, here is this guy coming in now laying the foundation and getting all the footage admitted

Speaker 13: 1:42:09

Just to not go through every one. Were they all created with standards of forensic imaging? Yes. That is correct. You reviewed them and you know that the ones that the state's submitting are the ones that, um, you submitted to us. That is correct. Um, at this point I would like to move all eight into evidence and publish 1 55 and 1 56 to the jury.

Speaker 2: 1:42:33

Um, well there had been subject to the cross-examination, so not yet.

Speaker 1: 1:42:46

Okay. So no further questions. I don't think Mark Richards really had much in terms of a redirect, a recross across. So we kind of skipped over that. All the documents are coming in. All of those photographs, it's kind of a foregone conclusion. Once the judge made the ruling, that's it it's coming in. So the jurors are going to see that we'll see how consequential it is if at all. But now we get the judge talking about closing arguments. So we're going to be wrapping up the case. The judge is going to give us a schedule in the next clip about what we can be expecting for the remainder of the trial. Of course, we've got closing arguments. We've got jury deliberation coming up, but first question, how much time do you need for closing arguments? Judge is thinking an hour and a half and it gives us a nice little story. Here's what he says.

Speaker 2: 1:43:32

Maybe if you were going to confine your arguments to maybe an hour and a half a piece, is that reasonable.

Speaker 5: 1:43:40

I had requested including rebuttal total time. The state is going to need two hours for our primary. And I'd say half an hour for a bottling yard. What,

Speaker 2: 1:43:51

You know,

Speaker 1: 1:43:53

You're going to judge.

Speaker 2: 1:43:54

I had story

Speaker 1: 1:43:57

Storytime

Speaker 2: 1:43:59

To, um, the, uh, across the street neighbor to living across the street to the late Kenneth group. Then United States district judge, when I was Aladdin a lad and the judge grew up as famous for his statement that the brain cannot absorb, but what the seat can not endure. Yes. And, um, if you don't like that advice, um, president Roosevelt, one of the renowned speakers of the thirties and forties, uh, when asked by his son for some advice on speaking said, be sincere, be brief and be seated. And

Speaker 1: 1:45:00

So nice little Storytime from judge. He's kind of adorable. Isn't he, he kind of looks, he knows it's coming. Did you see that? He's like, I can't help it. It's about to happen. Have you heard of president Roosevelt back in the 1930s and forties because he did a lot of speaking and he knows what he's talking about. So he's just really, really excited when he gets to talk about that stuff. And it's kind of a look at his face, look how happy he is. He just loves it. He's just thrilled to be there. He's just happy as hell. All right. So, uh, now we get the closing schedule. Now we get to see what's happening these next few days. Then we're going to jump into questions and super chats. Thanks for being patient. So here we have the judge talking about the next coming days.

Speaker 2: 1:45:44

Uh, okay. Folks, um, the evidence is closed and, um, we're going break for the weekend at this point, the lawyers and I have some work to do tomorrow and to get the case ready for you on Monday. And then I'm going to ask that you return at nine o'clock on Monday, even though the evidence is closed, it's still not appropriate for you to discuss anything about the case with anybody, not with members of your household. Uh, not even with other jurors, even if all 12 of you, all 18 of you are in the same place at the same time. Uh, you still can't talk about the case. And when you get back on Monday, you can't talk about the case until you've heard my final instructions regarding our law, which will take, I hope less than an hour. I think that that will be true. I think that probably closer to 45 minutes or even a little less, maybe, uh, and then we will hear the arguments of the attorneys and they have graciously agreed that they will not exceed, uh, two and a half hours in duration H uh, and me in less than that. Um, and so it'll take a good share of, uh, Monday and then the case will be put, well, then the procedure will be that we'll use that Tumblr over there. And we'll, uh, we'll dry out names of, uh, as many jurors or as are necessary to get down to 12. And then, uh, that'll be our jury that will go into deliberation. And then what happens after that is up to you. Uh, any questions about this at all, we're in the final stretch, final stretch, please follow the instructions and don't read, watch, or listen to any account of the trial during the weekend and, uh, have wonderful.

Speaker 1: 1:47:36

All right. And that's it folks. So the judge is going to call the attorneys back tomorrow. They are going to prepare the jury instructions, or maybe some final tweaks there probably a lot is going to go into that. Uh, don't know if that's going to be broadcast or what, but we'll see. And it's going to come back on Monday for closing arguments. So two and a half hours for each side, I guess. Uh, honestly I doubt the defense uses even a full hour of it. They're going to come out. Don't really need to play much videos wasted a lot of time there self-defense, self-defense, self-defense justified, justified, justified, objectively reasonable, objectively, reasonable, objectively reasonable. And that's going to be the crux of it. Pretty simple, not going to want to waste a jury's time. The government of course, is going to go through every stink in video one after another. And just show you murder, murder, murder, murder, murder, murder murder could have done a bunch of other stuff he could have, uh, you know, made a different decision at this one, a different decision at that one and so on and so forth. And he's going to really just draw this puppy out because that's been the strategy the entire time. Mark Richards. Everybody wants to show you ultra compressed ultra high, stressful situation, totally reasonable to act the way that he did being, or the opposite of that. This thing is orchestrated long. He was thinking through this repeatedly, breaking the law, bending the rules and causing mayhem in his wake. And so he's going to probably use every ounce of that two and a half hours, and hopefully the jury, uh, punishes them for that. So that was the trial. The government rested, uh, earlier this week, the defense rested today. Let's see what you have to say about it from our friends over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, where it we'll jump into some questions, and then we'll get over to those super chats on YouTube. I appreciate everybody hanging in there with us. First question came in from Cora says it was heartbreaking to me when Schroeder approved of the state's interpretation of the photo. It is singularly disgusting when adults bully an 18 year old, and that's exactly what banger is doing. Someone please update the grinder. Ah, appreciate your show. Rob mercy. Buku apologies for the foul imagery. That's from Cora. It's all right. I read it in my mind, but I censored it for everybody else because they don't need to, like we have you and I, or gall says as a computer graphics ex expert, I was taken aback by the lack of understanding by these experts so-called especially the governments. The algorithms mentioned are well known. I've implemented many of them, myself, standard algos, such as nearest neighbor by linear by Kubik are so well understood. You do not have to be the one, writing them in the software to comment on what they do of the three only the nearest neighbor algorithm doesn't quote, add color, however, adjusting contrast, and brightness changes the color depending on how color is defined. That's from[inaudible]. Well, thank you for that overall. That's that's some very detailed stuff. And I agree with you that it sounded like most of them didn't know what they were talking about. LT 13 says I heard crowds say the police were going to say that they didn't give him the vest and that he is not enrolled in college and then went into the pixels. What the heck? Yeah. So w you know, we'll see if they can, um, actually move forward with any of that. I'm, I'm guessing that they're probably not going to waste their time. Those were nonsense issues, but we'll see, John Dolores says the Biden ad man is chiming in on the trial. If he's found guilty for some reason, can the defense use that for the appeal? Uh, we kind of had that issue with Shovan right. And I think Chauvin's gonna gonna use that in his argument saying that there was undue pressure by other people in the political realm that may have been something that was consequential for the jurors. In other words, it was tampering with the jury to some degree. So if I haven't seen it, I haven't seen what they're talking about about the trial, but they, they did some of that with Shovan. Although I think it was Shovan weren't they already deliberating at the time. I don't know. English. Dave says, do you think Kyle is more or less likely to be found guilty now that the defense is closed? I think you had 90% sure. And you found not guilty. Is it the same now? Uh, I did I say that that's pretty high, uh, but I think so. I think it is. I don't think that anything has really changed. I think that the facts continue to support the defense. I do think it is messier though. Now, honestly, I think that the defense shouldn't have called Kyle. If I had to be honest about it, I don't think that it added anything that we were already missing. I think the jury would have filled it in favorably to Kyle. And I think now you sort of risk, honestly, confusing the jury with all sorts of different issues about all sorts of things Kyle said, or didn't say, or did, or didn't do that. The jury would have filled in by default in his favor. Now they've got to think about it, which is probably not something that tips the scales at all, but something that, that has the, the risk of confusing, the issues, which is a big concern. Okay. Twitch direct message. Okay, cool. Yeah. Okay. So somebody sent me, so I, I gotta figure out Twitch. I gotta learn that platform. Uh, which sounds like so boomer, but it's true. DDSB says, I don't think the defense called Armstrong back. It was on the prosecutor's rebuttal that he was brought in, but the fighting of the evidence before that happened, that upset me. Armstrong has no idea what his manipulation of the photo does. He should have been able to do anything to bring that. And in my opinion, I think the defense really explained 100% of the problem with the evidence that was presented from Armstrong. Yeah. It's not about look, the evidence might be great. Might be perfect. I can't speak to by linear algorithms. I don't know. But the point is you're in a court of law. You don't take that on face value. And especially when your witness says, I can't explain it. I don't know how it works. You got to have a little bit higher standards there. Also another one from Jeremy Cash says, Rob, if the prosecution already rested his case, doesn't that mean he can't add any new evidence or change his approach. Can you clarify what this means again? Yeah. It means you're done. Yeah. Yeah. You're done. You can start recalling witnesses and you know, unless there's some sort of extraordinary circumstance, like, you know, I can't even think of anything on this case, but yeah, it's, it's over. It means both sides are done. We're going to start moving into the next phase of the case. LT 13 says Jack Passover says the photo shows. Kyle is a lefty. Now can't verify because I can't see anything in that picture. Yeah. So it's hard to see what is actually being submitted to the jurors because a lot, a lot of this, we haven't seen a LA medic says wow you on Megan Kelly and ricotta on Glen Beck. My favorite YouTubers getting famous. I saw that Glen Beck had ricotta on. I can't wait to listen to that earlier. Super cool. Congratulations to Nick on that. Uh, let's see. LA medic says, how was the use of force expert diminished to computer analysis? So they settled that during pre-trial. How was the prosecution able to get that concession from the defense? Also, did you think that the defense use of expert witness was effective? Uh, I mean, not, I mean, not, not ideally. I mean, it wasn't ideal. There was a lot of back and forth. There was a lot of problematic, you know, sort of, uh, technical difficulties when they were talking about some of the specifics of it. But I don't think that it was anything that was ineffective. It just wasn't, you know, it wasn't anything that added anything that was a home run. Okay. It's Jake from Oxford says, uh, a few quick fires from yesterday. If you don't mind love your behind the scenes outlook on all this, I never would have picked up how the defense did not even look at Kyle after his testimony. Do you think this may be because of Kyle possibly telling them he did want to get on the stand against their wishes? Yes, I do. I think that Kyle probably overrode them. If I can be honest about it. I say we make a square pool board, let everyone buy a block of time in regards to deliberation. I love the idea of it going to charity also in for 20 bucks. Amazing. Uh, this is my last cordial message. We are now back to mortal enemies. It's Jake from Oxford. Okay. So, well, I appreciate that, Jake. It was nice having that, uh, the pleasantries between us, but you are from Oxford, which means you're way better than me. And so you don't have to be nice to me because I am just peasant civilian trash, who, uh, who is sort of, uh, being manipulated around by your global order people. So, uh, but anyway, so that was nice. Very nice comment. Yeah. And we're going to do an over-under I think for sure donations over to Eric's house.org on deliberation, uh, Rob Emory says, why did we have six questions? Uh, six hours of questions about colors added to videos. I know it was really bland and boring, but it was important because if it shows, if the colors and the pixels that were added to the video show, Kyle Rittenhouse with a song, with a gun and a sign saying I'm here, uh, killing Rosenbalm right. Then that is pretty bad evidence to put in front of the jury. Jeremy to says, Rob, after watching so many trials lately, there was no way I could stand to be a trial lawyer. I know binger doesn't represent all lawyers, but he certainly behaves like the stereotypical lawyer that doesn't argue with logic, but attempts to argue against all logic and reason makes me sick. Being here is a special, special one. No doubt about that. Good to see you. Jeremy, we have Kincaid says, Rob, how do you handle those situations where the opposing team challenges, things like the timing of audio versus video timelines being a splitting hairs. And I'm sorry. I cannot understand how lady justice would ever condone such behavior. I'm thankful for judge werthers. Additionally, would you have possible have black counter the prosecutions, um, expert witness, will the defense have a chance to do so? Finally, you get a feeling the judge was just moments away from calling the whole thing. It's always solo impact tent or binger team. Okay. So that's from Kincaid. A lot of questions there. Let's see here. Uh, so we saw what the defense did with the expert witness. I don't think the judge was going to call the whole thing. He gets, he's getting very frustrated and irritated, but I don't think that he is going to take it away from the jury. He's going to want to do that. And yeah, being her is splitting hairs and it's really obnoxious, you know, and I think he's probably gonna suffer some consequences for that. It's it's, you're hearing what the rest of us are hearing and it is sort of painful. LA medics says, I think that bingers question to Dr. Black made to the defense case did not hurt it. So another perspective, thanks, LA medic, uh, let's see. Hand of nod says long comment says, is it normal for the prosecutor to convert a spoken court order into revise text? Uh, no, it seems apparent. Binger was very clever to point the duplicitous duplicitous in limiting blacks testimony today was the best chance for the defense to put together the package they failed. The signal to noise ratio was way wrong. Why on earth is there not a single composite presentation that assembles the best footage? How many dollars are burning on either side of the aisle is the quality of preparation shown by either tame par for capital offense cases, or was this two weeks of clown shows broken by episodes of competence, particularly during yesterday's cross. There was an exchange where binger sounded a little like a disappointed father. You shouldn't have been there as being your human. Does he understand the price for his ego? His human's life? All the potential therein are these DA's moral monsters are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance at the close. I'm very concerned. It comes down to jury selection. Robert Barnes claimed that people who tend to think one shouldn't have been present that evening tend to lead towards conviction. It doesn't make sense, but it's awfully popular and reinforced by Twitter and the mainstream media. Nice comment there from hand of nod. And I appreciate that. All right, let's see what else we've got. Another one here is coming in from it's Jake, from Oxford, Rob you're approaching the prosecution. The wrong way, says little finger. Wasn't having difficulty understanding video enhancement. He was getting notes on how to improve his video manipulate. I mean enhancement it's Jake from Oxford. Thank you. It's Jake. All right. Let's jump over to YouTube. Cause I see a lot of super chats coming in and I appreciate every one of them. Thank you so much. Dapper, Dave started us off, says the judge allowed the picture because he did not want to set a precedent decision on expanding, enhancing photos and videos for future cases. Thoughts. I think it was a little bit of a steam steamroll. You know, he just probably thought that might've looked at it, found it to be more or less inconsequential. Maybe thought we were arguing about a bunch of nothing, but yeah, it doesn't want the government to come back and say, you threw out enlarged evidence previously and now you, uh, have set precedent in your courtroom so that any enlarged evidence can never come in. But I don't. I disagree with the judge's ruling. I don't think that was a good one. Frank Sharat says, Hey, Rob loves you on Megan Kelly today. I've been here since the beginning and it was so cool to hear you on her show. Well, Frankie, it was cool to do it. I mean, I was just like, I got an email yesterday and I what Megan Kelly for real anyway. And it worked out, it was like a whole thing that, you know, as a whole experience for me, it was a lot of fun. I learned a ton and uh, I'm glad that you enjoyed it. Hopefully I didn't botch anything too badly. The gob God father says, is it common for clarified videos and photos to be admitted into evidence? So it, uh, yes, it can be and no, it, it can't be, it sort of depends. You heard, you heard one version of this. I would say that probably the default is that yeah, the governments, uh, typically are submitting evidence that has been adjusted and it comes in pretty regularly. Seems like he's saying, Hey, here's the knife used in the murder. It had some blood on it. So we added more so you could see it better. It's a great comment. I like that. That's even better than the pizza analogy. Isn't it? Well, it's like, we think it's your blood, but we're going to add a bunch more blood that's that's yours, but we don't know it's yours. That's a good analogy though. Paul burrata says I've not heard any of the legal abundance. I address a very key issue. Juries are more emotional than logical. Kenosha is very red town. Politically your thoughts on this. So if Kenosha is very red, I think that they would be in opposition to, uh, any case that sort of jeopardizes gun rights, jeopardizes self-defense those favor, Kyle, I think they would also be sort of against BLM protests or riots naturally speaking. Right? Because I think most people are in general. No, and most people don't want to see their cities burned to the ground. So all of that, I think supports Rittenhouse if they fall in that category, uh, hosted says, did you see the interview of gage done by the GMA? I think just snippets of that one. I think that's where he looks like. I mean like, like a wreck in that video, uh, he may have just gotten out of the hospital. I don't know. Graham Pinkston says you're not on rumble and your rumble link is 4 0 4. I posted that on my Twitter timeline. Apologies for that. Not my fault though. I tried to schedule it on rumble today and they were having a technical error. So I, uh, I posted on Twitter that rumble was just not going to be alive today. Uh, unfortunately. All right. And so we've got Ronnie Cole says I support the wrenches. Love it, Ronnie. Uh, so do I looking like it's a lot more peaceful over there. I appreciate that. Thank you for the all the help everybody BW 85 says I was surprised the use of force expert. Wasn't asked about the reality of use of force kind of disappointed. I, I, I don't disagree with you there BW 85. He actually, uh, this was, this was settled before the trial started. The defense didn't bring a use of force expert in the government. Didn't need that. We're not talking about a police officer where you have all these use of force policies. We're talking about sort of vanilla self-defense rules. And so that's why it just wasn't really necessary to get into any of those issues, even though it would have been very interesting testimony. Let's see, G Hawk says with this trial, how, with how this trial has gone, how would you perceive a quick jury deliberation? Good question. What a length like the Shovan trial, potentially signal a guilty verdict. Keep up the great work. Robert. So I think a quick jury deliberation is a good thing for Rittenhouse. I think that if it's a long jury deliberation, that means they're watching the videos. They're watching the videos over and over and over. They're talking about them. They're scrubbing forward and backwards. And that is, um, not a good thing. That means they're thinking about it. It's not obvious Josh. Oh, my gosh says Robert exit is 22 to Luke 2235 through 39 1 Samuel 25 13. First Samuel are just a few passages in the Bible that expressed the right to bear arms. And self-defense thank you for those. Exit is 2022, Luke 2235 through 39 first Samuel 25 13, Chris. And Chando says, holy ish, Rob, get cherry picking these clips. They're all been great views. I trust your perspective on this trial more than anyone else, let alone the fake news LGB. That's from Chris and Sean Dell. Thank you for that, Chris. I appreciate you being here. Jacob says, what do you think the defense do to prepare Kyle for yesterday's testimony? So they probably had a lot of conversations about it and I, I would hope, you know, practice with him, had somebody play the prosecutor and ask him those questions, you know, specifically sit them down. So you intended to kill Rosenbaum, didn't you? Uh, I guess I did. Cause I shot him. No, don't say that. Say I intended to stop him. How about that? That's a little bit better. Right? So not coaching him, but, but, but coaching him, not communicating to him what to say, but helping him say it in a way that is more, uh, more legally palpable. Jacob says, uh, now got that one. KPC 1, 2, 3, 4 says binger is planning to board the jury to death in order to get to retry the case while he succeeding, because it is awful. Brad Bower says, what could finger possibly do during closing to get his mistrial? If he does something during that time. And it is a mistrial, I guess I would bet that it goes with prejudice. Eddie Oliver says, Rob, if you find my bloated naked corpse hanging from a shower, it was actually suicide because I was so bored from today's testimony. Well, don't do that. Eddie Oliver. We want you to hear with us for a long time, but I understand it was painful. Joe Cal can CELT I'm sorry, Joe calc calc agno Joe calc agno says, is it odd that the officer's testifying from the state were in uniform, but officer Bray was not in uniform. You only play the part when you're working for your team. If you're working for the other guy, well, you don't want to, you don't want to help them. So you just come in in your pajamas. Jeremy Rowe says I would definitely let officer Bray arrest me issues. Nice looking woman. Eddie Oliver says anyone familiar with the AR platform knows Kyle didn't rerock. You have to take your hand off the trigger to do that. Also, if I get arrested for stalking officer Bayer, will you represent me? We can't talk legal advice on this channel. They're Eddie Oliver butts. You know who to call? We've got a such says, Hey Rob, it's been a while since I've been able to catch a live show, welcome back. Such good to see you. My friend. I remember you says, I find that the average person only knows about the crap, the media spews and Kyle crying on the stand. Very sad. It is because they're feeling like the narrative is escaping from them. And so now they have sour grapes. They get very mad when Joe Rogan survives, COVID using, you know, certain things. They get very upset about that. And so they call it other things and they just like to kind of twist the knife a little bit sour grapes. So you're going to see a lot of that. Good to see you such welcome back. Glad you joined us. Robert M with a nice donation. Thank you. Robert M. Daniel Henry says just sub to the channel. No offense intended, but Roberts, all the eye candy of legal Eagle with none of the BS loving the complete package. That should be our new tagline. Well, thank you, Daniel for that is a very nice comment. You know, legal Eagle. Did you see the meme that I posted on Twitter, where they had him as the joker? I didn't say it. Somebody else did, but it's a very funny meme. I posted that on my timeline and thank you for that. Daniel Cuomo's revenge says, remember what I said, re tech ruses. I do remember that I joined locals saying that the government was going to try to overly Technify the whole thing to fabricate some evidence and get it admitted. It looks like that might be happening Meyer 82 mimer 82 says observing from the UK. The whole thing is very interesting. That image thing seems like such a hole for poor verdicts on bad images. Yeah, because it might even not be the actual original image. Daniel Henry also says I am a software engineer with graphics programming experience. I can tell you for a fact that by cubic interpolation absolutely does add pickles pixels that are not there. It does this by means of distance weighted color averaging. So there you go. Daniel Henry with the assist on the, on the interpolation question. And it makes total sense because it's the same pizza analogy. Thank you for that, Daniel. Uh, Jay says nice job, Rob. Well, thank you, Jay. It's very nice. Super chat. Satch says sounds like a voting machine. LOL Corey Corey chair of feces. Oh, well that's kind of rude to Corey. Isn't it? I was, I was saying it was the Cory bypass. We have another one from, uh, Sosh says, if you remember back in 2020, some people were adjusting DPI settings to manipulate signatures on ballots. Same concept, just manipulating the pixels. I do remember that our Montana says can't believe no one mentioned blur or reflection. Also distance you lose detail and color information. I've been on Photoshop for 20 years. John, thank you for that. Armand. I agree with you, John Paul McMahon says, what about the prosecutors request for the closeup of Kyle not shooting until drawn on? Uh, did they, the prosecutor asked for that. I mean, some of the video footage that we saw from Dr. Black did get admitted and that shows the shots and super slow Mo in high-quality footage. So they may get that even if it's not formally admitted, as such deep RD says, this has got to be the biggest of slime balls I've ever seen on the prosecutor's side. What's your opinion on this? Not a fan of binger. If you're new to the channel, obviously never have been ever since the very beginning of this thing, being here has had that smarmy prosecutor feel, and this is not out of the ordinary. Okay? This is just the first time that a lot of people in this country are exposed to this, but you see two peas in a pod in this trial. Don't you, you have James Crouse and you have Thomas binger here, both of these guys doing a bunch of underhanded stuff, repeatedly scolded by the judges acting improperly on many different issues. And this is, this is not an aberration. I know it. I know it hurts to hear this, but this is happening in your hometown, in your local prosecutor's offices. These types of people are all over the place. If there's anything Thomas binger has done for justice in this country, it's exposing himself to all of us. So we can see how much this garbage goes on on a regular basis. And I mean that I thank you, Thomas binger for your service to this country. Thank you for showing us that this is how you handle a case. Now, many people, 5,000 people here right now sit 70,000 people on ricotta stream. Many thousands more from all of the replays, all get to see you doing what you did to Kyle, to single witness that was brought before the court. And it was gross behavior. That's my opinion on that Deek we have Michael Smith says, I think when the young Turks has stated it was self-defense, it means Kyle is good. We know how headed they are about not seeing the truth. And we got a few more of these before we jumped back and finished over on locals. We've got restocks and says, at what point are you allowed to defend yourself with deadly force? Some are trying to argue that he was not in being harmed because he was being chased. So, so certainly, but a chase leads to being caught, right? Which is the natural consequence of a chase. And so you don't have to wait until you're actually being killed to defend yourself. If you're a reasonable person and it's objectively reasonable that right then and there, you felt like your life was in danger. Self-defense if that's reasonable, you can use it. And so I think that's the case that Kyle and his team have made. We have another one from not applicable, says the whole trial seems like a sham. Justice is a myth. So I think that the entire prosecution was, uh, no question, Dave, with a nice donation. Thank you, Dave. Diane McNamara also with the donation. Very nice one. Thank you, Diane. I appreciate you there also with another question says, if Kyle should have kept running, if he was in danger, shouldn't it Rosenbalm and gross Kurtz and Huber all done the same thing instead of running towards Kyle. Hm, very interesting. We also have another one from Valentino. G says, I saw the photo waited a full minute, expecting it to come into focus. Jury's going to look at it and think what the bleep am I looking at here? Yeah, they've got so much digital evidence to look at. We'll see if any of it really adjusts their perspective. Charles Hammond Jr. Says question. When the defense initially raised its motion for a mistrial with prejudice, they sounded like they quoted a statute or guideline. I think they did. I think what happened was Corey[inaudible] went out and somebody from his office or his legal assistant there, I think they pulled up a case and they actually brought out two elements about what would justify the judge, granting a motion for dismissal, with prejudice. And that would be a, uh, basically the, the, the court would have to have a finding that what binger was doing with some of those constitutional problematic questions that he was getting after. If that was intentional to cause a mistrial, then the judge can dismiss the case with prejudice. Why? Because the prosecutor is trying to cause a mistrial. They're trying to break a rule intentionally because they know if this goes to the jury, as it stands, they're going to lose. The jury is going to come back in a quick Kyle Rittenhouse. They don't want that to happen. So they'd rather throw the game, then finish it because they get another game. And if the judge makes that finding and says, I think that that's what they're doing. Then he can take that chance at another game away from them and take it away from the jurors for them acting. So reprehensible, that would be a sanction that the judge might be able, uh, to impose. Couple other ones hosted says GMA posted a new video about gage today, post testimony, he got 177 likes and 7,100 dislikes. Outstanding. I'm going to have to watch that. I have not seen that. I think somebody else was asking me about that. Such said hashtag cheer, FEC bypass, that guy like it. Beth Cottington says, Hey Robert, so brokenhearted, I missed you on Megan Kelly. It gives me something to look forward to did catch the trial today, decided to watch ice melt for awhile to live and things up after I finished my wine, made it more interesting. I'm good. I'm glad you did that, Beth. It was, you know, uh, paint dry since you've already done watching ice melt, you can watch paint dry, maybe, maybe, uh, during closings during his closing argument or you could watch grass grow either. One of those might be another good suggestion just to keep those going. Hope the wine hit the spot there, Beth. Thanks for that lovely support as always. I appreciate it. Alex six is here says as a future law student, this is interesting to me. However, the court almost seems like a joke. The prosecution is badgering witnesses at this point, you know, Alex six, I think what you're going to experience when you start going around other courts, depending on what Metro area you're in is that this court is a little bit looser than some of the other courts. Uh, there really aren't many courts like that are run like this, uh, in Arizona. Some of them are, but most of them are a lot more formulaic, a lot, a lot less jovial to some degree like you see elsewhere. So you're, you're right to recognize a little bit of a mismatch there. 3.14 says nice round number for a well-rounded stream. And that is PI right? 3.14157. Something like that. Thank you for that, man. Drake RK says Twitter mob is talking about recalling this judge. Like they recalled Aaron Persky and Berkeley, is that a serious threat or nonsense? I mean, not before they get a verdict in this case, maybe they're mad at him after the fact, if they are good Lord, have you seen the Kyle Rittenhouse sort of force of people out there? This judge would get reelected and no time he'll run for office again, if it's, if it's an election type of estate, he'll start a campaign fund and what are, you'll see,$10 million in there for the judge. He'll be all right. Uh, let's see, Brian, Paul says another one. Do you think Kyle will win or lose? And what do you think the most important points for the defense to make before the jury goes into deliberation? So self-defense, self-defense self-defense. I think that there, you know, the theme that they started with during the opening was, you know, Kyle was trying to help, you know, he was a young man who was trying to be a hero to some degree. And we saw a lot of that. We saw he was providing medical care. We saw that many people were saying he was deescalating situations came out here, face the jurors gave you his testimony. He told you what he was thinking and feeling. And it was self-defense objectively reasonable at every turn, every single instance, objectively reasonable self-defense. And that expands covers the reckless reckless endangerment charges. Even make an argument on the weapons charge that it wasn't technically in violation of the law because he was going to be having his friend hold onto it until he turned 18. Right. All of those arguments. Uh, but it's a good question. And it's probably going to be short 45 minutes an hour. Maybe I doubt, I really doubt it goes a full two hours or two and a half hours. Uh, and those were great, uh, super chats over from watching the watchers.locals.com. And, uh, let's go back over. I'm sorry. Those were from YouTube. Now. We're going back over to watching the watchers.locals.com Robbie McCann says, will the prosecution ever realize that aha moment will never happen? Probably not. You know, these people sort of seem like they've kind of diluted themselves into thinking this is a slam dunk case and it isn't king. Kate says I may have missed it. However, where are the experts hammering and concepts like emotional states and reactions of individuals in these types of situations. I'm hopeful. The jury has pondered sets considerations. Uh, should I be, um, so I think what you're talking about is sort of, uh, you know, what, what was Kyle experiencing mentally at that moment in time, which is all, you know, I mean that could be relevant, but probably not. You know, it's sort of about his action then in there and whether it was justified, I get your point Kincade. I get it. Uh, former Leo says would the video that black analyze be able to be brought in at close because I believe the jury has never seen a real-time depiction of the events. Uh, probably. Yeah, I think so. I think all of that was admitted in published, so I'm sure he could use it. LA medic also says, why would you use a force expert not be needed in this case, you would think his vast knowledge would could at what it could be important. So use of force experts are typically dealing with use of force policies, you know, sort of, uh, at what level should a police officer escalate the use of force from a verbal command to a physical stopping, to less than lethal force to lethal force. All these different hierarchical analysis happen between each to each different level. And here you kind of don't need that. Right? Kyle Rittenhouse is just an everyday citizen. If you could say that a 17 year old kid in that position could have used it, that's the standard and that's for a jury to decide. They don't need to hear all sorts of different policies and things like that. K cell says the only reason weirdo, binger had questions for officer Bray. So he could speak to a beautiful woman. That's true. Officer Bray, where do you like to have dinner? Hmm. Rational gay says, why didn't they ask officer Britney Bray? If there would be any evidence on the casing, if a spent casing had gotten jammed to remain in the chamber, like a crease on the shell or multiple extractor marks. If the trigger was pulled with the spent casing still in the chamber, when there be two hammer indentations on the primer. Yes. But it also would have had to come out, right? The bullet would have had to come out. So because he shot gross crew it's right after the fact. So something would have had to come out of there. And she's saying we didn't find that we only recovered those eight bullets that you saw. So there was just, it's just a missed, missing, magical bullet. Uh, it's Jake from Oxford says, Hey buddy, since we're such great friends, I'll hook you up one time. You're welcome. Now, let'em, excuse me. Let me know. Let me talk. We do not need to both talk at the same time. Yeah. You figure out how to do that. Now let me tap into the live feed of the judge's desk right now. Judge Schroeder. Does the defense have any last comments Mark Richards, your honor, the defense would like to rest. We can in no way defend Mr. Rittenhouse any better than the prosecution has done. Also, the defense is concerned that Mr. Kraus may begin bullying another special needs person. That's it's Jake from Oxford. Who's giving us, uh, it got us tapped in to the court feed. Briggs 57 says on the manipulated video, the enhanced drone video that the prosecution purports to show Mr. Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Rosenbalm while the Duramax is problematic for the prosecution. As explained below if the black space a rifle, it would show Kyle shouldering it. Left-handed not. Right-handed like the other pictures. This is unlikely for a few reasons. One first his two points link set up is not conducive to shouldering on the non-dominant side. Secondly, unconsciously switching from the dominant to non-dominant side requires a bit of training and practice. We're talking at least a two day course followed by repetitive practice, at least weekly for a couple of months. Third, although fighting around obstruction like vehicles is certainly a great illustration of the utility of being able to run a rifle, ambidextrous the positions of Kyle and Rosenbalm relative to the vehicles makes a right-hand shoulder the better choice. Well, that sounds like Briggs knows what he's talking about. Doesn't him. Thank you for that Briggs. I mean, that's very clear. Sounds like the, the image would show that Rittenhouse his gun was on the other shoulder. The likelihood that he'd have the capable skillset to make that adjustment in the middle of, I mean, was sort of, you know, a firefight seems like it is a, maybe a little bit too much boneless ravioli says how on earth was the interpolations expert testimony satisfactory? Wasn't his purpose to assure everyone the interpretation of the blown-up image was totally reliable. You would think so. Yeah. And the judge just let it in. Anyways. He said the opposite of that says, I don't know what's going on. Watch your 45 says, just want to wish you and your team a very happy Thanksgiving. I am thankful for what you have spent time and energy on in which we, as your viewers, just get a little bit more perspective. This legit helps us decipher through all the mainstream media, which is heavily polluted. No question. But I would like to note, I think it's fascinating where we have gotten in this technological world. The witness had no clue how the algorithm algorithms were coded. He is an expert. I find that very interesting and scary. We got a person saying, yeah, this is solid, but I don't know how it was made. It's like eating a potato chip and seeing the ingredients as saying the ingredients are just trust us. Come on, man. Thank you. And again, happy Thanksgiving, sir, from watcher 45. Very comment. Thank you for that. Watch your 45. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family as well. And I agree. I don't ever just trust the government because they say so don't know why people do, but they do. Former Elio says, never observed the prosecution address. The elements of reckless endangerment. I did not see a state called expert to testify about the line of fire. And if it did, in fact, endanger McGuinness facts are facts and BSBs good. One from former Leo, few more transparency says the prosecution is now alleging the Kyle pointed his rifle at Rosenbalm and Kaminski before he was chased. How does the law in self-defense relate to this allegation? So, I mean, he'd have to be justified in using that. You know, you can't just point guns at people. He needs to have an objectively reasonable belief that he's allowed to do that because the next step is pulling the trigger that was from transparency. So we'll see. Little Mandy says when you consider that the natural instinct for animals is fight or flight Kyle's first instinct was to flee when he was able to flee no more. He fought. He should be acquitted. That's from little Mandy. I think you're right about that. A little Mandy says acquitted again. Another soup question eat on test says joining late, but I did see your appearance on Megan Kelly. Great job. I'm a big fan of Megan Kelly. I really hope it boosts your channel and your voice. Well, thank you, Aidan. Tess. I was a little bit nervous. I gotta be honest about it. I was a little bit was like, what am I doing here? This is crazy. But it was a lot of fun. I appreciate the love on that. Kenny. One B says there's a strange red mark. That is not the mouse cursor. That is on some of the clips driving me a little crazy. That's my fault there. Kenny one beam. I didn't think anybody could see that, but that's me. That's my, that's my cursor. I can actually draw on the video. So I'll have to move that out of the way. My apologies. It's probably driving you nuts. There it is. What the hell is that? Sorry, I shouldn't have said anything. Should I? Uh, Oxford university, he says, I say this binger chaps seems like a smart fellow. If he can send us a 43 page resume and learn to pronounce a roof and a nice Oxford English accent, we may accept his application. That's from Oxford university. Well, that's nice. So binger has a future. After all eat on test says at first I thought that some other commenters were being overly critical towards binger after all he has a job to do. But now I watched the line of questioning. Ah, this guy is not after justice. He's just playing petty games because he knows his case junk. Now I think he deserves the criticism. Well welcome aboard. Eat on tests. We're happy to have you have a seat and stick around a while. Cause it's only going to get worse. See Davis says drew Hernandez wanted binger to read Twitter posts from 8 27. It said, quote, turns out the man, Kyle Rittenhouse, shout and killed last night in Kenosha was Joseph. Rosenbalm a convicted sex offender of sexual misconduct with a minor. Here's the video I shot of him begging to be quote shot in front of a gas station minutes before his death. He then posted the video of Rosenbaum and the shoot me an word incident at the gas station. Ooh, that's interesting. I wonder if that could have gone differently. Like if the defense came back and said, oh, well you asked him about his Twitter posts. So maybe you open the door to Twitter posts. How about we read another one of his Twitter posts. Oh, what did you say Mr. Drew on August 27th, 2020. What did you say after being hers text message. He asked you about your Twitter posts. What did you say on the next one? Oh, Rosenbaum's a convicted sex offender. That would have been a, that would have been clever, but they didn't do that. Uh, okay. A couple others Taluk says if the guy's testifying used levels to brighten dark and change the contrast before he zoomed the image that is bad levels, usually destroy data, cuts out the low end high end alters pixels. So if you do this and then zoom the image, you're starting from a really bad point. You've got impartial data, which makes the guesswork, the algorithm does less accurate. So it sort of sounds like good data in good data, out bad data in bad data out. When you do this, you should zoom then address, contrast. Then the zoom will make its best guess use the pixels to fill in the difference. So if those are altered, it makes a big difference on the order. You do things. There you go. That's a nice comment also taluks that makes total sense. You can't, uh, you can't put the Turkey on before you put the Mayo on, right? Maybe that's a bad example. See Rowe says, Hey Rob, I was wondering which of the two defense attorneys had a better courtroom, cheer a feast of your Richards. I know they played different roles, but which was more persuasive. I liked cheer Feesey much better. I thought he was a much more polished lawyer. Uh, certainly seemed like you had a better command of the practice. Rob Emory says, you answered my question already. I asked it before you got to it. My apologies when Kyle was acquitted and they riot again, I wonder if more people will come out to protect their property and stand up to this lawlessness. I know a lot of people are wondering what that response looks like. And hopefully it's nothing problematic. Law medic says the prosecutor was stating that they were going to bring two rebuttal witnesses against Kyle saying that he was not giving his ballistics vest and not enrolled at ASU. What do you believe the jury that will do to the jury? So I'm not sure that we're actually going to see that happen. I, you know, jury has already been excused. Those people would have to sort of come back in before Monday and the judge would have to allow that in. I mean, you know, he's, he certainly could, but are they really gonna, maybe they will. I don't know. I don't think he does anything to the jury. I think it looks petty as hell, which is why it's sort of a stupid thing to do in my opinion, but okay. Uh, D Del SPE, nice comment says the prosecution's point in this case is that evidence won't be allowed ever because this defense knows more about the technology and what it does in the state's witness knows the reality is that the defense's witness knows all of this by cubic interpolation is a standard interpretation and takes parameters usually. And if this person is supposed to be an expert in the software, he should know what he's doing, what it means and how it interprets the pixels. If the state wants this kind of evidence in, they should bring an expert who actually understands the process. Not some guy who just sits at a computer to play meme, Lord, the point of their objection here is that their expert doesn't actually know what's happening. And that's the whole point. Their witness could be manipulating the image without actually knowing it that's the entire point. I really wish Schroeder would have blocked this evidence, but based on that, but based that on the person, manipulating the image, not the potential process of manipulation. Yeah. And that's a great point there de Del SPI, which the defense could have hammered a little bit harder. You know, it's not that they're claiming that we don't know that it was manipulated. Well, they hit that pretty hard, I guess, but it's a great comment. I appreciate that. A lot of medic also says I was not able to see anything on the images that were enlarged. Did you it's blurry for me and most people, do you see it swaying the jury? No, I don't. I don't. I think that it won't because it's probably a pretty accurate portrayal of what was happening there. And everybody saw all of the other video footage and nobody talked about Kyle pointing the gun. And I guess, I guess a couple people did Todd trout, but I don't think it's consequential. Todd trout says, Rob, the disputed picture of Kyle holding the gun is simply a roar shock test. Your bias will dictate what you see. Not reliable information should not be admissible. I can't even tell if the person in the picture is Kyle. So there you go. It's going to look like a couple of blobs on a screen. Ed says, if I were this judge, I might respond. Quote, I may not know the newest technology, but I do know the law. And if there's a technology that is interpolated or other words, making its own decisions on what is there or is not there that by definition, definition is not admissible because I cannot question the tech on why it added the pixel there. And not there. I don't care if this is quote the way we do it now, then the legal profession should stop using this tech. It could be manipulated intentionally or unintentionally. Well, you'd be a great judge there. Eat on test. I love to be in your courtroom because that's a good answer. Uh, another one says after what you've said about the government equipment being an accurate, and if Kyle is found guilty, I'm going to call this the neuron binger trial. Uh, we have, uh, it's Jake from offers. Oxford says it's the cheer FEC dab. Okay. That's a pretty good one too. I like that one. No doubt says in spite of how much you may dislike binger, an honest assessment would rate him as the best lawyer in the room that is taking into account the arguing of motions to get or present evidence in front of the jury and communicating a more effective story to the jury while cheer or is effective on cross. He lacks in other areas, Richards and Kraus. Just make everyone else look good while the above may sound like a complacent accompliment overall, the prosecution has presented a better defense than the defense and the defense has presented a better prosecution than the prosecution. This would be a fantastic comedy of idiots. If the life of Kyle wasn't in their hands. Well, that's one perspective there. No doubt. I think that, you know what you're seeing from the prosecution, sort of a lot of bravado and sort of, sort of, uh, you know, fake confidence or competence to some degree, but most of the stuff that's coming out of his mouth is pretty much just straight trash. We have, uh, John Halligan says I had to duck out yesterday, any takers on the Erik's house donation bet. I'm saying the jury reaches a verdict and under 2 45,$20 donation made by the losers out there. So I'm going to take you up on that. John, anyone else wants to do that, feel free to hop in on that game. Two hours, 45 minutes, a verdict under that time you win verdict over that time you lose. If you lose or, or you can take, or you can take the over, right. You can say, I think that, uh, like if you wanted to bet, John, you would have to take the over. John wants the under says it's going to come in at under 2 45 hours. If it does John wins. If you take that bet, like I'm going to, and it's over 2 45, then John loses and he's got to pay the 20 bucks over to Eric's house. So if you want to play that game, pair yourselves up, I'll take a couple more. I'll take a couple more. I'll take both sides of this coin. I think the 2 45 is probably, it's probably, it's a good one. It's a good number. Uh. All right. So we'll have to see, I'll take both sides of the bet cause I donate a lot to Eric's house anyway. So I'll take, I'll take them all day. I'll take, I'll take, I'll take a lot of bets if you want them, but uh, cause I'm donating it anyways, but it's uh, it's fun. Two hours and 45 minutes. It's a good, that's a good number because that's going to split the middle on that one details. But he also says the prosecution needs four hours for closing because they have to make up all the quote facts for their case. It takes a lot of time. It's hard to inject nonsense into the ears of the jury. Like, oh, that thing went from two pixels to 400 big pixels on our blown up image. That's a gun, as you can see clearly from our doctorate evidence it's pointing at to Minsky's head here. See? Yeah, you can see it right here. I just got done editing it in Microsoft paint. Thank you. D Dell speed breaks. 57 says on the list of things I look forward to doing more than listening to bingers closing arguments. Oh goodness says, uh, shaving my man parts with a belt. Sander is up there, which is just the worst. That sounds terrible. John Haugen says, I feel there's a little chance to juror stay away from reading about the case. They're human. What if any research has been done into juror behavior? When excused like this? I don't know there, John. It's a good question. The problem with that type of research is nobody tells the truth on that stuff. Everybody lies. Kenny one V says, Tom cotton, I want to focus on Tom cotton. Say this. If Tom cotton said something like Joe Biden called Kyle Rittenhouse, a white supremacist, he was really the go-to move of the Democrats. They do that all the time. They don't like that. Virginians elected Republicans. They don't like the U S constitution or the norms. They're constantly losing arguments. They're saying it's a sign of a party that is not strong or healthy. That's from Tom cotton calling this young man a white supremacist on the basis of a few seconds of video. It's a nice, nice statement from Tom, Tom cotton. Senator Sapper Jackson says, Hey Rob, I'm back from my border mission in Yuma. Settled it into my new house. It's why I've been gone. But I'm caught up on Kyle. Now from your breakdowns. Sweet. I noticed in a recent video, you asked about Nick Sandman, the boy who sued CNN and others. I have a buddy in my unit that went to church with him. Apparently he won over 500 million. What? CNN was like two 50, same with MSNBC and the others. But he's poised to settle with 750 million bucks. Wow. I hope Kyle Sue's off Joe Brandon's pants off. That's a lot of money. So I don't know any about that. I think that, uh, Nick ricotta was telling me about it and said that the first one was NDA. Right? So that nobody knows what the settlement was for. It sounds like a lot of money though. Probably a little too much. Captain Jim says, speaking to your six days in Arlington doing science, the GC machine was a shim. Daza AOC 5,000 ladies and gentlemen, AOC tested my client samples. There is your reasonable doubt. You're welcome. That's true. It was. I saw that. That's hilarious. I posted pictures about that. Kenny one D says, uh, Fox news says that Joe Biden called Rittenhouse a white supremacists can't even believe how appalling that his spokesperson also blasted the media for getting the facts wrong. Former Elio says, I heard that one of the manipulated videos showed Jimmy Hoffa. Okay. A couple others, Corey cheerer feast. He says, I don't hate him because he is fat. He is fat because I hate him. Oh, okay. Uh, no doubt says I can't believe the defense never pointed out that Kyle's hand did not come off. Either the pistol grip or the hand guard and the BG on the scene video, their ignorance of firearms hurt their ability to point out key facts, supporting their case. Somebody should take them back out and slap some sense into them. Figuratively. Speaking, of course also, can you shed some light on the discussions around talking to the media, how it can waive the right to remain silent? Yeah. So, you know, if, if you get out there and you start talking about the specifics of the case, then you can be impeached about some of those statements. If you come in court and say something differently about those, uh, because you're waiving your rights now you're waiving your rights or taking the stand and you, you can now talk about that stuff. You can actually specifically say in that, in that prior interview that you gave, you said something different than you're saying here, were you lying then? Or are you lying now? But what, what the prosecutor was trying to do is since he was on the stand and waved his issue, he was trying to get into other conversations about his right to silence and about all of those other things, saying that by talking to the media, he waived that right to silence, which is not accurate. So if he would have waived his right to silence, taken the stand and also given another media interview that had some, some conversation that was directly on point about the case. He could have been asked about that. But the media interview was not on point. It's a good question. A little bit complicated, but a good one. Uh,[inaudible] says, are those impeachment templates still available? I'd like to file articles against binger. They are Jan DOE the impeachment party templates are still available. They're probably still in that pinned post. The Antica says, not saying that VMT kiss, not going to do it. Former Elio says when this overwritten house should get the same attorney that won the judgment against the wall, PO Kobe kid Sandman. I think that was Linwood though. The attorney would be busy for a year going after everyone who defamed him. I think that was Linwood DDL. DDSB says, what are the options that the defense has if binger makes up evidence or provides interpretations that witnesses didn't provide to the evidence that was up like the last admitted evidence of the modified pictures captured from the video. I suppose the same question for the prosecutor, with the defense fabricating evidence. So if you, if you're in a closing argument and you say something that's not in evidence, there's an objection for that. It's called facts, not in evidence. And you just nobody's said that. What are you saying? Nobody said that. And you object and you pause and you go back and you look at the end. Yeah. Nobody said that jury disregard that. Nobody said that. Don't say that again. So you can actually object in the closings. All right. Greg Moran says, Hey, if gross Cruz was shot center mass, not in the arm, outside of the testimony, how differently would it play out? In the case I asked because leftists are always insane enough to suggest the police should shoot the legs and not center mass. Uh, I think he would have been justified. I mean, he, I think he still would've been justified. I don't think it would have changed anything instead of an attempted intentional homicide, intentional homicide, if he would've killed him, but he was justified to shoot. It was about the force that was allowed to be used to stop the threat. It wasn't about ultimately the outcome, the outcome you're authorized all the way up until death. Now it didn't happen in that case, if it had, it wouldn't have changed anything. I think you still would have seen that video evidence of the gun coming up and Rittenhouse would have testified. Uh, similarly in the video evidence would have supported it. Kincaid says I, if catching someone in the act of finding them guilty requires the good guys to lie, cheat and steal. How long will it take to buy their dirty deeds? Just saying a buck 30 per makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Kincade. We have rational gaze also says drew Hernandez, I believe was the one who filmed the video from August 24th of Antifa showing up with assault rifles. Does that video been introduced into evidence? Probably. I mean, there were like 21 videos that made, it seems like that might be something of a rebuttal to all the woke are saying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Kyle bought an assault rifle to a protest that makes him guilty. Yeah, that's a good point. It probably has. I don't know that one specifically, but remember binger introduced like 20 something things prosecution keeps trying to give a state of mind for the assailants ignoring what a rational person might do in reaction. It's pretty sick. Bianca says Corey's face was obviously saying big Mac. You, you got it on my face. Another note, I really felt sad after the defense rested, I feel like they didn't offer much, especially the lack of objections during Kyle's testimony. After you pointed out that they didn't acknowledge him. After I also noticed they left for a while today, Kyle was alone with the prosecutors. Richard seems to have somewhere else to beat. You think that the defense lacked fighting more for him. You think Kyle still has a good chance? I wish I did more for him. Very sad feeling after they arrested, I cried so much when he started to crying while I was very sweet Bianca, you know, you're, you're seeing rock human emotion and you're empathizing with that. And I can relate to that. It's it's bad bedside manner. I don't think that you're seeing a creme de LA creme of criminal defense attorneys here. You know, they're, you know, a lot of it seems sort of cobbled together. Some of it's sloppy. Some of it feels like it's a little bit lazy and preparation, but it's a style of practicing law. Not mine. I honestly think on this question. If you asked a hundred different defense attorneys, you'd probably get a hundred different answers on this topic. So, you know, I hesitate to be overly critical, but there is some, some problems with what I've seen. I mean, a lot of it seems sloppy when they don't even acknowledge Kyle after six hours of testimony, it's like, guys, I know you're tired, but this is the big game. This is the super bowl it's like, put your game face on, stop slouching in your chairs. Like I'm tired. I would just want to go home. They didn't even do a redirect of Kyle Rittenhouse, a redirect of the key witness in the whole case. No redirect it's nonsense. And there's no reason for that. Other than he had to go pink. It's ridiculous. Pete hill sells says Kenosha area one. Kenosha is part of the Chicago Metro area. It's the Northern most part of it. It's right between Milwaukee and Chicago. A lot of people from Chicago moved up to Kenosha to get away from taxes over-regulation and expensive housing, but they retain their democratic machine attachment. The country is a purple conch county, pretty evenly divided the Easter in intend the city near lake Michigan is more Democrat. Western edge is more Republican. Thank you, Pete hill for that background. Good stuff, Sean. LVNV time. Lord Stu says while I wasn't particularly happy it Schroeder's ruling is this really that devastating when looking at the aggravate, I mean, even today, Washington post is thrown in the towel on this case stating their prosecutor, a prosecutor has been undercut by his own witnesses, made strategic errors, struggled with inconvenient facts, impressing his case. Probably not. You know, like I said, a lot of this stuff I think is to confuse the issues. It's also red herrings. It's just to get the jurors to latch onto something. Oh, judge Schrader is here, says don't get brazen with me. Sorry judge. Sorry. I won't ask the same question. 35 different times and then try to crumple all over people's constitutional rights. All right. Couple other questions here, Jay. He says you did a fantastic job on Kelly. Awesome. To see you reach in the big leagues. Now keep up the great work. She is. She is big leagues. Isn't she? I don't know what the heck they reached out to me for. I don't know what I was doing on that show, but it was fun. Miles. Brene says any idea why the case went from Linwood to these guys? Lot of, uh, gossip about all those decisions. I have no idea, no idea what happened there. Uh, a lot of those attorneys I think are in a lot of hot water, a lot of different reasons. Here's where we're at Davis says on the length of the trial. I feel like it will take 30 minutes of everyone is already not guilty. But if there's only one hater. I could see the deliberations going on for several days. From your experience, how fast do deliberation goes? Uh, go when everyone agrees fast. Yeah. Quick quickly. Remember what happened in Shovan. How long were they out for like six hours? It was like a day, maybe day and a half. Very quick, very quickly. They all pretty much agreed. Uh, Joey Bandolero says, I just want to say that I don't get why you all don't like me being her. I don't mind him that much must just be the pho hoc glasses combo. Patto says binger would need two and a half hours. If he didn't describe every type of weapon. Rosenbalm didn't have one to bet. On how many times he brings this up in closing too many, uh, lots, too many. Former Leo also says, if you don't intend to take a life, don't shoot. You make the call that it doesn't fit the criteria for deadly force. So you shoot for the legs in the clip, the femoral artery. And now you end up with a dead suspect with no justification. That's the reason why you don't follow Joe Biden's advice and just shoot them in the like locals group says we would like to see the comments. YouTube can not see, oh, well sometimes their comments that a that's a good point. You know, that's a good point. We could probably save those comments. We could probably do spicy comments, sections or something like that. It's a good idea. There. It's a good idea. Locals group. You're pretty sure bunch over there. Aren't you? Yes, you are. Yes, you are the smartest. Uh, Harry, uh, uh, Harry Harry B is here, says I think Drew's video showed a good example concerning the aggressiveness of the writers. I only wish he would have used language that sounded less biased. He sounded too supportive of Kyle. Then he sounded more irritated than anything. He was certainly irritated was not happy with the prosecution there at all. Jump in. Jeff says, Rob, you are a big league. All-star maybe even a closer, well, that's really nice jump in Jeff. Uh, we'll see where it goes. I'm having a lot of fun and I appreciate all that support out there. All right. We've got some super chats that came in after the fact, uh, we had Brian, Paul says we got that one space cake says absurd for the prosecution to compare blown up, picks of rioting tiny details. Don't matter to a small amount of pixels in the distance being blown up to show tiny detail. The gun, the judge got conned. That's from space cake. I, the judge got one sort of squeezed by him on that. Not applicable says doesn't even show anything. It's brainwashing. The jury. Anyways, bill cook says, it's a shame that half the country is uninformed or malevolent and want to hang this kid in the streets. It seems like the video was in because of the mob. Yeah, it might be the case. This guy says the defense should have just argued. It was too blurry instead of making it into a big to-do. Now it will be more scrutinized more than ever. Yeah. There's, there's a downside to that. Right? The pro the, the, the jurors might just be confused. Couple others here showcasing the guns on the Megan Kelly show. Congrats. Did I do that? Did I do that? Oh, I couldn't even watch it folks. I didn't even watch it. I haven't even, I haven't even seen it. Aaron says, ah, that was Aaron RK 2009 says, do you think that Shovan could have humanized himself to the jury if he took the stand like Kyle did, he was made a monster by politicians and media. Yes, he could have, but there was a lot of risk there. Just like there was a lot of risks with Kyle and Derek Shovan has a couple more skeletons in his closet than Kyle Rittenhouse did. So a couple other reasons why maybe he didn't take the stand. Pinking says I would rather eat gas station sushi. I don't even like sushi off a toilet. Then listen to binger, talk for two and a half hours on Monday. That's pretty bad. But you know, I understand your point. I mean, that's on the one hand you have a toilet gas station sushi. On the other hand, you have Thomas binger. Uh, yeah, you gotta, you gotta go with the sushi on that one. No question. Uh, a couple others let trail Jennings, et cetera, says, just to clarify, I'm in Kenosha. We're not part of the Chicago Metro area. Okay. We're on our own, which I can appreciate that. Totally, totally appreciate that. Latrelle. We're not part of Chicago. Okay. You leave us out of that. Those are those Chicago. When people over there, we don't want anything to do with them. Jonathan Haim says, CNN, just posted an article, talking about the judges, inappropriate joke about Asian food. That's their big takeaway from today. Come on, man. It's true. I saw that the judge was like, well, hopefully the Asian food got here in time and they're like, oh, well, that's racist. So this whole trial needs to be thrown out. It goes hand in hand with your American tie. And you're talking about Roosevelt, you racist white guy, uh, gravity music says Robert should try to pop on ricotta's law stream. Tomorrow. I may do that. You know, I'm going to actually be traveling tomorrow. I'm going to go out of town for a couple of days for the weekend. And so the show schedule may not happen tomorrow. Cause I might be on the road. We're going to see what happens. I'm going to take a look at what's happening with the trial. I may try to hop on ricotta stream. I'm going to bring some of my gear to where I'm going so I can continue to stay plugged in a little bit. But I am going to take a little bit of a break since the trial is on a, on a arrest tomorrow, gonna go and hop in the car and go up north for a couple of days. So I'm going to have some fun doing that, but I'm going to try to stop by her Cadas stream. I just there's there's, there's so much to say, and it's kind of hard to get a word in on those streams, but man, there it's, it's a lot of, it's a lot of fun watching them. I'll tell you that another one from SIS Q says as a prosecutor, how does binger not inform himself about how hollow points work? He looks ignorant about how firearms work in the case about firearm use. Yeah, you're right. Nothing else to say about that. He is sort of, um, he is sort of, uh, incompetent in general, 1979 Iceman says three Superchat attempted might get missed or not appropriate. So I haven't seen it hit my, uh, hit my screen there. I saw that one there, ice man. I appreciate that. Another one from Zello ARG says, is it normal for the prosecution to introduce new evidence so late in the trial? No, it's not. Um, you know, there are disclosure requirements, there are different rules about when stuff can come in. I don't know specifically what they are or what was discussed backstage, you know, sort of, uh, off the record in a lot of these motions, but it made it in, you know, this was that magic video that landed up on the prosecutor's doorstep, I think on Sunday night and made it in any ways. Bianca says, thank you so much for the great work I waited anxiously for your show to start, emotions are high. I'm glad you can share this time with all of us. Well, thank you, Bianca. It's very nice to yeah. You know, my blood pressure after yesterday, the blood pressure and the pulse rate, all the vitals came back down to normal after Kyle kind of got off the stand there, anytime that you see a defense, a defendant take the stand, you kind of, you know, blood pressure goes up a little bit. So he made it through Latrelle Jennings says all of Kenosha complains about Illinois plates. That's great. That's hysterical. So I love that. Okay. And so that my friends was the show for the day. I want to welcome some new people who joined our community over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, where we are building an amazing community. We've got the next unicorn official glyph w custodies P new Robert Emery chip Vaughn shoulder in the house, parallel crime junkie Jecker future freedom. Now Briggs gecko, man, PWS MKZ, CPO forever, and de Del SPE are all in the house. And we had a ton of new signups. And so I'm gonna, I gotta, I gotta add everybody. Thank you so much for coming over and joining us two super chats came in, J rod says, do you think Kyle will be found not guilty? I do. I really do. I think that it's pretty much a cut and dry case. Hopefully the juror jury thinks so as well and also says 1979, Iceman says my bad. Just want to see your take on how this will future self-defense cases if Kyle does not win. So the, the legal answer is that it really won't. You know, it's only going to be sort of limited to this court, this prosecutor's office. It's not going to be binding precedent anywhere outside of this jurisdiction. So in other words, not going to impact my cases here in Arizona, one iota. Now, if this gets appealed or something, Kyle loses gets convicted and uh, there's an appeal. And it goes, w works its way up to circuit courts. And the Supreme court comes out and issues, a new ruling about self-defense law. While now Arizona is under the purview of the Supreme court. And so it matters, but it doesn't, it's not under the purview of, uh, of whatever court. This is in Kenosha, Wisconsin. So it's not going to sort of leave there, but it's going to have a mental, it's going to leave a mark, you know, in the public perception of how self-defense works, it's going to change how prosecutors perceive this. It's going to change how prosecutors think that they can get convictions, that they're going to get jurors who will look at a case like Kyle Rittenhouse and still convict somebody. It's kind of an indicator that the times have changed. And so that's why it's so important. And it's a great question there, ice man. Thank you for sending that in. I'm glad we got to your question. Sorry. If I missed your earlier and again, watching the watchers.locals.com. It's a good place to be. We have monthly meetups. We're going to have one early on in December, but I got to find a date for that. And, uh, it's a good time come say hello. We put names to faces. And so that my friends is it for me, for the show for the day. Quick reminder, as I mentioned earlier, I'm going to be traveling tomorrow. So I don't know if I'm gonna be able to do a show. It kind of depends on when I get where I'm going and how I can get set up and all of that stuff. But the trial is going to be a back for full jury deliberations on starting on Monday closing arguments. And then we'll get back into trial coverage. Tomorrow is going to be a bunch of jury instruction stuff. It may not even be on livestream. I don't know if they're going to want to do a lot of this on record or not, but, uh, but I'm going to be available. I'll be checking in with you over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. I'm going to bring some of my gear up north where I'm going. And so I will very likely be able to post an update over the weekend and check in with all of you and just see how everybody is doing. Uh, Latrelle says, visit Kenosha, see the lakefront beautiful city. I'd like to come check it out. No, no question about it. Uh, and so that my friends is it for me for the day. Thank you so much for being a part of the show. If I do not see you tomorrow, have a tremendously amazing weekend, final shout out to our veterans out there. Thank you for your service to this country. I mean that, uh, hopefully everybody's having a very nice day in honor of those people who have served us and has a very nice long weekend. Lot of Rittenhouse news, lot of it, and we're not done yet. We've got a lot more to get to. And so we're going to be back here on Monday. If I don't see you before then to do it all again, and I don't even know what time it's going to be, there's going to be a verdict and we're going to be just primed, spring, loaded and ready to go. That's it for me, my friends have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I'll see you right back here on the next one. Bye-bye.