Quote (Goomshill @ Nov 9 2021 02:26am)
So ignoring the complete dumpster fire and trainwreck of the first few few witnesses
Can we focus on the claim by the last witness?
The prosecution's witness made the claim that they miraculously recovered HD drone footage previously unknown and sandbagged from the defense, now entered into evidence, and claimed that the investigator- who says he only saw it 'on his phone', and didn't introduce it into evidence for us to watch- reviewed this evidence and says it shows that he could provably see Rosenbaum was 10+ feet away from Rittenhouse when he was shot and that Rittenhouse previously raised his rifle and pointed it at the Ziminiskis earlier in the night.
This was immediately contradicted by every other video of the event showing Rosenbaum on top of Rittenhouse when he was shot, the drone footage already in evidence showing him on top of the kid, and the defense immediately retorted that the autopsy showed Rosenbaum was shot at point blank range and had gunpowder on his body, stippling patterns which can only occur from an extremely close range gunshot. Which the investigator testified he was aware of. As he perjured himself and testified Rosenbaum was 10+ feet away.
They wrapped up the trial for the day right after that, but it also begs the question- how the fuck can any drone footage, HD or not, show anyone 'raising a rifle'? You're at a top down perspective. You cannot gauge the vertical axis. You cannot see upward or downward movement or where things are pointing.
On day 1 of the trial, the FBI introduced the SD footage from the drone and declared they had found HD footage, but never disclosed it to the defense, and that even when the defense had previously asked if HD footage existed and if they could have it, the FBI declined and said it didn't exist.
So it mystifies me, why would the judge allow any testimony about HD footage into the trial in the first place? The prosecutors argued that the FBI is not under their control, but its still a violation of disclosure rules, any such evidence should just be omitted at trial. It shouldn't matter what the origin is or what excuse the prosecutors have. It was sandbagged from the defense and not used in the prosecutor's theory of the crime or charging decision.
Also, why am I suddenly suspicious that detective Antaramian of Kenosha is related to mayor Antaramian of Kenosha, who was in charge of the response to the Jacob Blake riots. How many Armenians in government does the town have?
Oh I googled it, the mayor is his uncle, his cousin is the city attorney, his nephew is a judge, his other nephew is a state representative, and his other cousin is a county board supervisor. They're all one big (D) family. Good thing they had a reliable officer to put in charge of investigating this crime while the prosecutor went around telling other detectives not to execute search warrants that might turn up evidence favorable to the defense, because lmao brady rule.
he tried his darndest to get that skateboard, but it rolled down a hill, and he didnt want to walk back up. like what can u do?