The judge clearly doesnt understand what meta data is.

View the image in post: https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=88983873&f=119&p=592866968

That's what happened in a nutshell. The state's video is the video on the bottom. The video the State provided to the defense, and used in the trial the video on the top, which is a compressed and cropped version of the video on the bottom.

The drone footage, which sets the baseline for the provocation case the prosecution ran with, is doctored footage.

Edit: This also answers 100% why the State only used the defense's exhibit, and multiple times pointed to "the defense's own evidence". They could not in any way acknowledge that the State's evidence was the original, unedited version of the same video.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Nov 17 2021 01:41pm

The states argument is that the footage was altered automatically by the OS of the devices because it was sent from an Apple Product to an Android. The State sent the video via the requested method of the defense.

Why didn't they utilize dropbox to share the evidence though? I mean, what they're saying doesn't even make sense. What email or OS is automagically going to compress a video to 1/3rd of it's size while cropping out part of the view?

It would help if the judge wasn't still using Windows 1.01 on his own pc....

The meta data on the two videos has a different time of creation, its not a matter of compression, a different video was sent over imo.

compression of the video automatically due to OS differences OR an email compression, which are possible but i dont think correct, wouldnt alter the meta data imo.

#boomerlogic

Correct. It's not a question of automagic compression, it's a question of an alternate render. Meaning it could only have been done utilizing video editing software.

that was fatlock making up 5 different stories for plausible deniability and an attempt to blame it on the defense

So people who actually own iPhones have been testing it out:

>I took a video that is 59.4MB. When airdropping it remains 59.4MB. When emailing via Gmail for iPhone it gets renamed IMG_0227.MOV and compressed to 15.3MB.

The most likely explanation is that the prosecutors, who are technologically illiterate, emailed the file directly from an iPhone, unaware that they were compressing and renaming it on their end.
The defense thus never received the higher resolution video from the prosecutors, through no fault of their own. It does not, however, show intentional prosecutorial misconduct. It is cause for a mistrial, but on its own, not one with prejudice.