With an appeal queued up already, and the possibility of a hung jury, these deliberations may well not result in "finality." Even a full acquittal still sees him hiding from domestic terrorists for years.Dan Scott said:
Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
****Kyle Rittenhouse Trial-VERDICT WATCH-Day 4****
102,839 Views |
1100 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Tailgate88
I'm sure he will be okay against the super soydiers.Get Off My Lawn said:With an appeal queued up already, and the possibility of a hung jury, these deliberations may well not result in "finality." Even a full acquittal still sees him hiding from domestic terrorists for years.Dan Scott said:
Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
If you can star EVERY SINGLE response, you would be welcome.aggiehawg said:Not so sure I would be welcome on the premium board.Gator92 said:They owe you a lifetime membership! Also some swag!aggiehawg said:
Wait! I have stars now? I'm not a subscriber. Staff? Did I get a promotion?
Be sure to check-in w/ us lol poors every now and then... winkie emoji
Science Denier said:from the article:BusterAg said:
Daily Wire commenting on jury instruction issue: https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-allows-juror-to-take-home-full-jury-instructions-dismisses-defenses-objection?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_memberUh, OK.Quote:
While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations, and never photographed or intended to photograph them.
Years? Nah. These people aren't truly emotionally invested. They'll move on as soon as their masters tell them to.Get Off My Lawn said:With an appeal queued up already, and the possibility of a hung jury, these deliberations may well not result in "finality." Even a full acquittal still sees him hiding from domestic terrorists for years.Dan Scott said:
Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
And yet the defense did nothing and will do nothing.aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Hawg, could you elaborate?
Good Poster said:aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Hawg, could you elaborate?
Hiding a foundational witness for evidence isn't exactly ethical behavior.
aggiehawg said:
I remember back in the day when subornation of perjury was a no-no.WHOA!
— Rekieta Media (@RekietaMedia) November 19, 2021
BTW, big shout out to @DefNotDarth. This dude has been putting in the hours and producing EXCELLENT work! https://t.co/6AMaW6f3ur
How is it known the prosecution knew this video existed?
aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Further proof they were lying about the video just dropping in their lap. AND, the should have provided it to the defense much earlier. This might be another reason for the judge to toss the case.
Hillary paid for warrant to spy on Trump.
If the individual is on the prosecution's witness list, then wouldn't the defense have all of that? Or is it saying that if they had the witness, then there should have been no way for the evidence to be a surprise admitted in the 11th hour?
In.
Who be do that?
You may not be a moron, but some people think you are.
I think its saying prosecution lied about not knowing the sourceSwigAg11 said:
If the individual is on the prosecution's witness list, then wouldn't the defense have all of that? Or is it saying that if they had the witness, then there should have been no way for the evidence to be a surprise admitted in the 11th hour?
So, I contacted the guys selling the shirt, and let them know they should probably get permission to sell this from the Rittenhouse team, and asking them to donate some cash to the defense fund with every sale.Franklins said:
"Rittenhouse Walks 2A"
T-Shirts Available at:
https://fakemaskworldwide.com/rittenhouse-walks-t-shirt/
Anyone have a contact for the Rittenhouse lawyers? I mean, the support is a good thing, but, why not some financial support as well?
This is pretty blatant infringement on publicity rights unless they have permission.
aggiehawg said:
Wait! I have stars now? I'm not a subscriber. Staff? Did I get a promotion?
Shh Hawg, dont bring any attention to it.
Whatever the reason, you deserve it. Your insight and knowledge is as good as any content subscribers pay for
SwigAg11 said:
If the individual is on the prosecution's witness list, then wouldn't the defense have all of that? Or is it saying that if they had the witness, then there should have been no way for the evidence to be a surprise admitted in the 11th hour?
The latter. Just because he's on the list doesn't mean the prosecution turned over what they had or that the defense knew to ask for it.
Prosecution got the drone video into evidence through a detective who allegedly received it "anonymously." The running joke about the evidence fairy dropping the video on the prosecution's doorstep at the 11th hour. Judge erred on admitting that evidence in that fashion, BTW. No foundation.Good Poster said:aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Hawg, could you elaborate?
But if the source of the video was known to the prosecution and even on their witness list, they lied to the defense and to the court. They could have called that witness to lay a proper foundation of how that drone video was made, whether it has been edited in any manner and he would have been subject to cross examination as well. For such an important piece of evidence, raises many questions as to what is the prosecution hiding?
There were plenty of videos out there in the public domain. If the defense didn't specifically identify him as the drone video maker, but instead, just as a videographer, it is unlikely defense would have known which video was his or that they did not have it.ABATTBQ11 said:SwigAg11 said:
If the individual is on the prosecution's witness list, then wouldn't the defense have all of that? Or is it saying that if they had the witness, then there should have been no way for the evidence to be a surprise admitted in the 11th hour?
The latter. Just because he's on the list doesn't mean the prosecution turned over what they had or that the defense knew to ask for it.
Which begs the question of why they would not want him on the stand talking about it or taking questions from the defense enough to make up a lie about the source? What do we know about Beamen?aggiehawg said:Prosecution got the drone video into evidence through a detective who allegedly received it "anonymously." The running joke about the evidence fairy dropping the video on the prosecution's doorstep at the 11th hour. Judge erred on admitting that evidence in that fashion, BTW. No foundation.Good Poster said:aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Hawg, could you elaborate?
But if the source of the video was known to the prosecution and even on their witness list, they lied to the defense and to the court. They could have called that witness to lay a proper foundation of how that drone video was made, whether it has been edited in any manner and he would have been subject to cross examination as well. For such an important piece of evidence, raises many questions as to what is the prosecution hiding?
Exactly. The prosecution certainly knew he had something.
There are major evidentiary issues here, as well.hbtheduce said:Good Poster said:aggiehawg said:
Rekieta feed is saying that Brandon Beamen (drone video source) was on the prosecution's witness list. That opens up a whole other can of worms.
Hawg, could you elaborate?
Hiding a foundational witness for evidence isn't exactly ethical behavior.
The provider of the video source should have been put on the witness stand, or at least deposed, to introduce the evidence. Normally, evidence needs a source. It is not supposed to be dropped out of thin air (pun intended).
If he HAD testified, defense team much more likely to have figured out that the HD video exists.
Also, I think the prosecutors lied about knowing the identity of the drone video.
Jack squat other than his name is on the video.Quote:
What do we know about Beamen?
SwigAg11 said:
If the individual is on the prosecution's witness list, then wouldn't the defense have all of that? Or is it saying that if they had the witness, then there should have been no way for the evidence to be a surprise admitted in the 11th hour?
The second part. They also shielded this guy from cross-examination on the foundation of the evidence. Why was he there? Why was he shooting the drone footage? Was there more footage before or after? Did his business have any other drones flown that night?
Potential exculpatory evidence/testimony willfully deprived from Kyle by the prosecution. They knew where they got the video. They likely had it weeks earlier. And on top of that, they purposefully created a low resolution version to share with the defense.
Prosecution should be disbarred.
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
Checking in for the morning and we've got..... nothing. Why should I have expected anything else.
who? what video?VaultingChemist said:
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
I feel like I missed something
Are we sure it is Beamen and not Beaman? There was a 19 yr old Brandon Beaman arrested for armed robbery in Marquette, MI back in 2016. Maybe they weren't willing or able to make his criminal record go away like GG and he refused to cooperate with them?aggiehawg said:Jack squat other than his name is on the video.Quote:
What do we know about Beamen?
A is A said:who? what video?VaultingChemist said:
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
I feel like I missed something
Prosecution put the car-dealership owners on the stand to lie that they did not talk to kyle or give him permission to be there.
Someone found video shot showing Sam AND Sal (the brothers) there at the same time as Kyle, and took a photo showing one of them talking to a group of 3 (including Kyle).
Twitter poster claims the DA had the video that proves this, and hid this evidence so that their witness could maintain their lie.
aggiehawg said:Jack squat other than his name is on the video.Quote:
What do we know about Beamen?
He was quite the dupe in The Americans
The video showing the Khindri brothers at Car Source parking lot with Rittenhouse.A is A said:who? what video?VaultingChemist said:
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
I feel like I missed something
ah yes, saw this. thanks for the clarificationshbtheduce said:A is A said:who? what video?VaultingChemist said:
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
I feel like I missed something
Prosecution put the car-dealership owners on the stand to lie that they did not talk to kyle or give him permission to be there.
Someone found video shot showing Sam AND Sal (the brothers) there at the same time as Kyle, and took a photo showing one of them talking to a group of 3 (including Kyle).
Twitter poster claims the DA had the video that proves this, and hid this evidence so that their witness could maintain their lie.
So, as a long time observer of civil trials, you learn very quickly to avoid even a hint at discussion with jury members.Science Denier said:from the article:BusterAg said:
Daily Wire commenting on jury instruction issue: https://www.dailywire.com/news/judge-allows-juror-to-take-home-full-jury-instructions-dismisses-defenses-objection?utm_campaign=dw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_memberUh, OK.Quote:
While the traffic violation took place near the jury van, the freelancer never contacted or intended to contact the jurors during deliberations, and never photographed or intended to photograph them.
During the trial, if they walk towards you, you walk away. If you are in an elevator and they step in, you step out.
There is no one thing that you can do to piss off a judge faster than to mess with the jury.
After the trial, I never even approached them. I had a friend that had a nice car, and he would sometimes park outside of the courthouse close to where the jury was coming out, and we would stand by the car. Maybe 25% of the time, at least one juror would come over just to talk about the car. That was as close as I ever got to talking to jury members.
The idiot prosecutors are going to lose this case and blame it on the lying Car Source owners. They'll have to pretend to prosecute them for insurance fraud until everyone forgets about it.
Featured Stories
See All
62:04
12h ago
11k
19:16
1d ago
20k
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Texas A&M 33, Florida 20
by Olin Buchanan