****Kyle Rittenhouse Trial-VERDICT WATCH-Day 4****

103,216 Views | 1100 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Tailgate88
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dan Scott said:

Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
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.
Pookers
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Get Off My Lawn said:

Dan Scott said:

Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
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.
I'm sure he will be okay against the super soydiers.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
Spotted Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Gator92 said:

aggiehawg said:

Wait! I have stars now? I'm not a subscriber. Staff? Did I get a promotion?
They owe you a lifetime membership! Also some swag!

Be sure to check-in w/ us lol poors every now and then... winkie emoji
Not so sure I would be welcome on the premium board.
If you can star EVERY SINGLE response, you would be welcome.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

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_member
from the article:

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.
Uh, OK.
FriskyGardenGnome
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Get Off My Lawn said:

Dan Scott said:

Hopefully today is the day. As antsy I am, I can't imagine how Kyle is feeling.
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.
Years? Nah. These people aren't truly emotionally invested. They'll move on as soon as their masters tell them to.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
And yet the defense did nothing and will do nothing.
Good Poster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
hbtheduce
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
neAGle96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

I remember back in the day when subornation of perjury was a no-no.




How is it known the prosecution knew this video existed?
FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
SwigAg11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

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?
Sarge 91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
In.
DamnGood86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Who be do that?
You may not be a moron, but some people think you are.
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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?
I think its saying prosecution lied about not knowing the source
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Franklins said:

"Rittenhouse Walks 2A"

T-Shirts Available at:
https://fakemaskworldwide.com/rittenhouse-walks-t-shirt/



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.

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.
neAGle96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?
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.

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?
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
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.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg 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?
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.

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?
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?
ABATTBQ11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exactly. The prosecution certainly knew he had something.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
There are major evidentiary issues here, as well.

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.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

What do we know about Beamen?
Jack squat other than his name is on the video.
hbtheduce
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
VaultingChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
The Fife
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Checking in for the morning and we've got..... nothing. Why should I have expected anything else.
A is A
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
VaultingChemist said:

Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
who? what video?

I feel like I missed something
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

What do we know about Beamen?
Jack squat other than his name is on the video.
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?
hbtheduce
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A is A said:

VaultingChemist said:

Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
who? what 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.
wbt5845
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

What do we know about Beamen?
Jack squat other than his name is on the video.

He was quite the dupe in The Americans
VaultingChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A is A said:

VaultingChemist said:

Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
who? what video?

I feel like I missed something

The video showing the Khindri brothers at Car Source parking lot with Rittenhouse.
A is A
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
hbtheduce said:

A is A said:

VaultingChemist said:

Darthcrypto will be on Rekieta in 15 minutes to discuss his video.
who? what 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.
ah yes, saw this. thanks for the clarifications
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

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_member
from the article:

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.
Uh, OK.
So, as a long time observer of civil trials, you learn very quickly to avoid even a hint at discussion with jury members.

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.
OldArmyBrent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.