Once the judge releases the jurors, they're fair game. That is where I get my most valuable information from the jurors.

But before then, every word you said is 100% accurate. The most I've ever said to a juror is "excuse me" because opposing counsel and I literally had to get by.

The blond is back on Rekieta

wbt5845 said:

---

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

---

Wasn't that his brother, Stan?

How is all of this possible with no repercussions? WTF

So, let's run through the sequence of events related to the drone video, as we believe they occured.

1) The prosecution gets the drone video somehow. They talk to Mr. Beaman. Somehow, his name gets put on the witness list. They probably got in touch with Beaman after talking to Tucker.
2) It doesn't appear that they are going to call Mr. Beaman at trial.
3) Prosecution gets their ass handed to them the first week of trial. They are going to lose.
4) They change courses, and go with a "provocation" angle to save their case.
5) To show provocation, they decide to include the drone video
6) The drone video in high definition is just bad optics. Kyle is running away. The thrown bag is clear.
7) Defense already has a low-res version of the video through Tucker, but it's not in color.
8) State takes the hi-res video, crops out part, compresses to low res, and gives it to the defense
9) State uses the hi-res video to make the still photo "showing" provocation
10) State enters the video into evidence without ever setting a foundation, even though they have the person who took the video on their witness list.
11) State steps on their own dick after evidence is closed saying "our copy is better". Wisco "You didn't give it to us!" Wisco deserves a promotion
12) State claims they got the high-res version from some unknown detective, lying to the court as to the video's source
13) State lies to the court that the compression must have happened on Wisco's phone, even though phones won't crop videos.
14) State doesn't want the jury to review the high-res video during deliberations, because it makes Kyle look bad.

Also, no one knows why Beaman is there videoing anyways. Maybe something untoward? Don't know.

This is pretty, pretty ugly.

Been really stuck on how the drone video was framed up perfectly for the the shooting. Was talking with some buddies last night about this over a beer and one came up with the idea that the drone pilot Beamon was coordinating with the Ziminskis and possibly Ronsenbaum.

That they all were in it together and thought they'd be able to get Kyle getting jumped footage.

Good Poster said:

---

How is all of this possible with no repercussions? WTF

---

Remember that Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor) got a single day in jail...

BusterAg said:

---

So, let's run through the sequence of events related to the drone video, as we believe they occured.

1) The defense gets the drone video somehow. They talk to Mr. Beaman. Somehow, his name gets put on the witness list. They probably got in touch with Beaman after talking to Tucker.
2) It doesn't appear that they are going to call Mr. Beaman at trial.
3) Prosecution gets their ass handed to them the first week of trial. They are going to lose.
4) They change courses, and go with a "provocation" angle to save their case.
5) To show provocation, they decide to include the drone video
6) The drone video in high definition is just bad optics. Kyle is running away. The thrown bag is clear.
7) Defense already has a low-res version of the video through Tucker, but it's not in color.
8) State takes the hi-res video, crops out part, compresses to low res, and gives it to the defense
9) State uses the hi-res video to make the still photo "showing" provocation
10) State enters the video into evidence without ever setting a foundation, even though they have the person who took the video on their witness list.
11) State steps on their own dick after evidence is closed saying "our copy is better". Wisco "You didn't give it to us!" Wisco deserves a promotion
12) State claims they got the high-res version from some unknown detective, lying to the court as to the video's source
13) State lies to the court that the compression must have happened on Wisco's phone, even though phones won't crop videos.
14) State doesn't want the jury to review the high-res video during deliberations, because it makes Kyle look bad.

Also, no one knows why Beaman is there videoing anyways. Maybe something untoward? Don't know.

This is pretty, pretty ugly.

---

In point 1 do you mean prosecution?

yep, fixed

Let's add one more:

Add that to the list:

1) 5th amendment problems during Kyle's cross
2) 5th amendment problems about Mr. Z during prosecutions close (maybe?)
3) Prosecution knew the identity of jump-kick man and hid it. (Possible)
4) State enters their key piece of evidence into the trial without setting a foundation, even though they had the source of the evidence on their witness list.
5) Blatant Brady violation on that same key piece of evidence, not providing a copy to the defense
6) Manipulation of key piece of evidence, degrading quality and cropping out muzzle-flash (unproven)
7) Allowing Jury to take home charge (and possibly notes)
8) Subornation of perjury regarding the Khindri bros

This trial just stretches on now with only new ridiculousness occurring.

I mean yesterday our happenings were MSNBC stalking the jury and being banned. Then we get a 4 o'clock end allowing the jury to take home their notes and jury instructions/charges.

Am I missing anything there because to me that seems like 100% craziness with nothing else happening for a whole day

kingj3 said:

---

The blond is back on Rekieta

---

Is it just me or does the blond chick look like the Dunkin Donuts Rapunzel?

swampstander said:

---

kingj3 said:

---

The blond is back on Rekieta

---

Is it just me or does the blond chick look like the Dunkin Donuts Rapunzel?

---

that was a good commercial, enjoyed it


Now, some useful content, Rekieta has an unconfirmed report that the State has filed responses to the defense motions for mistrial

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Once the judge releases the jurors, they're fair game. That is where I get my most valuable information from the jurors.

But before then, every word you said is 100% accurate. The most I've ever said to a juror is "excuse me" because opposing counsel and I literally had to get by.

---

That might be true from a legal point of view.

I can tell you that I have had a Marshal come up to me after a trial was over and tell me not to approach the jurors, even after the trial. It might not be illegal, but it might make it hard for me to ever be an observer in his court in the future.

I knew the Marshal pretty well. I took his advice.

Will we get a hung jury today?

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Will we get a hung jury today?

---

I'm in favor of it.

I'm still going w/ Brandon Beaman and Urban Aired is a FBI front. Ziminski's on the payroll.

kingj3 said:

---

swampstander said:

---

kingj3 said:

---

The blond is back on Rekieta

---

Is it just me or does the blond chick look like the Dunkin Donuts Rapunzel?

---

that was a good commercial, enjoyed it


Now, some useful content, Rekieta has an unconfirmed report that the State has filed responses to the defense motions for mistrial

---

Its listed on the wicourts docket website.....no uploaded copy though


11-18-2021
Response/reply




Additional text:ST Response to Motions for Mistrial

11-18-2021
Response/reply




Additional text:State's Response to Defendant's Motion for Mistrial

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

OG UNF said:

---

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

---

bailiff collects all notes before jurors leave.

OG UNF said:

---

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

---

You don't take home your notes either, the whole point is that this a group decision, not an individual one.

OG UNF said:

---

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

---

Jurors on both sides of this are likely surfing the web at home because it would be too obvious in the jury room.

Nonregdrummer09 said:

---

OG UNF said:

---

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

---

You don't take home your notes either, the whole point is that this a group decision, not an individual one.

---

yep

BusterAg said:

---

So, let's run through the sequence of events related to the drone video, as we believe they occured.

1) The defense gets the drone video somehow. They talk to Mr. Beaman. Somehow, his name gets put on the witness list. They probably got in touch with Beaman after talking to Tucker.
2) It doesn't appear that they are going to call Mr. Beaman at trial.
3) Prosecution gets their ass handed to them the first week of trial. They are going to lose.
4) They change courses, and go with a "provocation" angle to save their case.
5) To show provocation, they decide to include the drone video
6) The drone video in high definition is just bad optics. Kyle is running away. The thrown bag is clear.
7) Defense already has a low-res version of the video through Tucker, but it's not in color.
8) State takes the hi-res video, crops out part, compresses to low res, and gives it to the defense
9) State uses the hi-res video to make the still photo "showing" provocation
10) State enters the video into evidence without ever setting a foundation, even though they have the person who took the video on their witness list.
11) State steps on their own dick after evidence is closed saying "our copy is better". Wisco "You didn't give it to us!" Wisco deserves a promotion
12) State claims they got the high-res version from some unknown detective, lying to the court as to the video's source
13) State lies to the court that the compression must have happened on Wisco's phone, even though phones won't crop videos.
14) State doesn't want the jury to review the high-res video during deliberations, because it makes Kyle look bad.

Also, no one knows why Beaman is there videoing anyways. Maybe something untoward? Don't know.

This is pretty, pretty ugly.

---

My summary:

1) Previous attorney for Kyle goes on Tucker. Its unknown if he brought footage. It is known that Fox bought the footage from Beaman
2) Counsel fired by Kyle
3) New counsel tries to track down Beaman and his (now defunct) company. Has no luck. New lawyers don't have source material. Speculation - This was a public front to a government operation to film unrest
4) Before trial, prosecution locations Beaman and he provides his footage to the state.
5) 21 minutes later a low resolution and cropped copy of the footage is created
6) Beaman included on state witness list
7) State claims to the court that the received anonymous drone footage through airdrop. Claims they don't know the source.
8) State provides low resolution video to defense, rather than high definition version
9) State uses video analyst as "foundational witness" for the evidence to introduce provocation angle to defeat self-defense
10) State introduces the HD version and still shots to "prove" their angle on provocation. Goes objected because what defense has seen, this video is completely useless.
11) After evidence is closed, defense has their version on the screen and fatlock says "our version is much clearer"
12) Defense now sees the dirty trick, hanging their ENTIRE case on slamming through this evidence that relied on lies to the court and defendant.
13) Defense slams state on them providing the wrong information and don't want the jury to see this tainted and improper evidence. Ask for mistrial
14) Judge is hoping the jury bails him out and delivers the obvious and correct verdict. Not looking good for him.

Because he defended himself?

Interesting you never call out the rioters. You are sympathetic to them but not to KR. Wonder why?

And please tell me why you think he is guiltier than guilty? If that's the case why hasn't the jury come back?

aggielatoo said:

---

Good Poster said:

---

NOT GUILTY

---

Guiltier than guilty. A scum bag.

---

You don't think people have a right to self defense?

OG UNF said:

---

I get don't want her looking stuff up and that's why you wouldn't want her taking home the instructions, but what would stop her from just writing down notes on what she wanted to lookup anyway after 3 days of this? Doesn't judge kind of have to rely on her integrity in either situation?

---

Jurors are not allowed to take their notes home. Those are locked up in the jury room. And yesterday, Judge Schroeder reminded them they could not take their notes home after he had given assent to taking the jury instructions home, there could always be annotations or notes on the jury instructions too.

Very stupid of the judge all of the way around.

On what evidence do you base this?

Scummy person =/= guilty person