17 Nov 2021, 2:03 pm
17 Nov 2021, 2:11 pm
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
What do you think could be seen in the higher resolution that couldn’t be seen in the lower?
If you had been watching the trial, you would have seen the prosecution zooming in onr portions of the video and claiming it showed something - The higher resolution the source image, the easier it is to prove\disprove something (in this case whether Mr Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone immediately prior to being pursued by Mr Rosenbaum), whilst in a lower resolution version, the defence would lack the ability to defend against such a claim, lacking the same quality images to work with.
Elementary reasoning would question why the prosecution withheld the higher resolution video.
Obviously, they wanted to keep the advantage to themselves.
Muddy the waters or "blur" the picture, literally.
It isn't rocket surgery.
17 Nov 2021, 2:20 pm
Brictoria wrote:
For example, in the footage the defence had, the people in the area being focused on were around 10 pixels high - magnify that and you get little useful information. In the prosecution's version, on the other hand, they were around 40 pixels high, allowing a much better level of "detail", and the ability to zoom in to a much better degree while still being able to identify possible details. the defence team spent time analysing, magnifying, etc. the video and determined there was nothing there that was either supportive of their case, or which could "put a hole in it", and so were not able to prepare a defence against claims (true or not) which derived from what was contained in the higher resolution video.
Acts such as occurred here are what (in other cases) can cause innocent people to go to jail...
Consider it from an objective stance (ignoring the reason for the case\other facts - pick a hypothetical situation) - Do you believe that a person should be provided all available evidence to try and prove their innocence (at the risk of freeing a guilty person), or should evidence with the potential to prove innocence be able to be withheld (at the risk of jailing a innocent person)?
The prosecution (and defence) are not interested in the Truth.
Their goal is to win the case.
Simples.
Cynical Pepe has spoken.
17 Nov 2021, 2:27 pm
Matrix Glitch wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
ironpony wrote:
What evidence was withheld? I haven't watched all the long footage, if someone can tell me?
The specific video used to justify "provocation" instructions being provided to the jury for the charges was provided to the defence team in a much lower quality version than that which the prosecution team provided to the court and used as evidence, preventing the defence an opportunity to adequately examine it or dispute what it showed, with the "better" quality video provided to the defence team only after the presentation of evidence to the jury was over.
It's ever so much fun to watch you act like you know what you're talking about.
This practice is legal, common, and not "withholding evidence".
Withholding evidence would be if the defense didn't know the video existed at all, and the prosecutor never entered it in the first place. The fact that it was entered as evidence, and that a complete copy was provided to the defense, regardless of the quality, the evidence was clearly not "withheld", and was also properly disclosed, since the defense was both made aware of it, AND provided a copy of it.
Legally speaking, if you request a document, and you do not specify the manner in which it is delivered, I absolutely can reduce it's size and send it over email. If you are unsatisfied with the quality, and feel that it would benefit you to have better quality, then you have the right to ask if a better quality copy is available, at which point, it can and will be provided. If you do NOT ask, the other party is not obligated to provide it. Knowing how to competently phrase a request of document form is a skill in and of itself. If all you ask for is "copies of the files", I can make whatever crappy copies I want, as long as they're complete, accurate, and legible - even if they're of "lesser quality" than the originals. This is a common practice that happens all the time, and is quite legal.
At worst, this MIGHT be failure to disclose, but that's for the judge to decide, should the motion be made. The judge can just as fairly decide that the defense dropped the ball by failing to follow up if they felt that a higher quality video would have beneficial, but didn't bother to ask. The judge would likely want to know how the reduced quality objectively damaged their case, too.
Ps, It's "defense", not "defence". But I digress. I yield the floor to the "Leegul Ekspurt".
Cool story bro, but spoliation of evidence falls within withholding. Intentionally altering evidence like changing a high resolution image to a low resolution image is tampering.
So, the prosecution deliberately reduced the resolution and gave it to the defence?
They were probably trying to save bandwidth. <sarcasm>
You don't have to be Einstein's dog to understand why they did that. <woof>
17 Nov 2021, 2:36 pm
ironpony wrote:
I haven't seen a lot of closing arguments, but I find the prosecution's closing argument to terrible. They said to the jury that Rittenhouse should have taken the beating and just accepted it and not have been a coward and shoot to defend himself from the beating. They said everyone takes a beating every now and then and they should just accept it, and not use a gun to defend themselves. Really?
Agreed.
Stupid argument.
There was no guarantee that the victim would survive the attack.
Progressives have killed, or tried to kill, their opponents before.
Please don't make me hunt down references of this again.
ironpony wrote:
But I find this to be really problematic. I mean imagine, if a woman shot some guys to defend herself from being raped for example, and the prosecution put her on trial, and said she should have just taken the beating and everyone takes a beating every now and then. This type of thing should be allowed like that in closing arguments, and I wonder if the judge could have and should have shut them down at that point.
Powerful example.
But closed minds will simply dismiss it if it doesn't suit their narrative.
But ultimately, it doesn't boil down to the quality of the prosecution.
It is the "Politics" which is important here, in these sorts of situations.
17 Nov 2021, 2:39 pm
Brictoria wrote:
Those were certainly some of the low points of it... if there were any "domestic violence" victims in the jury, that comment about taking a beating would likely have caused the prosecution (and by extension, their case) to have lost credibility with them.
I particularly "enjoyed" the prosecution's assertion that Mr Rittenhouse didn't have anything to fear from Mr Grosskreutz, as Mr Rittenhouse had a bigger gun than him, so he was therefore not at risk of serious injury\death...
Remind me not to use these people if I am in need of defence.
17 Nov 2021, 2:40 pm
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
What do you think could be seen in the higher resolution that couldn’t be seen in the lower?
If you had been watching the trial, you would have seen the prosecution zooming in onr portions of the video and claiming it showed something - The higher resolution the source image, the easier it is to prove\disprove something (in this case whether Mr Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone immediately prior to being pursued by Mr Rosenbaum), whilst in a lower resolution version, the defence would lack the ability to defend against such a claim, lacking the same quality images to work with.
Elementary reasoning would question why the prosecution withheld the higher resolution video.
Obviously, they wanted to keep the advantage to themselves.
Muddy the waters or "blur" the picture, literally.
It isn't rocket surgery.
Actually, elementary reasoning suggests that if you have a choice between providing information to an opponent in a format that takes less time to use, versus a format that slows them down, give them the later because it will slow them down and absorb budget. It’s a common tactic, which is why the post I had quoted earlier rang true to me. I’ve been involved with providing information; there are numerous potential strategies to give someone everything yet discourage their eyes from seeing what you hope they won’t see.
If Brictoria is correct that this meant the defense had no chance of seeing something important, that is a serious problem. But if they were just trying to make the video less easy on the eyes and less comfortable to view, which is what I assumed, then it’s tactical.
Why two versions of the video seemed to have existed I don’t know.
17 Nov 2021, 2:47 pm
Pepe wrote:
The prosecution (and defence) are not interested in the Truth.
Their goal is to win the case.
Simples.
Cynical Pepe has spoken.
In an adversarial system, it is actually considered to be their duty to rigorously work their side of the argument, irregardless of the truth. No cynicism required.
17 Nov 2021, 2:58 pm
17 Nov 2021, 2:59 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
The prosecution (and defence) are not interested in the Truth.
Their goal is to win the case.
Simples.
Cynical Pepe has spoken.
In an adversarial system, it is actually considered to be their duty to rigorously work their side of the argument, irregardless of the truth. No cynicism required.
One word: Withholdingevidencethatmayexposethetruth.
Legal morality is very different to actual morality.
Ethics are optional, but rarely used.
Got it!
17 Nov 2021, 3:00 pm
Fnord wrote:
Has Mr. Rittenhouse been fitted for an orange jumpsuit/onesie yet?
Regardless of his guilt or innocence, I hope for your sake, he has been.
17 Nov 2021, 3:02 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
What do you think could be seen in the higher resolution that couldn’t be seen in the lower?
If you had been watching the trial, you would have seen the prosecution zooming in onr portions of the video and claiming it showed something - The higher resolution the source image, the easier it is to prove\disprove something (in this case whether Mr Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone immediately prior to being pursued by Mr Rosenbaum), whilst in a lower resolution version, the defence would lack the ability to defend against such a claim, lacking the same quality images to work with.
Elementary reasoning would question why the prosecution withheld the higher resolution video.
Obviously, they wanted to keep the advantage to themselves.
Muddy the waters or "blur" the picture, literally.
It isn't rocket surgery.
Actually, elementary reasoning suggests that if you have a choice between providing information to an opponent in a format that takes less time to use, versus a format that slows them down, give them the later because it will slow them down and absorb budget. It’s a common tactic, which is why the post I had quoted earlier rang true to me. I’ve been involved with providing information; there are numerous potential strategies to give someone everything yet discourage their eyes from seeing what you hope they won’t see.
If Brictoria is correct that this meant the defense had no chance of seeing something important, that is a serious problem. But if they were just trying to make the video less easy on the eyes and less comfortable to view, which is what I assumed, then it’s tactical.
Why two versions of the video seemed to have existed I don’t know.
*I* know.
17 Nov 2021, 3:21 pm
Fnord wrote:
Has Mr. Rittenhouse been fitted for an orange jumpsuit/onesie yet?
I would flee, and only come back if I was acquitted.
I think the odds are low, however,
Rittenhouse is nuts to risk be taken away and locked up immediately for the REST OF HIS LIFE.
17 Nov 2021, 3:34 pm
TheRobotLives wrote:
[...]
At least he gets his own toilet.
17 Nov 2021, 3:56 pm
TheRobotLives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Has Mr. Rittenhouse been fitted for an orange jumpsuit/onesie yet?
I would flee, and only come back if I was acquitted.
I think the odds are low, however,
Rittenhouse is nuts to risk be taken away and locked up immediately for the REST OF HIS LIFE.
Well from a self-development perspective he will be looking forward to lots of "me time" to contemplate why killing other young people when you are not supposed to own a gun or break curfew has consequences.
But "this is America" and I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up doing a Zimmerman
17 Nov 2021, 3:58 pm
Fnord wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
[...]
At least he gets his own toilet.And a wash basin! lucky Kyle.
