Rittenhouse trial: Media lies and drone video dirty tricks
This is our first video on this but uh yesterday, what a day in uh in the trial we had the second day of jury deliberations. We have no verdict were expecting a verdict, but uh. So far we dont know whats going on. Obviously, people are concerned because the the general thinking is – and you can weigh in on this – is that the longer it takes for a verdict, the worse it is for uh kyle. Usually, if the verdict was quick, it would mean that it would be a sure acquittal on all counts, but well see we dont know we cant predict anything and we have to see and wait and well see what happens. We havent we had a second mistrial um motion from the defense theyve. The first mistrial, i believe, was with prejudice and the second mistrial that they put forth was of mistrial without prejudice. You may want to get into the differences there, but, finally, just to give you the reasons why they called for a mistrial and why everything was crazy. Yesterday, it really had to do with the drone footage uh. The drone footage of the incident which um at first during the trial, was a low quality, drone footage, video and then the prosecutors came out with a high quality high definition, drone footage and uh. The defense didnt have time to uh prepare properly to answer some of the questions that came out of that uh. That high quality drone footage that the jury also wanted to review.
Over and over again, the jury requested to see that video, as they were deliberating, which is also youll, talk about that as well. But the technology part of this, which ill weigh into right now, is that the prosecutor, james krauss, obtained this uh. This high definition drone footage as the trial was going on, it was passed down to ridden house attorney natalie wisco. Now. What we found out yesterday is that when wisco got her copy of the video, the file was compressed. She kept on saying miller, milliliters or millibytes. Megabytes is what she meant. She was explaining herself, but um. I forgot the exact number say that krauses file was a hundred megabytes and wisco said well. Ours that we got from them was only 20 megabytes. Then kraus gave this long, winded explanation that well you know i got it and it was from an iphone airdropped to an android and theres this compression that happens and thats why your file was uh was compressed well natalie wisco and the judge uh. Let natalie wisco explain how she obtained the video footage. She said. Yes, it was compressed, but your honor, when you look at the names of the files, theyre different, i.e, krauses file name, was one two three four once again im just making something. I forgot the name. One two three four, my file that he passed out to me was xyz. So how did that happen? Did he change the name of the file? Is it indeed the same file? Did he change the name of the file? Kraus didnt have an answer for that, and then wisco also mentioned that the metadata was different.
She mentioned that krauses file had a metadata with a certain date. Her file had metadata with a date that was 20 minutes past the date of krauses file, so one is led to believe that krause made a copy of this uh, this video 20 minutes after the fact, and that this is not the original video. Finally, when we saw krauses computer, it was pointed out by many youtube viewers that his computer had a program called handbrake. Handbrake is, i know handbrake i use handbrake. Handbrake is used to compress files to change the codecs to change uh file, extensions and videos, so its used basically to manipulate videos and krause is saying this was done from my phone and it was a simple airdrop that doesnt seem to be the case. I mean when you look at all the the technical sides of this um. My expert opinion on this is that krause is lying when you, when you compress files, when you send files the name, doesnt change, unless you change it, you ch the center, actually changes unless the sender manipulates it. The fact that the metadata is different as well. This is uh. This is bad news for the prosecution. Anyway, i wanted to give the technical absolutely context to this. The rest is, is yours and thats thats, where we are yeah thats right i mean indeed i mean it. Doesnt look good i mean. Can i just say theres been this problem has been riddled with this trial has been riddled with problems.
I mean there have been times when uh the prosecution was struggling with some legal issues. They brought a claim on firearms uh on firearms issues, which is which the judge has already thrown out and theres been serious problems with much of the witness evidence which is doesnt seem to have been as the prosecution expected, but we now have on top of all Of that, the fact that this information, this very important information which the prosecution is relying upon, was sprung upon the court and the defense at literally the last moment in the cave in the trial it. There was no opportunity, therefore, given to the defense, to examine and to work on this evidence properly and the prosecution at the same time as well as springing. This evidence at the last moment also arranged for the defense to be given a shall we say, less well a a a compressed, a and almost unusable version of this evidence, which made it much more difficult for them to compet to prepare a response. Now i have to say that looks like the kind of trick that you read about in perry, mason novels, not in real proceedings. It looks extremely shabby and it looks to me like a prosecution pulling out tricks. You know coming out from a sort of frankly um sleazy bag of tricks in order to get what what they want in, which is obviously a conviction, and this has happened in the same context that weve had this blaze of media publicity about the case.
This heavy pressure on the jury, who were not sequestered that i find, is remarkable by the way so theyre well aware of whats being said all around them, and i, i have to say im not surprised that the defense has sought uh to have the case dismissed A mistrial without prejudice, as i understand it, would mean that the trial that um, if, if the judge, were to accept that that could not, he could not be tried again, he would walk free because the whole case would have effectively collapsed. A mistrial just a simple mistrial might leave open the opportunity for another uh trial, further down the road, so it would mean starting again but presumably and hopefully in a rather more orderly form than the one we have at the moment. I i would say that even as things stand, i would have thought that if there was a conviction, then there would probably be a um an appeal and that there are now many appeal points, including appeal points about this evidence and whether this evidence was admissible or Not, but we will see whether whether that happens, i by the way would not be so quick to say that, simply because the jury are taking a long time, that means necessarily that theyre going to find for a guilty verdict. In my experience, what it often shows is that theres been dissent and argument on the part of the jury and it points more to a split jury than anything else.
But you know well just have to see how things turn out. He uh. It looks like the the prosecution uh tampered with with evidence, true. Well, what theyve done is theyve produced, incomplete evidence and done so knowingly. Now you know absolutely you can call now i mean that that is to be straightforward to bragging. That is extremely bad. I mean thats not what should happen in the course of a trial, its its, as i said its to say that its sleazy is to use extremely measured language im using very magic, measured language um taken to an extreme, and the judge has hinted at this. Its its downright contemptuous and when im talking about contemptuous, i mean contempt towards the court and towards the judge i mean the the prosecution has at various points. Over the course of the trial, i mean appeared to override the judges own uh rulings about admissibility. What it shows and again, im using very careful language is a very ruthless approach to the conduct of this case by the prosecution one which shows, shall we say, a reckless attitude towards court protocols and towards concept of fair trials. Well see what happens. As i said. If theres a conviction, i would have thought that there would be multiple grounds for appeal. Does it worry you that the uh that theyre deliberating for for so long or no, as i said it, doesnt this? He doesnt necessarily, as i said what he does point, and i i always expected this – that there would be given the context in which this trial is being conducted.
It seems to me that it what it points to more than anything else is disagreements within the jury group, but you know which direction do you think usually yeah thats? What do you think usually whats the case that is impossible to say i mean that is absolutely impossible to say i mean i, i dont think what you can say. If you had to guess you get better man, just right, yeah, just take a guess, uneducated guess what do you think exactly both sides? Ive heard? Yes, yes, you know 10 3 in one direction, ten three in the other. I know the directions. Im, not sure. The number right i mean i, i am going to guess that its probably ten three four conviction rather than acquittal at the moment, but you know if three jurors stand their ground on the basis of what theyve seen in court, then im not sure that this could This case, could i dont know. I dont know that the judge can accept a majority verdict in a case like this, i would, i would guess not, in which case the whole thing would collapse and wed have to start again. I i am absolutely incredulous that this jury was not sequestered over the course of this trial. I know many lawyers are unhappy about it and alan dershowitz has come out and commented about the fact that it was extraordinary that the jury were not sequestered yeah. I dont know if its uh anyway were just using the number ten three.
But you would. You would say that a majority of the jurors actually now buy into the fact that this wasnt self defense thats thats, astonishing to everything that we saw, which would lead me to believe that the media has the media, the threats, the protesting outside the courthouse. All of this stuff has played the the biggest role in all of this right right now i want to get against stress. This is a guess and i might be completely wrong. I mean i wouldnt put too much weight in it, but the reason why i would guess in that direction is obviously weve had a trial, which is a relatively short affair, but weve had a massive lead up to that trial with some very very shall we say, Um on objective and very strong coverage in the media on television in newspapers, on social media, all sorts of calls all sorts of claims, all sorts of things like that now, in my experience, it would be very difficult to get a jury simply to put all that Aside over the course of a trial, and also especially so if theyve not been sequestered, which, as i said, seems to me extraordinary, uh and very remarkable, maybe its not the law in wisconsin, but all i would say is i think, if its not, it should be. So, given that, i would have thought that its more likely than not that when the trial began some of the jurors, probably a majority of the jurors, went into the trial with their opinions about the case largely formed, then the trial would have taken place.
They would have heard evidence and its more likely than not this is these are guesses that some of the jurors see what happened over the course of the courtroom. Of course of the hearing would have gradually peeled away, but its likely or so i think that a majority of the jurors at the moment would still be wedded to their earlier previously formed previously established opinions. Whats, probably then happening – and this is very typical of juries – is that theres a bit big argument with some of the jurors, probably the jurors, who now lean. If my scenario is the right one towards acquittal, trying to point out and explain why and meeting some resistance and incredulity on the part of some of the other jurors, and sometimes what happens is either the jury simply cant decide or gradually some of some of the Jurors, the more reasonable ones are won over, so its difficult to say what the dynamics would be. But i im going to make one observation. I never thought that the jury would make its decision quickly because of the overall context in which this case took place, and it could be totally in the other direction too, and it could be so hard and – and it could be totally in the other direction. I mean what im what im saying, as i said its purely a guess, i i i and i dont want. I mean i dont, want anybody running away and saying that this is my opinion of whats happened its its just.
What i think is more likely than not, but you know i i wouldnt i wouldnt put money on it one way or the other its never easy to try and guess what jurors think yeah uh the judge. You think the judge understands that that this was self defense. I mean it seems to me the judge understands that any normal thinking human being understands this with self defense, given everything weve seen. But do you think the judge wants this to either be a mistrial um or he wants the acquittal and if there is a guilty hes going to probably move this towards a mistrial i mean, i think my question is: do you think the judge wants justice to Be done, i think i think the judge is utterly exasperated and antagonistic and has become increasingly antagonistic over the course of the case to the prosecution. I think hes very upset by the kind of media coverage. I think hes very upset by the way in which the case was conducted overall, and i i think that the indications are the strong indications are that hes heading in that direction. So we will see what he does, even if the worst outcome happens for ridden house. It seems like he has a strong, very strong, uh appeal. I would have thought so. You know i mean i would have thought so i would have thought so purely based on the evidence before the court. Now again, i have to be very careful because, obviously my knowledge is about the legal process in britain and you know im not familiar with wisconsin procedures and wisconsin law.
But i would have thought that there would be a good argument for saying that the decision, if it ended in a conviction, was so obviously contrary to the weight of the to the weight of the evidence. I mean the prosecutions own evidence and that there was so many problems with the way in which the prosecution presented evidence to the court which, as i said, was at times borderline contemptuous. That i i think you could argue that the trial itself that there were real problems about the fairness of the trial, so i i think at that point you know in on an on appeal. There would be a real prospect of the decision being overturned, but well just have to see what happens and, as i said wisconsin i mean there are the internal politics of wisconsin itself and how courts function within wisconsin, and i presume that any appeal process would be Within wisconsin and under wisconsin laws rather than at federal levels, so you know i i think the probably would at some point be an appeal to the federal courts, but i think would be a long way from that point. Uh initially at least so, you know, lets wait and see, but i certainly think there would be an appeal process if there was a conviction yeah do you think the media has already won the riots that theyre look theyre? Definitely looking for riots, they want riots. You think theyre going to get the riots that theyre pushing for you think that theyve won in the narrative that this is somehow related to race, which it just it makes zero sense, but you know hey, they did it.
They managed to get to convince people. This is about race that hes, a white uh supremacist. I mean theyve theyve succeeded in that, but i mean yeah. What do you think about that? Because no matter what happens now going forward, it seems like the media, theyve uh theyre, going to get what they want. The media the media coverage has been has been appalling and that isnt just my view, its the judges view too. So i mean i, i think, that the media have to extraordinary degree misframed. This story, this this case and thats, had a a very, very great and very damaging effect and im going to say on purpose. Can i just say whatever happens, i think theyve achieved their objective, because, if hes convicted, they will say well, they were convicted. He was convicted because he was all the terrible things we said he was and if hes acquitted, they will frame that again as part of the narrative, they will say that his part of the bias of a judicial system, which is riddled with all the prejudices that, On the line underpin the whole, the whole uh um law enforcement system in the united states, so i think the the the media have successfully framed this story and um whatever the outcome is, i think theyve achieved their purpose but of course, the effect of what theyve Done quite apart from the effect it might have on the outcome of the trial itself, but the effect of what theyve done is, in my opinion, theyve undermined the legal system of the united states and theyve intensified partisan feeling in the united states.
Because what theyve achieved is to make people on either side of the political divide over this case feel even more entrenched and embedded in their views than they would have been otherwise. So, instead of having the trial a trial operate as a healing process in which the evidence is presented, the jury reaches a decision. People are able thereby to come away and feel that the correct decision was reached. Whatever happens now, each side of the political divide will take what they want from this case and that will intensify and fuel partisan feeling even further. That undermines the judicial system of the united states and its authority. It undermines political stability of the united states and it also undermines trust in the media itself, but at the moment they dont seem to care much about that thats. Their goal undermine the second amendment. Undermine the constitution, undermine uh the legal system create division. I think that was their overarching goal to all of this and uh theyve theyve accomplished it. The misinformation was extra ordinary, coming out of the media thats extraordinary misinformation, i dont see them getting de platformed or canceled. No, nothing or anything like that. Even though i mean their lies were just beyond the pale, but they do this over and over and over and over again. Well absolutely can i just say i mean you know i was. I was reading yesterday a rather interesting article. I mean i thought interesting. Article uh about russia gate and the new york times of all places and about the steele dossier, and you know trying to edge away.
You know got a few things wrong and that sort of thing, but no contrition, no acceptance that the entire narrative that they framed was uh wrong or their responsibility for framing their narrative in that kind of way, because to be straightforward about it, their attitude has become Increasingly reckless uh with respect to reporting the news objectively thats, no longer what theyre about anymore, so um theyve done theyve, they did it before and they get theyve done it again with with, in this case and theyre, going to do it again in future and theyre Going to do it more because they have now become essentially part of the parties and divide themselves, which is, as i said, undermining trust because people, the people of the united states, look at the institutions of the united states and the media is an institution of the United states, it has protections granted to it by the first amendment and they no longer trust those institutions, yeah and theyre, protected by big tech. So they dont really care what what the people, who think, of course they do. They know that will protect them, so they can push out and distribute any lies and suppress anybody who who contradicts them as its shown as its shown that is prepared to do or or and will suppress any story that contradicts the media narrative as it did well With a certain persons laptop, for example, thats, why? When, when you get more and more news news stories like this, that the media is just more and more emboldened, i mean worse and worse, bigger and bigger, because theyre its not accountable to anybody anymore.
Well, exactly and exactly except of course, as i said, that people become increasingly alienated and trust declines and, of course you then get all sorts of concerned articles from all the usual suspects about the way in which trust is declining. And why is this so, and why does why dont people believe us anymore well its because of what they do yeah do you think were going to get a verdict quickly? Do you think were going to get a verdict soon? I think we will get a verdict soon. I dont think this will run and run if it does. I presume that the judge will intervene and hell call in the jury and ask for some explanation of why its taking so long so i i i would have thought we will get a verdict soon. All right, i better get this video up all right guys at the red.locals.com and go to the rat shop 10 off use the code. Real news rumble shoot super you and odyssey. Youll find our videos there as well.