Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[the Schwartz]

Another question for the legal eagles- is this what 'pound the table a lot' looks like?

Yes, see also "desperation".

[Artemas2]

Just in case there are some here (or some who drive by as guests) who don't know...
consider the following example:
a) a square image consisting of 9000 x 9000 pixels
b) a device screen of 1024 x 768 pixels (very common for computer screens from a couple years ago, and even to now.)

"Zooming" on an image on an electronic device can take on a couple aspects.
1) if you're viewing the entirety of the aforementioned image on the aforementioned screen, you are NOT seeing all the pixels. Given the lack of resolution you're only seeing roughly 1/9th of the actual image information.
2) if you "zoom" in on the image, such that you're only seeing the portion of the image as defined by the screen's resolution, you're seeing ALL of the image information in that one segment.
3) if you "zoom" in farther such that the actual raw pixel count is less than the screen's resolution, you will have a blocky image (thinking original Asteroids game). you *can*, through some fancy mathematics, ALTER the image such that it is no longer blocky. notice the word ALTER. you have CHANGED the image, by introducing new information that did not exist before. how much the new information alters the original image and its interpretation is the gray area the attorneys are arguing.

That CSI tv show "trick" of zooming in and enhancing a license plate to be able to clearly read it, is almost entirely bullshit unless the image has way more information than is currently shown on the screen.

here's a quick visual of what huf is describing.

This is just the magnification aspect of it, that are also other hardware considerations that can also come into play. Heck the original recording device and upload can distort perspectives.

original


500% magnification


800%


3200%

[wvincent]

here's a quick visual of what huf is describing

original


500% magnification


800%


3200%

You forgot to say "Enhance".

[Caballoflaco]

To take this thread momentarily back in time, I’ll note that on another (non firearms) forum I saw a comment made today by a pretty far left dude who said: “that prosecutor has probably had that same haircut since high school.”

I’d also be curious to hear @vcdgrips opinion about said prosecutors sartorial decisions for the day. At least to me his bright red striped tie and bright red pocket square match perfectly the clown shoes he decided to put on before he showed up in court, but that could be me looking through biased lenses.

I apologize if some folks find this too far off topic, but having thankfully no personal experiences in court the “personal presentation” is interesting to me since we do judge books by their cover to some extent.

[blues]

To take this thread momentarily back in time, I’ll note that on another (non firearms) forum I saw a comment made today by a pretty far left dude who said: “that prosecutor has probably had that same haircut since high school.”

I’d also be curious to hear @vcdgrips opinion about said prosecutors sartorial decisions for the day. At least to me his bright red striped tie and bright red pocket square match perfectly the clown shoes he decided to put on before he showed up in court, but that could be me looking through biased lenses.

I apologize if some folks find this too far off topic, but having thankfully no personal experiences in court the “personal presentation” is interesting to me since we do judge books by their cover to some extent.

I concur with the wardrobe advice given by vcdgrips, (even if I didn't always adhere as case agent or witness), but that said, at the end of the day, it's supposed to be about facts and evidence.

This prosecutor is trying to lead a horse to water in terms of both the defendant and the jury...but I don't think he's going to be particularly successful in making them drink.

The level of speculation called for, in order to bridge the gap between the evidence and his "theory", is a bridge too far imho.

He can hammer his points from fifty different angles but in each case it amounts to the same thing. Badgering the witness, asking the same questions over and over, (which have been asked and answered), and hoping that he will wear down the defendant and the jury with his "brilliant" deductions from the images and videos he produces.

The defense is giving him a lot of room with this and I expect them to hammer him on redirect.

[vcdgrips]

C
Relative to what he has been doing, an improvement.
Still a no go if I was his supervisor.


I would not wear that tie in front of a jury. It screams ice cream stand or barber shop to me, particularly in the fall in WI

My pocket square would be white, cotton and pressed. I like ties for jury trials that have a bit of texture but are not loud in any way.






I note that his “bold” stripped tie pattern resolves for the camera much better than the tone on tone of mine.

FWIW/YMMV

[TGS]

That's a nice tie, @vcdgrips.

Where can I get one?

[Elwin]

The defense is giving him a lot of room with this and I expect them to hammer him on redirect.

I am not, by any means whatsoever, an experienced trial attorney, but one thing I have learned is that "give someone enough rope..." is absolutely a thing. Especially if the judge is already not a fan of their approach or conduct so far.

I'm also not VCD, but as for sartorial issues, Binger needs a suit that's actually seen some minimal tailoring after he bought it and some ties and pocket squares that don't look like they were a $15 package deal at JC Penny five years ago. VCD's earlier analysis was also correct. I don't personally follow the white/blue shirts only rule, but I'm also practicing mostly family law as far as court appearances go; the judges are happy with us if we just manage to show up on time and prepared to talk about the correct case.

Edit - posted this after VCD's response but yeah, that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It was found that the perception of the image depended on resolution and size of the squares. See: https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC4982319

The original work was called the Abraham Lincoln effect where a picture of Lincoln was sample at different block sizes. You come up with block sizes that close up would obscure Lincoln but if you saw the picture at a farther distance, the high spatial frequency components of the edges which suppressed recognition was below your constrast sensitivity function (do you really want to know - http://6.869.csail.mit.edu/fa15/lect...1-students.pdf , see slide about 48 for Lincoln). Relevant to some applications, videos of witnesses were pixelated and guess what, if you looked at the TV from a distance, you could recognize the person! Happened on some CourtTV and COPS shows, IIRC.

I used teach a segment in Visual Perception using a spatial vision demo program that would filter and block images. Also, irrelevant, the person at Bell Labs who developed the Lincoln pictures for the big wig scientists was a friend of mine years ago.

[FrankB]

Reading the comments on another site, I learned that in the days before his shooting, Rittenhouse was captured on audio saying essentially "he wished he had his AR, he'd start shooting right now" as he watched looters leave a drug store. The judge did not allow the DA to introduce it at trial: https://www.jsonline.com/videos/news...ar/8188781002/

The judge addressed that by saying, Kyle didn’t have a rifle at the time, and his musing were irrelevant.