Well, so much for all the Internet, IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT - YOU GET A PARADE!. Historically, we have political prosecutions from left and right throughout the history of the USA. What else is new but that the world is corrupt.
Well, so much for all the Internet, IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT - YOU GET A PARADE!. Historically, we have political prosecutions from left and right throughout the history of the USA. What else is new but that the world is corrupt.
I envy you never having dealt with a committee.Originally Posted by Balisong
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
The guy who videoed the Rittenhouse mele along with a battle royale of podcasters. Tried to watch but went into sensory overload after about a half hour.
"You can't win a war with choirboys. " Mad Mike Hoare
At this point, I'm wondering who is more harmful for Kyle, the State or his defense team.
"And for a regular dude I’m maybe okay...but what I learned is if there’s a door, I’m going out it not in it"-Duke
"Just because a girl sleeps with her brother doesn't mean she's easy..."-Blues
So apparently the prosecutor is claiming the police air dropped the original video to him then emailed him the same video file as a back up. The prosecutor then emailed it to the defense. The prosecutor is claiming the “system” compressed the file when it was emailed to the defense.
However, the file names are different and the files were created 21 minutes apart which seems to counter indicate software autonomously compressing the video.
Welcome to the 21st century…
Last edited by HCM; 11-17-2021 at 04:16 PM.
Setting aside the merit or lack thereof of their case, the prosecutors have committed a series of unforced and frankly stupid errors that, if Rittenhouse is convicted, will make great fodder for appeal.
To a defense attorney, the State is always the bad guy. We’re always up to some sort of misconduct, the defense bar loves to drag us through the mud, and we’re regularly accused of discovery/Brady violations regardless of their merit. The easiest way to head that off is transparency. Open file discovery is a thing. Give them everything you’ve got (obviously excepting work product or putting things like child porn on your e-discovery system). Create a paper trail that shows who got what and when. When an officer pulls that body cam out the week before trial (the same one he’s insisted he couldn’t locate for the past eighteen months), call opposing counsel and be up front about it. It isn’t hard, and it avoids shit like this.
I know attorneys have a reputation for being lying and backstabbing scumbags, and for sure, plenty are. But it's really not something that, in my experience, seems to pay in the end. I've done my fair share of admitting to my employers, clients, opposing counsel, and judges when I screwed something up. I think it's always gone far better for me than trying to hide something would have. It beats being the guy who no one trusts or wants to work with.
And based on that, I'm not impressed with what I'm seeing in this trial, at least from where I'm standing.
The jury has gone home for the night.
We could isolate Russia totally from the world and maybe they could apply for membership after 2000 years.
iOS does interesting things with media files based on how you "send" them. Case in point, the images on your phone are stored on the device as HEIC. I think the Files app will preserve that format if you choose "share" and "save to files" from inside the Photos app. Meanwhile if you choose "copy" and then "paste" that image in the Files app it's converted to what you probably expect (JPEG). You won't notice it going from one iOS device to another because it doesn't show you the file extension. But if you connect the iOS device to a samba server you'll clearly see two different formats depending on how you copied it out of the camera roll / Photos app, to Files, and then ultimately to the external system. The original file and the converted (jpeg) file probably have a different timestamps, though I don't have a samba server handy right now to test against.
Saying all that to say this: there may be ill intent here, but the whole notion of "chain of custody" of digital information from the original source (drone) to the first responsible person (either the officer who air dropped it or the lawyer who received it, pick one) apparently has several gaps such that-- even in one of the most watched trials in country-- no one has so far noticed or cared about. Which is interesting to me. "He airdropped it to me" and then just whatever file some tech-illiterate noob was able to shake out of his iPhone or email is accepted by the defense?
