Kyle Rittenhouse video and audio analysis clearly shows...

Eddie Scarry, the right wing D.C. polemicist who authored this piece, is also author of Privileged Victims: How America's Culture Fascists Hijacked the Country and Elevated Its Worst People." The casual reader going by the title might suppose it was about the January 6 attack on U.S. democracy by deranged Trumpsters, but instead it is about the Left, of course. Is he trustworthy? Does he have a gift for hyperbole? The same Eddie Scarry , as reporter for the gossip blog FishbowlDC became notorious for his surreptitious shots of women's butts at a Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner Party that he crashed, homophobic stories on gays and lesbians, and his celebrated photo and comments on AOC. Eddie Scarry: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
In other words, he's a sophomoric rightwing propagandist. Nothing in his background would suggest that he's an expert on American jurisprudence.

Of course, the prosecution must prove its overall case to the trier of fact "beyond a reasonable doubt". That doesn't mean certainty or beyond a "shadow of a doubt", as is often said. Reasonable doubt is defined as :"not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty"reasonable doubt --i.e., the prosecution's case for guilt must be so clear that it would be accepted as fact by any rational person. But the reasonable doubt standard just applies to the prosecutor's overall burden, not to every stage of a criminal prosecution. If the defense lawyer objects to a particular argument or piece of evidence, (s)he must show that it should be excluded from the trial; and in deciding that, the judge uses the less demanding "preponderance of the evidence' (more likely than not) test used in civil trials. Ryan Balch, eh.? Wasn't that the fellow vigilante who was on patrol with Rittenhouse? The fact that the prosecution called him as a witness doesn't mean everything he says must be accepted as factual. Yes, he testified Rosenbaum, one of the victims, had threatened Rittehhouse earlier. Whether or not the juror finds that credible and determinitive is another story. The best time to decide if the prosecutor has met its burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is after (s)he rests its case. Then it's up to the jury, instructed by the judge, to make that determination. Wait and see.

 

The facts keep on coming...

CASED CLOSED: Kyle Rittenhouse Attacker Admits Kyle Didn't Shoot Until Gun Was Pointed At Him [WATCH]

 

All of this was clear as day to anyone who paid careful attention to all the video evidence.

 

Not necessarily.
The case involving two dead victims and one wounded one is by no means "closed" because the wounded survivor admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. No evidence that the deceased were armed.

 

According to testimony the first man shot said fuck you and lunged to grab KR's firearm. The second is shown clearly on video trying to smash KR"s head in.
You don't need to be armed to be killed by someone defending their life.

 

6 charges now...
And new video backing up KR's version....

Judge Drops Curfew Charge for Rittenhouse as State Rests Case

 

The prosecution asked a witness to change his testimony...

Log into Facebook

 

The defense put Rittenhouse on the stand. Very risky, but so far a good move. Rittenhouse is an outstanding witness, very articulate. I found him credible. And at this point, his emotional breakdown on the stand is sure to elicit some jury sympathy. He's presenting an account of a guy with nursing,firefighting and lifeguard training going there to help, being attacked, and killing in reasonable belief that his life was being threatened. Let's see how he does on cross.

Uh,oh. Cross isn't going well for prosecution. The judge is scolding the prosecution's lawyer in open court and the defense threatening to ask for a mistrial if he doesn't shape up! The defense has entered a motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning that if the motion were granted, the case could never be re-tried! The complaints are: the prosecutor seemed to be trying to introduce propensity evidence, by getting to statements Rittenhouse made in the past suggesting a vigilante attitude; and commenting on Rittenhouse's post-arrest silence--a violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

And the prosecution slogs on, frame by frame, trying to get Rittenhouse to admit that at such and such a point he really intended to kill the deceased. And Rittenhouse remained calm and stuck to his defense. Then the prosecution rested its case. At this point, I'd be inclined to say: case closed! But it ain't over till it's over! After 5 1/2 days of over 20 prosecution witnesses, some inadvertently supporting the defense, we now get to hear from the defense.

 

I still say that ANYONE---ANYONE seen with guns at rallies, parades, demonstrations---what the fuck ever---- should be immediately arrested. That includes Rittenhouse.

 

The rifle that he had was brought illegally. He was a minor and by law could not own or use such a weapon. Or even have it in his control without a legal of age adult to supervise him. Which he clearly did not have at that time. Since the firearm crossed state lines by a minor it now becomes a federal violation. His mother drove him across state lines with a illegal firearm. And in doing so broke the law. And again because it is transporting a illegal firearm nterstate it is a federal crime. The question could be asked. Was it with intent to do so with criminal activity in mind ? The answer seems to be a clear yes.

 

Seems to us. But he's got "reasonable doubt", his age, and a doe-eyed baby face on his side. He'll be able to put on his "Free as fuck!" T-shirt again, and enjoy his celebrity status as darling of the Proud Boys! And if he was faking his tearful emotional breakdown during testimony, he should also get "Best Actor" at the Academy Awards!