Image 01 Image 03

Rittenhouse Trial Day 8: Prosecution’s Last Desperate Lunge for Evidence of Guilt

Rittenhouse Trial Day 8: Prosecution’s Last Desperate Lunge for Evidence of Guilt

Final day of evidence introduces “enhanced” images purporting to show Kyle’s provocation

Today was the eighth day of the trial, and the final day of testimony, by which ADA Thomas Binger is seeking to have Kyle Rittenhouse convicted and sentenced to life in prison for having shot three men (two fatally) the night of August 25, 2020, in Kenosha WI, when the city was suffering a tsunami of rioting, looting, and arson following the lawful shooting of a knife-wielding Jacob Blake by Kenosha police officers.

And today, the final day of testimony in the trial, was the first time the prosecution had offered any evidence in this case that was inconsistent with Kyle’s core legal defense of self-defense, in a case where that legal defense of self-defense must be disproven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.

Worse, that evidence came in the form of two fuzzy “enhanced” photo exhibits, admitted in the closing minutes of the trial, under circumstances in which even the State expert responsible for creating the images cannot tell the court that the “enhancement” process hasn’t loaded them with false artifacts not present in the original images.

Indeed, that expert who created the “enhanced” images testified before the jury today that he had personally never bothered to compare the original and “enhanced” versions side-by-side to ensure that the “enhanced” version was a fair and accurate representation of the original.

The State’s claim is that the offered images demonstrably and incontrovertibly show that Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his rifle threateningly at Joshua Ziminski in the moments before he was murderously pursued by Joseph Rosenbaum.

I know you’re all wondering, so here’s my copy of these purportedly pivotal images that the State claims proves Kyle Rittenhouse proof of five felonies and a misdemeanor gun charge beyond a reasonable doubt:

It’s worth keeping in mind that other than these images, there is literally zero evidence in this trial that is inconsistent with Kyle’s claim of self-defense.  So to believe that legal defense disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, these images are all one has on which to base such a belief.

Perhaps you see that disproof of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt in those images—I certainly do not.

To believe the State’s representation of these images, you would also have to believe that right-handed Kyle suddenly decided to hold that rifle in a left-handed manner, with the buttstock in his left shoulder, and the muzzle raised upward.

Instead, it’s far more likely that the right-handed Kyle was holding the rifle in a right-handed manner, with the buttstock in his right shoulder, and the muzzle pointed down.

Much as he is in this photo from happier times:

UPDATED: A side-by-side view from friend Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec):

It’s also worth noting that these images were pulled from the video footage captured from a drone that the State did not possess until this past Friday, and these enhanced versions of the images were not available until today.

That means that for fifteen months the State investigated and prosecuted Kyle Rittenhouse for these many felonies and the gun charge without this purportedly decisive evidence in its possession—and without this purportedly decisive evidence provided by the evidence fairy at the 11th hour, what was the justification for this prosecution?  It certainly wasn’t the enhanced drone photos that the State did not possess until today.

The admission of these images into evidence in the first place was a sketchy proposition from the start, with the defense reasonably objecting for grounds we’ll cover in detail in a moment.  Indeed, when ADA Jim Kraus, leading the lumbering charge on their admission, sees that he might lose that argument, you can fairly smell the flop-sweat over the internet.

If you’ve never seen a grown man beg another grown man for a desperately desired favor, you’ll see it in the video I’ll share of ADA Kraus begging Judge Schroeder to allow these images before the jury.

There were other witnesses today—most notably defense use-of-force expert Dr. John Black—but to my mind the energy of the day was centered around this pair of fuzzy images that I’m sure the state will use as the foundation for their otherwise house-of-cards narrative of guilt in their closing arguments on Monday, so I’ll start off today’s content by focusing here.

Fair and Accurate Representation

Before we dive into the brouhaha around these images and their admission, however, it’s worth taking a moment to discuss what’s generally required for photos to be admissible as evidence in court in the first place.

Evidence in court generally comes in the form of witnesses possessing direct personal knowledge of whatever it is they intend to testify about.  Mary saw the dark-haired man rob the liquor store, she can testify about what she saw, her personal perceptions of that event.

Photos and videos, of course, cannot take the witness stand and testify for themselves.  They get admitted when a human being is first brought in to provide an evidentiary foundation for their admission.

So, if a photo taken of a crime scene is going to be offered into evidence, the person who took the photo might be brought in to testify, in person, that the photo being offered into evidence is a fair and accurate representation of the scene it depicts.  Without that evidentiary foundation, the photo is likely not admissible as evidence.

In this case we have this “unicorn” drone video that the evidence fairy dropped off on the prosecution’s doorstep this last Friday.  The prosecution would like you to believe that this drone video shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Joshua Ziminski, and thus provoking the attack of Joseph Rosenbaum.

As I’ve written elsewhere, a purported provocative act of this kind by Kyle opens an avenue of attack on Kyle’s claim of self-defense—and it’s an avenue the prosecution is absolutely desperate to have available, because through the entirety of this trial to date there has literally been zero substantive evidence presented that is inconsistent with that claim of self-defense—in a case where the State not only must disprove self-defense, but do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

The difficulty for the State with respect to the “unicorn” drone video footage left on their doorstep by the evidence fairy is that it really shows nothing discernible at all in its originally form—even when zoomed to max on the giant 4K monitor of my iMac—and certainly nothing that looks demonstrably like Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at anybody.

Indeed, when it was presented to Kyle on the witness stand, he flatly denied it showed anything of the sort, testifying that to him it merely appeared to show his shoulder rising slightly, but the muzzle of his rifle still pointed towards the ground.

In response, the prosecution went back to their “imaging expert” James Armstrong, who had provided the evidentiary foundation for the initial admission of the drone video footage in the first place.  The prosecution asked James to clarify and magnify the tiny area of the video footage that purportedly showed Kyle pointing the rifle.

And here’s where the difficult arises—in the magnification.  Digital images consist of a number of pixels of different color, which collectively form a mosaic image we recognize as a photo or video.  In our modern IT world, for example, many common images for internet use are 1920 pixels wide and 1080 pixels wide.

Imagine now that you want to take a small portion of that 1920×1080 image, perhaps a segment that’s only 192 x 108 pixels in dimension, and magnify it substantially, so that the small selected portion ends up itself being 1920×1080.

Well, you’ve started with 1/10th of the pixels of the original, and want to get back to 10/10th that number of pixels. What to do?

What in fact happens is that whatever imaging software is used to do this “zoom” will spread out the 192 x108 pixels until they occupy the area of 1920 x 1080, and then fill in the empty space between the original pixels with brand new pixels.

But pixels have color, and these brand new pixels don’t inherently come with any color—they are new-born pixels.  What to do?

Well, most imaging software will “guess” at what color the new pixel should be by looking at the actual color of one of the adjacent original pixels.  Is the “neighboring” original pixel blue? Well, the software makes the new pixel blue.

Clearly, this is new information being added to the enlarged version of the image that was not contained in the original image—a brand new pixel colored blue.

Other imaging software doesn’t just assume the color of the nearest adjacent original pixel, but may look at multiple nearby pixels.  This creates its own problems for the task of ensuring that the enlarged image faithfully reflects the image.

For example, imagine an original image that consists of an alternative pattern of red and blue squares.  You enlarge it ten-fold, dump in a bunch of new-born pixels, and now those pixels need to be assigned some color.  The imaging software might assign some of them the color red, and others the color blue—and still others the color purple, a combination of red and blue, but a color that never actually existed in the original.

That purple is now a false artifact in the enlargement that is not a fair and accurate representation of the original image.

In normal life, of course, we don’t enlarge our own photos by 10-fold, or at least we don’t do it more than once.  Such a sizeable increase tends to result in a blobby image with indistinct borders and colors, and more resembling a complex visual stew than an accurate depiction of whatever the original image might have been.

That is, however, essentially what the prosecution has done in this case.  They have taken a small portion of a distant image taken by the drone camera—the portion that purportedly shows Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Joshua Ziminski—and then enlarged that image enormously until, I suppose, it appeared to show what the prosecution wanted it to show.

The difficulty here is that what is now being shown in this substantially enlarged image may consist largely of artifacts introduced by the imaging software algorithm when it added pixels and then applied some black-box method to assigning colors to those pixels.

This was the defense objection to the State’s offer of these “enhanced” images from the drone video, without which images the State has essentially nothing to offer to counter Kyle’s claim of self-defense, and therefore this objection and the prosecution’s struggle to overcome it became the pivotal battle of the day.

There were, of course, other witnesses, including the defense use-of-force expert Dr. John Black, Police Officer Brittany Bryan, and Drew Hernandez, but with the exception of Dr. Black’s contribution to the arguments over the State’s “enhanced” photos, none of that mattered all that much.

So, let’s dive into the “unicorn” enhanced images left by the evidence fairy debate.

Argument? What Argument?

One of the humorous aspects of the offer of these “enhanced” images was both parties pretending that there wasn’t going to be a fight over them, even though everyone knew there certainly was going to be a fight over them.  Prior to the last court break that preceded the State offering these images the State assured the court that they didn’t expect any big argument over them, and the defense just shrugged, keeping its cards close to its chest.

Well, not really.  Just prior to State expert James Armstrong being recalled to the stand to offer these “enhanced” images of his, the defense expert, Dr. John Black found himself back on the witness stand in the afternoon after having his morning testimony interrupted due to an unexpected series of circumstances.

At this point the defense clearly knew the Armstrong “enhanced” images testimony was coming shortly, so they had Dr. Black explain the whole “added pixels of algorithm-selected color” issue in his own testimony.

Therefore when it came time for the State to offer Armstrong’s testimony in support of the admission of his “enhanced” images, the defense had laid the groundwork with Judge Schroeder to first voir dire Armstrong outside of the presence of the jury and before he would testify in front of the jury.

And that’s where we get into the meat of things with respect to these “enhanced images.”

Defense Voir Dire of James Armstrong, State Image Expert

Because it was the defense challenging the State’s offer of evidence, it was the defense, in the person of Attorney Corey Chirafisi, who led the direct on the voir dire of Armstrong.

During that voir dire he essentially covered the explanation of image enlargement adding newly born pixels of a color determined by black-box algorithm in much the same manner as I’ve described above.

The point, of course, is that to the extent that this “enhancement” process  my insert newly created artifacts in creating the enlarged version of the original, the enlarged version may no longer be a fair and accurate representation of the original.

And if that’s the case, it’s not admissible as evidence in its own right.  The party offering the “enhanced” version would have to settle for simply showing the jury the original.  Of course, if the original had been adequate to their purpose, they would not have bothered to make the “enhanced” version in the first place, so they are as a result left with an original which does not serve their purpose.

The bottom line for this defense voir dire of Armstrong was that he conceded that the enlargement of the image required the placement of new pixels, that those pixels were necessarily assigned a color, that it was the software algorithm that selected the particular color, and that he personally had no idea how the algorithm made that choice.

Here’s the video of that defense portion of this voir dire:

State Voir Dire of James Armstrong, State Image Expert

The State’s voir dire of Armstrong, led by ADA Jim Kraus, didn’t directly counter the defense position—how could it, when the defense position had just been affirmed by Armstrong himself?

Instead, the prosecution engaged in the kind of frantic hand-waving we’ve come to expect from them.

Isn’t this software you used a “gold-standard” for forensic image analysis. Armstrong confirmed it was—but that doesn’t change his own admission that the software inserts pixels that are colored by a process he can’t explain.

Wasn’t your work peer-reviewed by another qualified forensic image analyst?  It was—but again, that doesn’t change the added pixels with computer assigned colors problem.

Isn’t hour forensic imaging lab accredited?  It sure is—but again, that has nothing to do with the algorithm concern the defense had raised.

Really, all the prosecution could do is engage in appeals to authority—but not in manner that addressed the core concern raised by the defense.

In short, while Kraus got Armstrong to affirm repeatedly that, really, this is how he and many others used this software all the time, at no point could Armstrong be knocked from the unavoidable concession that the algorithm added new pixels not in the original, and assigned those pixels colors in a way he himself did not understand.

And, indeed, the state voir dire of Armstrong was mercifully short, because it was unavoidably superficial.

Here’s the video of that brief State’s voir dire of Armstrong, after which the imaging expert was dismissed from the witness stand so the parties could argue their positions to Judge Schroeder:

Judge Schroeder Takes a Look for Himself

Then we had the parties argue the matter to Judge Schroeder.  The defense offered a motion to have these sketchy-as-heck “enhanced” images be deemed inadmissible as evidence.  In response to the reasoned arguments of the defense, ADA Kraus responded primarily with large quantities of desperation and flop sweat.

At this point Judge Schroeder asked to take a look at the images himself.  When he looked these over at the bench, he clearly couldn’t make much out of them, so he then asked to be shown the drone video footage from where the images had been captured., which he watched standing before a giant 4K television from a few inches distance.

Here followed a humorous sequence of events in which the judge watched the relevant portion of the drone video, apparently saw nothing obviously useful, and said, “Again.” And then “Again.” And “Again.” And “once more.”

I suggest to all of you that if these “enhanced” images and the video from which they were taken were as obviously decisive as the State would like to believe—and would like the jury to believe—it doesn’t take multiple viewings to come to that conclusion.

In the end, the judge still seemed unconvinced that he’d seen what the State claimed the images and video to show, and walked back to his bench shaking his head.

Here are those arguments before Judge Schroeder, and his own inspection of the purported evidence:

Ultimately, Judge Schroeder decided that he would let the State argue its offering of the “enhanced” image to the jury by the direct testimony of Armstrong in front of that jury—in turn, the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine Armstrong in front of the jury, exposing his uncertainty as to how newly-added pixels were assigned colors in the “enhanced” images. That said, the judge did suggest he was not absolutely committed to allowing the images in until after he’d seen the results of that cross-examination by the defense.

From there, the judge figured, the jury could make its own determination about how much weight to assign to these “enhanced” images.

Direct Questioning of James Armstrong, State Image Expert

Now it was the State who took the lead, beginning the questioning of their expert to elicit the testimony needed to provide the foundation required for the “enhanced” images to be offered into evidence.  This was now being done in front of the jury which had been brought back into the courtroom.  Again, this was largely duplicative of the arguments already made, so I’ll simply share the video of ADA Kraus’ direct of Armstrong with you:

Cross-Examination of James Armstrong, State Image Expert

Defense Attorney Corey Chirafisi conducted the cross-examination of Armstrong, repeating the same lines of argument made during voir dire:

Re-direct of James Armstrong

Obviously fearful that Judge Schroeder might yet decide the “enhanced” photo images might fail to qualify for admission as evidence, ADA Kraus returned on re-direct with more argument—and repeated a common error of this prosecution throughout the trial of asking a witness a question to which he didn’t know the answer, and to which he got an answer he wouldn’t like.

At about 1:35 into this re-direct, Kraus asked Armstrong, “So you do compare [the “enhanced’ image] to the original?”  Shockingly, Armstrong responded “I did not compare [the “enhanced” image] to the original in this instance, no.”

See for yourself:

I believe at that point I live-commented something to the effect of: “WTF”?

Re-cross  of James Armstrong

Chirafisi naturally jumped on this surprising concession on re-cross of Armstrong.  Effectively he asked, wait a minute, you are offering this “enhanced” version of the images as being fair and accurate representations of the originals—but you don’t actually both to compare them side-by-side with the originals?  Nope:

Re-re-direct of James Armstrong

In a final reflection of how desperate the State is to get these “enhanced” images into evidence and before the jury, ADA Kraus actually came back for a re-re-direct of Armstrong, in an ultimately successful effort to rehabilitate the witness enough to keep the door open for the admission of the “enhanced images.”

“Enhanced” Images Published to the Jury

Ultimately, the judge allowed these “enhanced” images to be “published” to the jury, meaning the jury actually got to see them for the first time.  Importantly, Armstrong was never permitted to characterize what the images purported show—he was never permitted to recite the State’s characterization that the images showed Kyle Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Joshua Ziminski.

That characterization will be left to the State to pursue during its closing argument to the jury on Monday.

In any case, this “enhanced” image testimony would ultimately prove to be the last evidence to be offered in this trial, after which both sides rested, concluding the evidentiary portion of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

Jury Instructions and Closing Arguments

Immediately following, the parties and the judge had a discussion, outside the hearing of the jury, about the schedule moving forward.

Tomorrow morning the court will return to session to finalize the jury instructions to be given to the jury prior to their deliberations.  Most of these will simply be the standardized jury instructions for each of the criminal charges, including all the lesser-included offenses for the intentional homicide and attempted intentional homicide charges.

With respect to the troublesome gun possession charge, Count 6 in the criminal complaint, the judge has asked the parties to each submit their own proposed jury instructions, and I expect that argument over that issue will consume the bulk of the court’s time tomorrow.

That said, the court is not returning to session in the morning until 10am Central time, and I would not expect the proceedings to take more than two or three hours, including the reasonably anticipated tiresome tirades over the gun possession instructions likely to be indulged in by ADA Thomas “Blah-blah-blah” Binger.

Other Witnesses of the Day

Dr. John Black, Defense Use-of-Force Expert

There were also other witnesses today, the most notable being Dr. John Black. Frankly, his only real contribution was to make clear that contrary to the State’s suggestions, Kyle had been compelled to make his use of force decisions in time periods measured in seconds.  The State had been using various rhetorical ruses to suggest that Kyle had the luxury of tall the time in the world before casually deciding to shoot, maim, and recklessly endanger a bunch of people.

In pre-trial hearings Judge Schroeder had ruled that Black would be permitted to testify to technical matters, like timing of events and gunshots, but not the apparent intent or perceptions of the actors involved in the night’s events, nor would he permitted to pronounce legal conclusions (e.g., “Kyle’s conduct clearly qualifies as lawful self-defense).

And that is essentially what Dr. Black was limited to in his actual testimony—so, really, it was useful for the defense, but far from dramatic.

Also, as already mentioned, Dr. Black proved helpful in preparing the foundation for the defense attack on the testimony of James Armstrong, and ensuring that the defense was equipped to expose the fragility of the State’s “enhanced” images to the jury.

Here is Dr. Black’s direct testimony, in two parts

Here is Dr. Black’s cross-examination, also in two parts.  Much of this cross was actually designed to provide evidentiary foundation and a fairness rationale for Binger’s later efforts to convince Judge Schroeder to allow into evidence the “enhanced” images of State image expert Armstrong–after all, if it was OK for Black to have “modified” his images and get them into evidence, it must be OK for Armstrong to have “modified” images and get them into evidence:

And here is Dr. Black’s re-direct, in which he set up the defense for their questioning of James Armstrong:


Police Officer Brittany Bray

We also heard from Kenosha Police Officer Brittany Bray.  She had done evidence collection at Sheridan Road where Kyle had shot at “jump kick man” and missed, shot at Anthony Huber and hit with fatal results, and shot at Gaige Grosskreutz vaporizing his bicep.

The State had suggested that at one point Kyle had been required to cycle his AR-15 pattern rifle due to a malfunction, which would show, I suppose, a certain deliberation in his shooting of Grosskreutz. Frankly, I really don’t see what it matters, but in any case the defense didn’t like it.

The defense position is that if Kyle had cycled his weapon a live .223 round would have been ejected onto the road, and Officer Bray had found no live .223 round.  This is, of course, a mistaken understanding of such things.  A failure to feed a round could require cycling of the action, but with the chamber empty there would have been no live round to eject.

The State would point this out in its own cross-examination of Bray by ADA Binger, after which the defense would on re-direct have Bray assist them in measuring the 4” required to cycle the charging handle on the AR—meaning, the movement would have been obvious on video had it occurred—and that was it for Bray. This was followed by an inconsequential re-cross by Binger.

Here’s the direct questioning of Bray by Attorney Richards:

The cross-examination of Bray by ADA Binger:

The re-direct of Bray by Richards:

The re-cross of Bray by Binger.

Drew Hernandez, Professional Commentator

The only other witness of the day was one Drew Hernandez, another one of those folks who wanders around riot scenes filming for social media.

The most notable facet of Hernandez’ testimony was his clear contempt for ADA Binger, and his apparent implicit—perhaps explicit—support for Kyle Rittenhouse, despite his protestations of not being biased.

Hernandez certainly struck me as biased in favor of the defense and against the State, and it would have probably served his purpose to have toned down the hate towards the State a bit.  He did say many positive things about Kyle, including describing how Kyle was helping people and de-escalating conflict, and he also said many negative things about Joseph Rosenbaum, including seeing him be provocative, combative, and setting fires.

His obvious bias in favor of the defense, however, meant that whatever he said wasn’t likely to change anybody’s mind.  If you favored Kyle, you nodded your head at the apparent truth of Hernandez’ testimony. If you favored the State, you discounted the Hernandez testimony entirely on the basis of his obvious bias.

In any case, here’s the direct questioning of Hernandez by Richards:

The mutually hostile cross-examination of Hernandez by Binger:

And a brief re-direct of Hernandez by Richards:

And that’s where things stand at the close of court business today.

Join us again tomorrow morning for our  LIVE coverage of the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, at Legal Insurrection.  Keep in mind it may be a much shortened day, as it doesn’t begin until 10am Central time, and even then involves no testimony but only argument over jury instructions.  If the day went much longer than four hours, I’d be much surprised.

Until then:


You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I think I have watched the “modified” videos almost as many times as I have the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination. Zapruder’s film was a lot clearer though – wonder if we’re “past the peak” of technology.

    Technology can’t go back in time and record things that the original recording didn’t capture.

    I literally can’t believe that the judge allowed this bullshit.

    ‘Enhanced’ images are fucking Photoshop. They’re ‘inserting’ crap that WAS NOT CAPTURED by the original recording.

      f2000 in reply to Olinser. | November 12, 2021 at 12:46 am

      My professional opinion (24 years imagery analysis), I think the images are less a problem than the bad interpretation of them in this case. I don’t see much in the way of bad artifacts in the blown up images, and contrast/brightness changes aren’t adding anything. I also don’t see any attempt to understand something happening in 3d represented on a 2d image, and events happening in time represented on a single still frame. Given that image and some competent analysis, I think it shows KR’s hand at his side as if he was just walking. Among other things, if he was pointing a rifle, the perspective of the camera (low angle) would lead to shortening of the arms. We know from other videos that KR was walking with a fire extinguisher at the moment of this image (and we know where it was dropped) which is more consistent with this image than the theory that he’s holding a weapon.

    A digital video undergoes much compression, filtering, interpolation, quantization, transformation to spatial frequency components, and color-space corrections. Andrew Branca’s description doesn’t come close to describing it.

    Compression of a still image typically reduces pixel counts by 90%, depending on the maximum amount of acceptable rate distortion. In video, there is temporal compression and estimations. The color space resolution can vary substantially between luminescence and color components. For example, in Y’UV420P color space (used as a default in MP4) the luminescence pixel resolution is much higher than the chrominance content, because digital technology takes advantage of the human visual system’s low acuity for color differences than for luminance. That’s why black and white tv was so effective.

    The old black and white, creates better art, I think, because it uses pure information content of the luminance components of a scene, instead of shifting the focus to object identification. It’s a subtle form of art sketching.

      Would you say that reproducing this video in black and white could reveal a clearer picture of what we are looking at? And then would it be allowed in court?

        Yes. especially if the video was shot with Y’UV color space, where the compression favored the luminescent info content, rather than chrominance information. In scene identification, the best means of improving an image is by statistically filtering and improving the estimation of an invariant in the successive video frames. For example, a face might be lossy in one frame, but in spectral decompositions, such as a 2D Fourier transform, the spectral content is shift and scale invariant (and truly rotationally invariant). This rather amazing result was first discovered by Gauss, when trying to improve successive astronomical estimates of planetary orbits, whose positions were measured by imprecise telescopes. He found a way of weighting two or more imprecise measurements to produce a superior estimate with a smaller error. So, in the spectral domain, this can be done to continuously improve lossy face images.

        Legally, it should be allowed, because it’s just a means of combining the same information, to reduce errors to a minimum.

    Andrew, in the blown up images, or “enhanced”, the white spot which is supposed to be kyles right hand holding the weapon up was already present before Kyle showed up. It is a light source reflected on the trunk of a vehicle. The prosecution purposely used this frame so that the reflection could be misattributed to his hand. Watch the zoomed in slow-mo for evidence.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Fiat Justitia. | November 12, 2021 at 9:02 am

    8mm from Zapruder’s was vastly more clear and higher resolution. ( Shot definitely from behind – brain matter sprews forward which forces head backward) That will be my final comment on Kennedy assassination.

    Several problems with the single photo
    A) Without context, without a seriers of the frames both before and after, there is no way to tell the movement of the rifle
    B) where is Zimski ? or whoever Kyle was pointing the rifle at – no way to tell if the rifle was being aimed any anyone,
    C) Oddly, in the “enhanced photo”, the rifle is pointed more downward than the blob in the original frame – though it is more of a blob in the original photo.
    D) My experience is that when a photo is “zoomed in” the photo becomes less clear. Maximum zooming in is usually around 2x when detail becomes much less clear.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Joe-dallas. | November 13, 2021 at 10:13 am

      Kennedy’s brain matter didn’t go forward, it went to the rear, spattering the trunk of the car (that’s why Jackie is seen getting up, leaning over the back of the car, and trying to collect it – an obviously futile gesture, but one she would not have done if there hadn’t been bits of her husband’s head on the trunk), and one of the trailing motorcycle officers was also spattered with brain matter.

      Also, your physics are backwards. A bullet only carries so much energy into its target. That energy pushes the target in the same direction as the bullet’s flight. For a jet of matter to overcome that push, it would have to be of greater energy than the bullet’s push. But the jet is caused by energy from the bullet, and therefore can’t have more energy, it must be less, because not all of the bullet’s energy can go into the jet. Some is deposited into, and remains in, the body. Inefficiencies in the transfer of energy from the bullet to the jet will also result in the jet having less energy. So it is not possible for the jet to even counter the effects of the bullet’s impact, never mind overcome the force of the impact and act in the opposite direction. Kennedy’s head went backwards, consistent with a bullet impact from the front, and his brain matter was also ejected, via an exit wound, to the rear, also consistent with being struck from the front.

    Massinsanity in reply to Fiat Justitia. | November 12, 2021 at 11:18 am

    One quick clarification, in you photo segment magnification example you give the segment actually has 1/100th the number of pixels not 1/10th. This only furthers the argument of course.

    I have many years of experience using various software imaging programs using the type of logarithm the guy used to manipulate the image. I use the term “manipulate” on purpose because that is most descriptive of what it does. He said it does not add detail, which is not really true. What happens is the program samples other pixels in the general vicinity and inserts them in the area where pixels are missing or questionable. In other words if there is a duck in in the vicinity it could pick up the pixels of that duck and insert them there. It is far from perfect and there is a tremendous amount of computer guessing involved. It is also only able to work with what is given and prone to error and could easily just insert the ducks bill, or tail feathers instead of a whole duck. If there were black or purple pixels else where in the image it could easily wrongly assume it appropriately insert them instead of what was really there. Calling this software the “gold standard” is absurd and reminds me of the so called expert automotive witness in the movie “My Cousin Vinny”, who was also using a “gold standard” system that turned out to be wrong. I would be more concerned with this last minute evidence being tampered with by the submitter who obviously was not happy with how the trial was going. Hopefully the jury is more tech savvy than the judge and see this evidence for what it is….nothing!

Hey, so how do I sign up to be an expert witness?
While I never considered myself an expert, it appears the bar is pretty low!
In five minutes I could have explained INTERPOLATION to the jury in a perfectly understandable way. Something these guys couldn’t do in over an hour! They also kept INCORRECTLY answering the question if there was a way to enlarge an image without adding pixels (colors as the one attorney kept confusingly calling it) and they answered NO.

Umm… yes there is. You adjust the PPI (pixels per inch.) That is the way to enlarge a photo without a computer algorithm adding new pixels based on its best guess.

As a bonus, I could also testify about the function of an AR-15 as to not mislead the jury to believe that there was a 50/50 chance that if Kyle reracked the gun while on the ground that it would spit out either a live round or an empty casing. It is almost impossible for an AR-15 to fire a cartridge and still have the brass sitting in the chamber. Either the case or the extractor would have to be damaged. It is common to have a failure to eject, but this nearly always leads to a damaged (usually badly) case and often needs to be cleared by dropping the mag before recharging or it will just jam up.

And hell, I might as well throw in some testimony refuting the absurd claim that FMJ ammunition was “specifically designed to penetrate the first target and hit the second target” and maybe explain why an AR-15 chambered for .223 is most definitely NOT a “high caliber” weapon🤣

    Dathurtz in reply to fogflyer. | November 11, 2021 at 11:03 pm

    I am new to the world of rifles that use the gas to operate the action. Is it possible to have an improperly adjusted system such that the rifle fires, but the cartridge is not ejected?

    That is the only idea that I can come up with that offers the possibility of a rerack ejecting a spent cartridge. But, that hardly seems likely considering the eifle was cycling fine earlier.

      fogflyer in reply to Dathurtz. | November 11, 2021 at 11:20 pm

      Yep. If the gas tube was crimped or the gas block was misaligned or misadjusted (some are adjustable) then you could have a situation where the gun would not cycle. That sort of situation would keep repeating itself though, it wouldn’t be a one time event. Another issue that could cause the gun not to cycle would be a cartridge without enough powder, but since Kyle was not using reloaded ammunition, that is highly unlikely.

      So, while the are ways that an AR-15 can fail to cycle and leave the casing from a fired cartridge in the chamber, it is a rare event. Even in all the above mentioned situations, it is more likely that the bolt would come back far enough to partially extract the case and jam the gun. I am certainly not an expert, but I have shot 1000s of rounds through various ARs and I’ve never seen a case stay chambered after being fired. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but it sure isn’t a 50/50 chance as the lady cop suggested.

        Dathurtz in reply to fogflyer. | November 11, 2021 at 11:28 pm

        Thanks. My only experience is adjusting a gas block so the cartridges were ejected at the angle youtube said they should be.

        “I’ve never seen a case stay chambered after being fired.”

        Indeed. Much more common on AR-10S and ones people assemble themselves. Basically, the gun has to bo wAYYYY overgassed such that it attempts to extract before the case has cooled and ‘released’ from the chamber. Ususally you’ll get a ripped case head and messed up extractor and it will take a dowel or something to hammer it out from the muzzle end. I’m 99.9999999% sure KR’s bone stock S&W running 55g brass Aguila didn’t do that.

        SFFLYER in reply to fogflyer. | November 12, 2021 at 6:28 am

        Failure to feed is the more likely malfunction, and it’s common with bad mags, as well as entirely consistent with casing from previously fired round extracted, but no round picked up from the magazine. At Kyle’s level of experience, not surprising that he had not segregated go-to-war from unreliable mags… no one wants to toss a mag that hiccups every 150 rounds or so. Other than use by Uncle Fud because he forgot his one Brand X ten-rounder (you know…the guy that has one modern firearm, and just to go out shooting on Turkey Day for the annual Milk Jug Massacre in the south 40) it awaits rebuild relegated to the range bag Once there are a half dozen iffy mags to rebuild, time to see if cleaning, spring tweak or replacement, and follower swap will resurrect an old friend; otherwise, they get painted Dayglo for dry fire use only.

          fogflyer in reply to SFFLYER. | November 12, 2021 at 9:41 am

          Absolutely correct!
          I don’t know why I didn’t mention a mag malfunction and failure to feed. I was caught up in the lady cop’s testimony that cycling the weapon would have either produced a live round or an empty case. Of course the most likely outcome would be a live round or nothing at all. Still, the jury heard very bad information on this that was never corrected.

      Midfiaudiophile in reply to Dathurtz. | November 11, 2021 at 11:29 pm

      The gun uses the action of the gas system against your shoulder to ensure that the bolt is opened up against a fairly stiff recoil spring. In the case of the shooting of Huber, it’s important to note that Kyle was on his back and desperate to stop Huber from killing him, hence wasn’t necessarily mindful of the fundamentals.

      It’s worth noting that many consumer-grade ARs do have improper gas systems. They come with a carbine-length gas system which is made for a rifle with a 14.5″ barrel. The M4 uses that length gas system because it comes with a 14.5″ barrel. The minimum length barrel for a rifle purchased without NFA complications is 16″, which allows for more gas to build up behind the bullet as it’s traveling down the barrel and thus overgas the rifle, causing the action to cycle more violently as opposed to the properly tuned mid-length gas system. Basically, there’s a hole in the barrel that goes into a tube, and that hole is bigger on the carbine-length system. This would tend to make the rifle more likely to eject a fired cartridge, though, not less, I also don’t know what length the gas system is on the M&P15 in question, though.

      Occasionally, you also just have a round that doesn’t eject properly, for whatever reason.

        Midfiaudiophile in reply to Midfiaudiophile. | November 12, 2021 at 12:20 am

        On further thought, I’m not sure that the improper stance could cause the rifle not to cycle fully. I haven’t experimented with it myself, the forces don’t need to be pushed against your shoulder necessarily, and if you do a search for “limp-wristing AR” you see an awful lot of people arguing that since you can bumpfire the thing (ie, not really holding the thing firmly against your shoulder or indeed pushing away from your shoulder) that it’s basically impossible.

        Unlike a semi-automatic pistol, the AR doesn’t require any particular “forward” pressure in order to cycle properly–the mass of the weapon itself is quite sufficient to provide sufficient resistance to allow the bolt to cycle properly. They can mis-cycle, usually due to problems with the gas systems or other components, but insufficient forward pressure is not the buttstock is not the cause.

        nemesis443 in reply to Midfiaudiophile. | November 12, 2021 at 2:07 am

        If it was an M&P Sport II it is a carbine gas system.

        Mmmm…gun builder disagreeing here. Gas port diameters usually get smaller with shorter barrel length…you’ll see 0.081″ and even smaller on 7.5″-10.5″, and up to 0.093″ on mid-, rifle, and plus-length. Some manufacturers like Faxon run two sizes on a line of barrels and leave it to custom gun builders to use an adjustable gas block or adjustment of port diameter to tune for ammo, cans, etc. You’ll find carbine-length gas systems on everything from 10.5″ to 18″ barrels, so that 1.5″ barrel length difference on gov spec 14.5″ and NFA-defined 16.1″ is not the culprit. Nor is limp wristing or shooting position for cycling… you can free-hand an AR all day and not see a malfunction like you’s see with a semi-auto pistol… apples and avocados. Kyle’s malfunction was more than likely a FTF due to iffy mag, although I’ve seen crappy steel case ammo have such a bad gas seal that there was just enough gas to extract and reset the trigger, but not enough to get the bolt back far enough to pick up the next round in the magazine. It would be highly unlikely to find a round on the ground with a mag or ammo-caused malfunction, unless Kyle double-cycled (not enough time for that, judging from vids).

          SFFLYER in reply to SFFLYER. | November 12, 2021 at 7:36 am

          And another note… positional cycling issues on AR platform are much more common in my experience on home-built guns than factory stuff. Even bargain-basement M&P’s will have parts selected to reduce or eliminate the tolerance stack issues that see receiver extension/bolt carrier interaction issues (e.g., binding on charging, inconsistent extraction, inconsistent chambering). On custom builds, dry and hot cycling of the gun gets done with mag up/down/left/right and barrel up 45 (this one is dry…). Any issue (way more common on AR-308 due to wider variation, BTW) gets worked out. Case in point was a set of five 308/6.5 CM builds on DPMS Gen 1 format… rifle extensions were fine on the 308 20″ and CM 24″, but the carbine extensions on the shorter barrel length builds all had to be swapped out for another manufacturer’s carbine extension… would not cycle with LANTEC EBCG without binding. Not ever going to see that on mass-market gun builder products.

          Midfiaudiophile in reply to SFFLYER. | November 12, 2021 at 12:03 pm

          I will defer to your experience on this. My experience with gas systems has only been a single rifle which was overgassed with a 16″ barrel and a carbine-length gas system. I regretted the positional thing as soon as I posted it and went to see what other people thought. I apologize for adding to the confusion.

      I think KR had a 16″ S&W with a carbine length gas system. Off the shelf models like that usually come with generous gas port size to run with even lower powered ammo, and the carbine length taps at a fairly high pressure point. I think he was shooting brass 55 grn Aguila 223. That’s not the hottest stuff, but I’ve never seen it not cycle a rifle like that unless it was incredibly dirty and unlubricated or had some other manufacturing defect. A S&W (probably Sport II) isn’t an LMT, but I think they have pretty good QC. It’s not impossible, but that thing (I think) only had a few hundred rounds through it and seemed unabused.

      I watched the video of that section quite a few times and in slow-mo. It looks to me like he fumbles with the grip/fire control a bit after his wrestle with Huber. I see nothing like him running the charging handle. That would have been a more pronounced motion. If he did during that melee and in that time window he’d basically be a boss-level operator.

    The level of innate and (sometimes apparent) willful incompetence on the part of ‘experts’ today was disturbing. That Armstrong is represented as an image expert yet claimed not to know basics of interpolation means he is playing dumb or incompetent. If the resolution off an image is increased (outside integral pixel replication) then by logical necessity information/detail is added and the image is altered. He testified that no detail is added, which is patently false, after he’d already admitted additional pixel info is filled in but he didn’t know the details. Absurd.

    The only thing allowed with those images should have been a crop and a zoom where each pixel is replicated perfectly some integral number of times (WxH) with no spatial or temporal interpolation. Even then, the defense should still get it on record that the image in question has already gone through altering steps within the device as the raw data from the image is compressed for the video file. I hope the defense in closing sows enough doubt that any juror who thinks they see something does so with a jaundiced eye.

    Hey Jane Q Juror, do you see a young woman or an old hag?

      VetHusbandFather in reply to JorgB. | November 12, 2021 at 12:04 pm

      You hit the nail on the head with your “boss level operator” comment. Based on his experience level and the high stress of the situation. I’d say it’s almost a zero percent chance that KR would be able to appropriately respond to any type of weapon malfunction that naturally and quickly. In combat arms we rehearse malfunctions with regularity to drive that kind of muscle memory. KR and his buddies aren’t doing that when they head up to the quarry to pop off some rounds at 25m targets. I will say, KR’s proficiency surprised me throughout this incident. But if he actually had a weapons malfunction at this instant, I think it’s more likely that he isn’t able to get his rifle functional again until he’s got time to himself to look at it and figure out what went wrong.

    TargaGTS in reply to fogflyer. | November 11, 2021 at 11:38 pm

    I agree with all that was said about the cycle of operation of the weapon. I would only add that whenever the bolt goes home without stripping a round for it to be chambered, the magazine has (almost certainly) malfunctioned, not the weapon itself. Sometimes that magazine can be ‘fixed’ simply by popping the bottom of the mag. But frequently, the mag has to be dropped, sorted and then reinserted to allow a new round to be chambered by pulling and releasing charging handle.

    None of this is captured in ANY of the videos that were shown in court. And like Branca, even if it was, I have no idea what its relevance would be.

      fogflyer in reply to TargaGTS. | November 11, 2021 at 11:49 pm

      I actually think it could be quite relevant. If Grosskreutz could show that Kyle attempted to shoot him while he had his hands in the air, he could claim he was surrendering and only reengaged with Kyle after Kyle attempted to shoot him and had a misfire. It could shift who the aggressor was at the moment of the shooting.

      Of course, Kyle didn’t try to shoot him while his hands were up, Kyle didn’t rerack his gun and all of this is just BS from the prosecution.

        Midfiaudiophile in reply to fogflyer. | November 12, 2021 at 12:11 am

        I’m curious how the defense is going to deal with these “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” last-minute efforts from the prosecution. Assuming an impartial jury (which is all you really can do), the jury is going to look at the evidence that the sides bring up in closing arguments, with prosecution saying “look at that Rohrshach blob, that’s definitely a blog post from 1956 in which Kyle says he intends to kill Rosenbaum”. The more Defense denies the preposterous, the more jurors are going to look at it with that specific image in mind and, eventually, see it.

        I’m not sure if the rerack theory has the same pitfalls, but it’s also completely speculative. “Anything could have happened behind that blue windbreaker”, and state is going to try to puff specific possibilities into their head behind several levels of “maybe”. What’s the proper way to address that?

          I would hope they point out that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove BARD that this was not self defense, but I’ve been perplexed at how far they’ve let the arguments stray. At best, the prosecution has been able to insert a small amount of doubt into a certain self-defense case. That’s the opposite of a good result for them. If the jury is competent and competently instructed, nothing the prosecution has argued ought to lead to a conviction.

    DaveGinOly in reply to fogflyer. | November 13, 2021 at 10:16 am

    It’s shocking how little some imaging “experts” actually know about the how and why of image editing. Don’t even try to explain the intricacies of printing an image to some people, or the difference between a bitmap and a vector image!

Thank you

Thank you Mr. Branca your analysis and updates, and Professor Jacobson for supporting his work. I read what I’m able to during the day, but anticipate these daily summaries. Your work is top notch and very much appreciated!

This is what I see in the “pivotal” images:

1.) Foreground far left – a Holstein cow
2.) Left of the white sign in the middle – a large, black Harbor Freight rolling tool chest
2a.) Alfonso Ribeiro breakin and poppin on top of the tool chest
3.) Right of the white sign in the middle – 90s infomercial stars, John and Greg Rice (google them, I’m correct)
4.) Far right – Pennywise, who had half his hair burned off

Again, thank you Andrew.

This has been bugging me for a while. How is it that the state can charge KR with being a Juvenile in possession of a rifle and do so in adult court? Is he a child or not?

    Dathurtz in reply to gth871r. | November 12, 2021 at 6:14 am

    The juvenile charged as adult thing has never made sense.

    divemedic in reply to gth871r. | November 12, 2021 at 7:26 am

    In much the same way that prosecutors charge children with production, possession, and transmitting child porn for taking nude pictures of themselves on their cell phones and sending them to their girl/boy friend. This then earns the children a lifetime label of “sex offender,” meaning that they would not be permitted to be near children, and could only live in communities that are filled with others labeled as sex offenders. That is how we are protecting children, by convicting them of the crime of looking at themselves while nude, and then forcibly placing them in communities where they will live with actual sexual predators.

      divemedic in reply to divemedic. | November 12, 2021 at 7:30 am

      To add- the case that I am referring to was in North Carolina. The most egregious part of the entire case is that the law charged them as adults, for taking pornographic pictures of themselves, who are legally considered to be children. This means that they are considered to be both adults and children simultaneously. We will call this Schrodinger’s pornography.


The prosecutors are an embarrassment. It’s obvious to every reasonable person that this case should never have been brought to court. It is a waste of taxpayer money and the time and resources of the Court.

Surely the sole motivation was politically driven. A show trial and a hail-Mary attempt to railroad a 18 yo kid into a LIFE sentence.

There is a special hot place in hell for those who made this trial happen.

    “Surely the sole motivation was politically driven”

    Shortly before lunch (105/110-ish), the judge shouted at the prosecution “This is not a political trial” and you could see Binger visibly disagree. This is absolutely political to Binger and he confirmed it today. Not that anyone here is surprised.

    SeiteiSouther in reply to Ben Kent. | November 12, 2021 at 10:41 am

    If this kid does get railroaded, I’m donating to his ongoing defense fund.

    This trial has been clown shoes from Day 1.

I’m a bit curious, what happened to the state’s two last witnesses, who were going to testify that Kyle wasn’t enrolled in the online college, and that his flak jacket didn’t come from where he said it did?

Where is the second set of images? The black and white ones? I definitely have no context as to when it happens (just viewing it on the stream today, it looked like it might have been during the shooting of Rosenbaum?) but it supposedly merges two frames to create an image where you can actually see the barrel.

These two images (original and enhanced) can be seen at this time stamp:

The color images provided by Mr. Branca are just prior to that in the video (30 sec? prior)

FWIW, regarding example given by Andrew: A 1920 x 1080 image contains 2,052,864 pixels. A 192 x 108 pixel area within that image contains less than 21,000. Therefore, enlarging the smaller area to fill 1920 x 1080 requires creation through interpolation of over 2 million new pixels. (Andrew suggested that the smaller portion of his example was just 1/10 the area of the full image.)

    Math! That’s why I’m a lawyer. 🙂

      I’m thankful that you are! Your up-to-the-minute coverage, along with your helpful explanations and expert insights, have been a huge benefit to many of us following this trial. Thank you, sir.

      ALPAPilot in reply to Andrew Branca. | November 12, 2021 at 12:06 am

      That’s arithmetic, Andrew. Mathematics is about proofs, a skill you’ve repeatedly entertained us with.

      Thank You.

        2nd that. Been glancing at ABs live coverage while working for almost two weeks now and have found the summaries and supporting articles/analysis invaluable.

        This ‘trial’ has been very eye opening as to how such things ‘really’ work. Kinda scary, actually. Of the laws I typically deal with a smart guy once remarked “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” I knew one could never have quite that faith in human law, but I didn’t know it was this bad in the US. It’s almost comical how little of this has delt with substantive facts and concepts vs bluster, misdirection, appeals to emotion, manipulation, and basically everything you’d do if truth and accuracy were your explicit advisary.

      I did score 100% for the year in Junior High School geometry, which I vaguely remember was mostly proofs. 🙂

    JorgB in reply to flannel. | November 11, 2021 at 11:26 pm

    1/100th Literally 99% of the pixels are from interpolation.

    f2000 in reply to flannel. | November 11, 2021 at 11:42 pm

    only if you attempt to upscale the resulting image resolution. And only to the extent you upscale the image resolution.

    CarlosT in reply to flannel. | November 12, 2021 at 2:56 am

    I would have loved a line of questioning that covered the fact that any new pixels generated would be interpolations of interpolations of interpolations and so on and so forth. In other words, guesses stacked on top of guesses on top of myriad guesses.

    How many pixels is Kyle’s arm in the original? A few dozen? How many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pixels were computer generated in order to produce the “enhanced” version? I would have loved to see those questions get into the trial record.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to CarlosT. | November 12, 2021 at 6:19 am

      Allowing the state to present made up and manipulated evidence of any sort is a very slippery slope. It should have been quashed.

The best was the DA learning that Drew Hernandez put together video from a smartphone & body cam (2 lenses, 2 videos) for “his video”. Which was what he gave the cops when they asked for “his video”. Hernandez also gave the cops all his raw video data, which includes the 2 different videos from the phone & body cam. But nobody from the Prosecution bothered to do that.
Binger finding this out while questioning Hernandez is just priceless!
“Back it up (his video) a little bit, I’ll tell ya when it changes …” lol

    Observer in reply to Icepilot. | November 12, 2021 at 7:14 am

    That was funny, even more so because Binger is so completely clueless about digital technology. Yesterday he was actually arguing to the judge that enhancements of digital photos are the exact same thing as looking at a photograph with a magnifying glass — nothing is being added to the photo. WTF? Even the elderly judge knew better.

I’ve had to interpret worse images. Looks it me like KRs hands are at his side. We know from other photos he was still carrying the fire extinguisher at the time. The AR15 might be “pointed at” the zaminskis in a 2d sense, but only by happenstance. In he was severa feet behind them and the rifle hanging from him wasn’t anywhere near them.

Is there forensic software that could take the images, hire actors to play out a dramatic re-enactment of the scene that does not have Kyle running for his life, does not have a man point a 9mm at his head and does not have another low life beat him across the head repeatedly with a skateboard?

Because those would be the pixels Binger needs inserted into the photos and video. Also he’d need the flashy thing from MIB to erase what the Jury has watched for the past 2 weeks. And a donkey and a trumpet to use to distract the jury from watching Richards during closing.

I would hope for a reverse of what the Chauvin Jury did (30 minute deliberation with unanimous not guilty verdict), but I don’t expect it.

Not only has the state failed to prove he didn’t act in self-defense beyond any reasonable doubt, it proved that Rittenhouse DID act in self-defense beyond any reasonable doubt.

BTW, it’s too bad Rittenhouse/his family didn’t have the presence of mind to take him to hospital that night. Given the description of his condition while waiting to be interviewed (confused, vomiting) he may have been concussed, a fact that would have been beneficial to his defense.

    Colonel Travis in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 1:02 am

    For the charges involving recklessness, I believe the state has the lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, which seems to be why they chose recklessness charges in the first place. It’s a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe someone can chime in if this standard is incorrect for those charges in Wisconsin, but this is what I’d read on Andrew’s site last year.

    One thing I noticed yesterday, Binger kept telling Rittenhouse that he shot intentionally, which is another way of saying (legally) not recklessly. I don’t remember when he said he was doing this, if it was on the recklessness charges? If so, this goofball was disproving his own charges.

      Preponderance of the evidence for a criminal charge?
      I don’t think so. That would be the first I’ve ever heard of such a thing.

        Colonel Travis in reply to fogflyer. | November 12, 2021 at 3:49 am

        Are you a member of Andrew’s site? I’m only asking because he had a whole post about this very subject last year, specifically for this case. I would refer you to that instead of me screwing it all up, but yes, recklessness vs. intent can (key word) bring a different standard.

        Colonel Travis in reply to fogflyer. | November 12, 2021 at 3:56 am

        Andrew did say at the time that maybe Wisconsin did not follow this, he was not sure, but he speculated they did because three charges involved recklessness, which would make it easy for the defense, since Wisconsin is a state where the state must disprove self-defense.

      AnAdultInDiapers in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 12, 2021 at 3:50 am

      Surely shooting intentionally can also be reckless? If someone shoots a pigeon that’s flying over a crowd of people, that’s intentional but does feel rather reckless.

      Could be. I don’t know how the jury could find him reckless while finding he also defended himself legally considering he only fire a total of six or seven shots, five of which hit his target and none of which weren’t aimed at someone who was attacking him. As you say, Binger demonstrated to the jury that none of those shots were accidental discharges.

      But, maybe he’s hoping if they feel obligated to convict on something, anything simply to keep their city from burning to the ground again, recklessness gives them an out.

      rebelgirl in reply to Colonel Travis. | November 12, 2021 at 7:58 am

      Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is absolutely required in criminal trials

      All the criminal charges–all the charges against Kyle–require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The legal defense of self-defense must be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Historically, things can get a little foggier on the burden of proof on self-defense when one is raising the legal defense of self-defense to a charge not requiring intent, a charge based on recklessness, but we see so few such charges based on recklessness in cases where the use of force was actually intentional that I”m not sure how WI will treat it–but we’ll find out this morning as they hash out the jury instructions, so I’m not going to bother doing the legal research.

Can’t see a thing in those doctored images.

I’ve been thinking about Drew Hernandez. Generally his contempt for the prosecution would probably be seen as a bad thing, but what if the jury is already full on the “fuck this douche canoe” bandwagon? If it were me, I’d be pretty pleased to see a little bit of that attitude from a witness. Just my worthless $0.02

    luckystars33 in reply to Smooth23. | November 13, 2021 at 9:22 am

    Also all Hernandez has been doing for the past year is filming rioters. He knows who they are. He was on Tucker Carlson that night and said he was getting tons of death threats from the criminal rioters.

So at the last minute these fuzzy images appear, magically together with a State expert to advertise and support them, and the defense doesn’t get to put on their own expert to say how bad they are?

What is going on here? This seems like reversible error by the judge, or it should be.

    The judge might (might) be of the opinion that this trial is so far gone that he’s just trying to get to the end with as little pain as possible. Especially if he’s already in the mood for DV or mistrial (which, to be honest, I expect are still a long shot even though deserved).

    Observer in reply to artichoke. | November 12, 2021 at 7:33 am

    I was surprised the judge let the enhanced photos in evidence, especially after the state’s “expert” admitted that he didn’t really know much about the software, has no idea how the added pixels are predicted by the software, and didn’t even bother to compare the enhanced photo to the original. It seemed like there was a solid basis for denying admission. It made me wonder if the judge has been influenced by all the media criticism of him as being biased in favor of the defense in this case. I know he said the other day that he doesn’t pay attention to coverage of the case, but judges are only human, and they all want to be perceived as fair and competent.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Observer. | November 12, 2021 at 9:18 am

      The defense expert (frank?) made the comment that the ampd5 was considered the “gold standard” of digital enhancement software. He made the comment during the time the the state expert was explaining the process in the voir dor(?) out of the juries presense.

I have to point out that the original video is NOT accurate pixel-to-pixel, since nearly all commercial video is compressed by a lossy format called MP4. That means you cannot point to a combination of pixels on screen and say that is the exact pattern the camera recorded. Worse, if you convert one kind of compressed video to another format, the compression formula can be fairly incompatible and warp the displayed image even more.

So you have a blurred distant image, compressed by video software, copied to a different format, then ‘squinted’ at by software to try to get more information out of the captured images than the original, and we *STILL* have a snapshot of an image that is nearly unidentifiable which the prosecution wants to introduce as evidence.

Dismiss with prejudice. End this clown show. #disbarbinger

I’m afraid this enhanced video might seal Kyle’s fate. The jury is being heavily intimidated and undoubtedly many worry for their safety should they come back with not guilty.

All they need to say is “Kyle pointed his gun first” and they can convict

Those are the two enhanced images? It’s still not possible to read what’s on the sign.

There appeared to be writing or a logo on the sign when the drone footage was shown. However, the manipulation of the larger image on the left appears to have washed out the writing on the sign almost completely and created white blobs next to the defendant’s right foot and beside the right rib cage of one of the two people opposite him.

As for the image on the right, the lower left-hand corner seems to have been graced by a shrouded apparition of the Virgin.

    Wilmore in reply to Wilmore. | November 12, 2021 at 1:19 am

    Based on the update, the white blobs mentioned above appear to belong to the original image. In the enhanced pair, these blobs seem to have been retained in the image on the left and eliminated from the image on the right.

No One of Consequence | November 12, 2021 at 1:17 am

I don’t know much about image enhancement, but I suspect there’s some AI stuff built into it beyond just extrapolating from what’s in the adjacent pixel. Like does the software work like the human brain and try to make sense of stuff? Like look for straight lines and insert stuff that seems to make sense? Create what the algorithm expects, even if that’s not what’s actually there?

And without someone who can answer questions like this, how does this evidence get admitted?

The prosecution, particularly @ the end:

No One of Consequence | November 12, 2021 at 1:22 am

One thing I know for sure is that if this were a civil trial, and I wanted to get extrapolited images into evidence to show that Exxon did something wrong, I’d have to make a hell of a lot better showing than the prosecution made here.

It’s funny how the Daubert standard is so strict when a multinatuonal corporation’s money is on the line, but so loose when it’s just some criminal defendant’s life or freedom.

Hood reflection confused as Kyle’s hand in drone “enhancement” falsely suggests he points rifle at Rosenbaum.
This guy nailed it, see both pics:

The white dot to the left of the sign post that the brain wants to see as Kyle’s hand, is a reflection off the truck hood. This can be seen in previous frames and does not move. The only way one can interpret that image as Kyle pointing the rifle at Rosenbaum, is if the hood reflection is misunderstood to be Kyle’s hand. Please try to get info to the defense. I would be so sick if Kyle goes to prison over a fake image capture.

Judge Norton saw this as a way to avoid ruling this travesty a mistrial with prejudice and took the cowards way out.

Armstrong was either stoned, hung over, or partially inebriated. There are obviously other mind altering substances that would account for his bloodshot eyes and relatively suppressed manner, but my money is on alcohol.

Nevertheless, he had enough of his wits about him to deny that he had compared the original to the enhanced. Why? CYA. He did not want to leave the door open (should there be a retrial) for another expert witness to do proper analysis, showing that there are identifiable indications that the ‘enhanced’ version is clearly not true to the original, and in a manner not indicative of the algorithm, but rather showing likely human alteration.

I practiced law in Wisconsin for 37 years. Mostly civil trial work. I can say that the proceedings regarding the experts is about the norm. Daubert is not understood by lots of attys and judges. In response to Col. Travis, ALL crimes, even reckless ones, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Assuming that what is shown on the embedded videos is everything, I think the defense attys should have used some drawings to point out the fact that the software fills in gaps in the pixels. I could have spent 45 minutes crossing the DA’s expert on that alone, and it would tie in with the complete lack of clarity in the two “enhanced” photos. As I have watched this case unfold, the one concern I would have as the defense atty is explaining why a teenager felt compelled to pick up a rifle and cross state lines in order to participate in civil unrest, on one side or the other. His connection with Kenosha seems rather tenuous. If I were the DA I would paint defendant as someone from out of town who was eager to get to get into a fight.

    felixrigidus in reply to Fishlaw. | November 12, 2021 at 6:04 am

    As I have watched this case unfold, the one concern I would have as the defense atty is explaining why a teenager felt compelled to pick up a rifle and cross state lines in order to participate in civil unrest, on one side or the other. His connection with Kenosha seems rather tenuous.

    Clearly, you have not watched the case closely. Not even this prosecution has claimed in court that the rifle Kyle picked up “crossed state lines.” And, pray tell, is there a limit on self-defense based on how far away from home you are when attacked?

    CETERVM CENSEO #DisbarBinger

    TargaGTS in reply to Fishlaw. | November 12, 2021 at 7:46 am

    Watching the lengthy exchange yesterday on the enlargement of a still from a digital video, was anyone surprised that no one – not the defense, prosecution or judge – was citing actual statutory or case law to either support their respective positions?

    I can’t believe this hasn’t ever come up before either in the state of Wisconsin or federal court. There has to be some controlling or persuasive legal opinion somewhere, right? And yet, no lawyer in that room mentioned it. I found it really odd.

      Elzorro in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 8:20 am

      There is a lot of case law. Artificially Enhanced video evidence can be admitted if the state overcomes the hurdles barring it. A Motion in Limine should have been filed by the defense beforehand and prolly would have if they had not been ambushed at the last minute by Binger. The Judge could have ruled it out and should have done so and put the state in position to appeal his ruling not the defense.

    Observer in reply to Fishlaw. | November 12, 2021 at 7:59 am

    Tenuous? His father lives in Kenosha, his grandmother and other family members live in Kenosha, Kyle’s best friend lives in Kenosha, Kyle himself once lived and worked in Kenosha. That’s hardly tenuous. Kenosha was obviously a place Kyle knew well and felt connected to. Yes, he’s a brash kid who was very naive about what he was letting himself in for that night, but his actions clearly show that he was not the one looking for a fight that night, the rioters were. Kyle did everything he could to avoid confrontations. If that lunatic (literally) Rosenbaum hadn’t tried to attack Kyle on the street, Kyle would have gone home safely at the end of the night, just like the other members of the car lot protection crew did.

    jakeandcrew in reply to Fishlaw. | November 12, 2021 at 8:21 am

    Kyle in no way went to Kenosha to participate in civil unrest. He went there to prevent it, to help protect the town and its citizens, to be a deterrent to the violence, and help those in need – anyone, rioters included.

    I can’t help but think how different it would have been if more citizens had done that, Maybe the whole horrible nightmare could have been avoided if more people had been there with Kyle and the others trying to help.

      aramissebastian in reply to jakeandcrew. | November 12, 2021 at 9:55 am

      I hear what you’re saying — but there is a fine line between the ‘boy-scout/Good Samaritan”-type and the Walter Mitty wannabes of this world.

      Just like some cops want to serve the public interest, and others are just in love with the badge and gun, and exercise of authority.

      The former is a hero; the latter is a liability.

      The defendant’s narrative definitely is that he was a goody-two shoes with the best of intentions.

      But there’s lots of folks who are going to see really poor judgment and over-reaching on his part.

      If it was your 17 year old who was proposing to do this, I bet you’d say “Sit your a$$ down on the couch and stop talking stoopid” or words to that effect.

        randoPerson23 in reply to aramissebastian. | November 12, 2021 at 10:29 am

        Your argument is identical to “she wore a miniskirt so she was asking for it.”

        It’s an evil argument.

          aramissebastian in reply to randoPerson23. | November 12, 2021 at 10:38 am

          Not unless miniskirts are unlawful.

          healthguyfsu in reply to randoPerson23. | November 12, 2021 at 12:57 pm

          Kyle’s using of that weapon is not unlawful to the question of self defense if thats what you are trying to insinuate.

          Carrying the weapon under age is a possible statute he could be convicted of. Using it in self defense is still his legal right…this is the letter of the law and the left doesn’t seem to understand it.

          Think about it in terms your warped brain can understand: Assume a “liberal peaceful demonstrator” is being chased by a “crazy MAGA attacker” and is carrying an illegal concealed carry gun. If the “peaceful demonstrator” fends off their attacker by producing the gun and successfully flees are they guilty of whatever harm they inflicted upon said attacker during flight?

          No, they aren’t. They are guilty of illegally carrying said firearm but not of defending themselves from an attack.

          I think the biggest problem is that the libs put their little freedom fighter heroes on way too high of a pedestal. If someone is illegally carrying a weapon, another person does not have the right to forcibly remove that weapon from the illegal carrier to force them into compliance with the law. That is for law enforcement and the justice system to adjudicate.

          If I’m on the jury though, I’m definitely letting him slide on the weapons charge because the police weren’t doing jack shit to stop anyone that night. That’s where Grosskreutz should be placing his lawsuit…is on the city planners for criminal negligence. However, he won’t because he’s a lefty soy boy that thinks all cops are bad so he comes up with this speculative and flimsy case of “deputizing” instead.

A failure to feed a round could require cycling of the action, but with the chamber empty there would have been no live round to eject.

I’m enjoying a bit of comic relief at the thought of the conniption fits ADA Binger would have had he encountered my most entertaining failure to eject. An 1896 Mauser pistol extracted just fine, then flipped the case 180 degrees and rammed it back into the chamber. Really weird-city. The C-96 does have a well-developed sense of humor, unlike Mauser rifles, which are boring – they just work without any fuss.

    Elzorro in reply to tom_swift. | November 12, 2021 at 8:38 am

    Finding the live round or examining the casings by the state would be pretty darn good proof by the state. They failed. This one goes to the defense.

Digital photographs are not what is seen in the first place. Owing to regular placement of pixels, a picture of a chain-link fence or house siding produces moire patterns owing to the interference of two regular patterns. To prevent this artifact (from regular pixel spacing), the light is blurred before hitting the pixels so that light always hits more than one pixel. This however blurs the photograph, so there’s a post-processing edge-sharpening step in the camera. It guesses what’s an edge and deliberately and artificially sharpens it.

So digital photos always have really weird edges on things when the contrast at the edge is high enough.

Regular film doesn’t have a regular arrangement of pixels and so doesn’t need any of this.

Anyway enhancement of digital photos is going to be more guesswork on top of that already done, indeed using the regular guesswork as a clue for follow-on guesswork.

Excellent commentary throughout what has been a show trial. The copies of the pictures raise issues as to whether they are a fair and accurate depiction of what RIttenhouse was doing and are not definitive in that respect Why was the prosecution allowed to introduce such a purported smoking gun so late in the case?

Zapp Brannigan: “Magnify that death sphere!” (Image zooms in) “Why is it still blurry?”
Kif: “That’s all the resolution we have. Making it bigger doesn’t make it clearer.”
Zapp Brannigan: “It does on CSI Miami.”


“Isn’t this software you used a “gold-standard” for forensic image analysis. Armstrong confirmed it was—but that doesn’t change his own admission that the software inserts pixels that are colored by a process he can’t explain.”

Binger should have held out for CDC certification. It’s insanely easy to get, provided it gives some government the paper OK that it needs to oppress somebody.

My only regret is that Officer Brittany didn’t play a larger role in this case.

    TargaGTS in reply to SamlAdams. | November 12, 2021 at 8:42 am

    You mean to maybe just stand there next to the judge or something? I really didn’t need to hear her speak anymore than she did. It was clear she’s as dumb as a box of hammers.

    Agree, though my wife wondered if the low-cut blouse was to distract attention from her competence.

I cant even tell which one is Kyle in the photo. But then I have always failed Rorschach tests.

carolinaandbaby | November 12, 2021 at 7:30 am

These DAs are proof of the corruptness of our legal institutions and enlarged and zoomed photos are manufactured evidence and the judge knows it. Somehow the past 8 years there has been infiltration into our most trusted institutions by wicked people. Binger and Klaus are demons on earth. Sad.

I watched this attempt to frame up Kyle from the start. Up until the “Hunter Biden Painting” image at the last moment I had seen ZERO admitted evidence that could incriminate the defendant..Everyone including me thought the judge would be forced to declare a mistrial with prejudice and take the heat from the entire left government/media complex. The judge was loathe to do the right and just thing.
Along comes Binger with this saving grace last minute photo that supposedly is incriminating, although I still do not see how, evidence. The judge looks it over and bends over backwards to admit it in order to give himself a scintilla of evidence to justify not dismissing with prejudice but sending the stinking heap of Biden Poo to the jury. To me that is the only thing that makes any sense.
On to the jury instructions that I suspect will go just as badly for the defense. The Kenosha Choo Choo has left the station and is rolling down the track.

    TargaGTS in reply to Elzorro. | November 12, 2021 at 8:32 am

    Yep. This judge is the Lindsay Graham of prosecutorial misconduct; all hat and no cattle.

      Smooth23 in reply to TargaGTS. | November 12, 2021 at 10:19 am

      I agree, he’s talked big, but every real decision he’s made has gone against the defense. What has he given the defense, dropping the curfew civil infraction charge? Everything else, “Meh, I’ll allow it”

If the defense (in jury selection) and now in closing, has and will deal decisevely with the argument “A 17 years old shouldn’t have been there in the first place with a loaded AR” then KR walks.

This (non legal/political/pseudo moral) argument is all the State has. There is zero “evidence” of anything but that proposition, repeated in various forms, with an attempt to also associate his “impure motives” with “racism” and “boogaloo boys.”

If they can hit that out of the park, and the jury doesn’t accept that proposition, KR is a free man. God willing, and God save the United States of America.

    TallDave in reply to xnycp. | November 12, 2021 at 11:22 am

    little has changed since Reconstruction other than the client group

    1) justified shooting of a Democrat client group
    2) Democrats and and their left-wing proxies (brownshirts) riot
    3) elected Democrats refuse the bring in the Guard
    4) Kyle shows up instead, b/c if he doesn’t Democrat brownshirts burn Kenosha
    5) Kyle is attacked and nearly killed by Democrat brownshirts for interfering with their rioting
    6) having failed to kill him, Democrats settle for falsely charging Kyle with murder
    7) Democrats threaten more rioting if Kyle isn’t falsely convicted of murder

    most people still don’t really get it, but Kyle is essentially on trial for being a Republican

    e.g. the prosecutor can use the political affiliation of the journalist to cast aspersions on his evidence, but of course the political affiliation *of the prosecutor* isn’t an issue at all

    b/c he’s a Democrat, the party of truth and justice and science, from which all goodness and rightness flows

    it isn’t just this and the Jan 6 persecution, they’re just the most obvious cases

    rule of law? haha, tell me another good one

I disagree that clearing a stoppage should be taken as an indicator of hostile intent. Any soldier is taught to clear a storage immediately as it happens, and make the decision whether to go on firing AFTER the stoppage has been cleared. Standard doctrine for civilian defensive shooting courses are the same – ever heard of “tap, rack, ASSESS?” You reassess the situation and the threat AFTER you’ve brought your weapon back into readiness, you don’t stop and wait to see if further shooting is necessary before you start clearing a stoppage – by the time you know, it’ll be too late.

I have zero confidence in the jury. The media is well aware that the evidence presented should be acquitted on all charges but….

Hermann Rorschach please call your office

Prepare yourself for the provocation lessers based on the Hunter Biden. Painting photo. The lawfare sheme is on the table. Choreographed by Judge Norton. I bet Bingers ambush is aided by lots of democrat lawfare specialists behind the scenes.

Andrew, I am curious if the charge of carrying a long gun underage is not dropped and if he is found guilty of that charge alone which I believe is a misdemeanor would he ever be allowed to carry a firearm? Would it effect his voting rights?

    No on gun ownership, no on voting rights. How it might affect his ability to obtain a concealed carry permits specifically is too “gun law” to fall within my area of expertise.

      Good thing Wisconsin is an open-carry state. Though really, he should consider taking some of that defense fund and moving to Florida or somewhere friendly.

I want to add this bit of information. From a research paper (Not my research) I did in Grad School in the 80″s, but this article backs up:
First, this is pertinent to when Binger was trying to ask Kyle why he didn’t stop shooting Rosenbaum after the first two shots. Their a concept in visual perception called a perceptual moment, it’s how the brain “digitizes” analog time into distinct simultaneous events. The studies I remember (don’t ask me why), they had a series of lights in which the turned on and off at distinct 100 millisecond intervals sequentially. People viewed these lights as simultaneous in distinct groups of 5, meaning we see thing a a moment in chunks of 500 milliseconds. For example, an advanced baseball batter will 5-6 “pictures” to determine speed and location of a pitch as thrown by a college or professional pitcher. Kyle had somewhere between .75 to 1.0 seconds between his first and last shot of Rosenbaum. That 1 or two “visual pictures” to determine if his first shot was enough. Obviously Kyle shot from muscle memory and had no real time to stop.

So, even though none of us think this 11th hour, doctored frame capture shows what the prosecution contends, but let’s pretend it does.

How would showing that Kyle pointed his gun briefly at Zaminski in any way effect his self-defense claim against Rosenbaum?

So Kyle briefly points his firearm at a guy with a gun in his hand, doesn’t shoot him, runs away and another guy (Rosenbaum) chases his down and attacks him? Somehow that equates to Kyle losing his self defense claim?
I don’t think so. It really bothers me that we have prosecutors this corrupt in this country.

    I think, given questions Binger asked on cross of KR, the idea is that good citizen Rosenbaum charged KR and attempted to push his rifle aside to keep him from shooting people. Him pointing the rifle at Zimiski would prove that idea (or so the argument goes), so obviously KR provoked the attack and wasn’t legally defending himself.
    The whole thing is baloney, but could provide the jury just enough to hang at least one guilty verdict on.

I wonder whether the mob will accept anything less than guilty on all counts. Or if he gets convicted on a lesser included offense instead of murder, will the nation’s cities be subjected to another round of pillage and plunder.

Midfiaudiophile | November 12, 2021 at 12:38 pm

Judge understands the technology better than any of the lawyers or the Prosecution expert.

A couple of thoughts on yesterday’s activity concerning the enlargement issue.

My questions to James Armstrong:

Why did you use two different algorithms on the two pictures.

If you rendered a picture with one algorithm and then rendered the same picture with another algorithm – would there be a noticeable difference between the two pictures?

Why would anyone use one algorithm over another?

My suspicion is different algorithms produce different results. If so then how can one be deemed more “accurate” than the other? Wouldn’t it follow that both or all algorithms add information not in the original?

Why is the prosecution being allowed to introduce new evidence after they closed their case in chief? Worse, this new evidence was allowed to be timed as the last thing the jury sees.

It’s pretty obvious the judge has already decided to allow the gun charge and will not declare a mistrial, in effect allowing the prosecution to get away with its antics without consequence (for the prosecution). He’s washing his hands of it and throwing it to the jury.

Jack D. Ripper | November 12, 2021 at 6:14 pm

With all the discussion and examination of “enhanced” stills from the FBI drone, and the chances that he had a misfire that he had to clear, I haven’t heard anyone talk about the difficulty in switching shoulders with his rifle while wearing the rifle sling that he’s show with in several other photos. It isn’t impossible, but it isn’t exactly easy and smooth, especially if you haven’t practiced it a lot.

“But pixels have color, and these brand new pixels don’t inherently come with any color—they are new-born pixels. What to do?

Well, most imaging software will “guess” at what color the new pixel should be by looking at the actual color of one of the adjacent original pixels. Is the “neighboring” original pixel blue? Well, the software makes the new pixel blue.

Clearly, this is new information being added to the enlarged version of the image that was not contained in the original image—a brand new pixel colored blue.

Other imaging software doesn’t just assume the color of the nearest adjacent original pixel, but may look at multiple nearby pixels. This creates its own problems for the task of ensuring that the enlarged image faithfully reflects the image.”

Andrew, the above explanation is possibly wrong. You’ve described interpolation, which is done when an image is enlarged. This is different from “zooming in,” in which the number of pixels in the image remains the same, but the number of monitor pixels used to represent individual image pixels is increased.

For instance, if you zoom in on a single pixel in an image at 2x magnification, that single image pixel will be represented on a monitor by 4 pixels (2×2=4). Zoom in 10X and one image pixel is represented by 100 pixels on the monitor. The colors and tones of the pixels do not change. The only thing that changes is the number of pixels the monitor uses to depict each pixel in the image.

OTOH, if you enlarge an image or upscale a video, that requires interpolation (what you described). Say you start with a 100×100 pixel image and you enlarge it to 200×200 pixels. In this process a computer will increase the number of pixels in the image from 1,000 to 4,000, by interpolation – creating pixels that are added to the image to increase the image’s physical size, and not merely zooming in on the image. The process of image enlargement or video upscaling uses an algorithm to determine how to fill in the spaces, and that process can introduce artefacts.

So, I’m not sure which was done in the trial. If the video remained in its original format, and the computer operator zoomed in on a portion, then that process did not interpolate, it just changed the number of monitor pixels used to represent each image pixel.

The whole discussion about pixels was missing a very important technical point. When you enlarge and image (or “pinch and zoom” as they kept saying) – iPhone DOESN’T add pixels. The quality of the image is good enough that you can make 8″x11″ portrait out of a cell phone video, and it will still be high quality.
But this zooming obviously has some limits. When you take a tiny piece on a photo and try to blow it up 100 times – the image becomes blurry; also described as “pixelated” exactly because the size of pixels is too large.
So, in order to compensate for this bad optical quality, smart software adds pixels (through various algorithms) to keep the size of pixels small and picture quality higher.
ADA kept saying that what Armstrong did is no different from what Black did by showing phone picture on large-screen TV. Rubbish! Sadly, defense never pointed it out, and DA was able to take advantage of Judge’s lack of technical skills (to use their own words)