When I saw Rittenhouse choke up as he began to relive the moment when he realized he was facing a murderous attack, alone and surrounded by a crazy crowd more depraved than he’d ever imagined possible in his young life–it was obvious to me immediately that he is almost physically unable to bear remember the horrible events of that night. People are insane to discount the impact, first, of believing he’s about to be killed and, second, of having to kill two men.

When I imagine him trying to surrender to the police and being turned away, well, ….

Interesting discussion of Kyle’s PTSD, which Barnes says is now public and should have been revealed sooner. There should have been medical testimony as to his probable concussion from the skateboard attack.

Praises his restraint in NOT turning on the mob and firing indiscriminately, as many people would including soldiers and police.

Claims that juries are not offended by objections, because they expect them; however, this judge allows speaking objections – which he defines as anything other than noting the rule or category – and they are unusual because of introducing opinions and arguments.

An extraordinary amount of hearsay evidence & other social media things that should not have been introduced by either attorney, or should have been objected to by defense. Some stipulations end up damaging because of the way Binger re-labeled them and lingered when showing them.

Why the gun charge should be dropped & why provocation is being introduced for the first time, and allowed even though it has no application to Kyle’s actions; Richards should have been better prepared, more attentive to his own exhibits, and Yellow Pants’ statements should have raised objections.

Frei notes a subtle conflation by Binger of Kyle pointing a green laser to pointing laser sights to pointing the gun.

The new image taken from the grainy video should not have been admitted; defense didn’t introduce an expert to rebut it; they had better evidence already, etc. Any juror who believes provocation in that one instance will probably extend it to the entire sequence.

(I don’t think Binger made all the arguments that Barnes suggested he would, but I didn’t hear the full statement.)

Defense didn’t adequately prepare the court for how provocation could enable a biased juror.

Barnes thinks defense should have objected to far more of the prosecution’s proposed evidence and made fewer stipulations, had more of their own expert witnesses, and called more direct witnesses instead of allowing commentary on their videos by themselves or from other people.

Barnes reveals that Richards didn’t want to take any advice, including some information from crowd-sources that were on target.

This enhanced video is a test of new application of technology in trials.

Reveals that 5 of the 18 jurors are voluntarily wearing masks per a journalist in the room; and chats suggest it may not be ideological bias, but covering their faces.
Said all in-room observers agreed that Kyle’s emotional break-down was authentic.

Soundly chastises both prosecution and defense, but mostly that Binger is unethical and Richards incompetent.

Also disses their jury selection expert as an incompetent has been.
The only jurors who would convict based on this evidence, which is overwhelming, are those who had already decided, and they could have been screened out.

“If he just hadn’t been there…” is true of every victim.

Zero doubts that other people would have been hurt or killed if Kyle had not been there.

Lengthy explanation of Binger’s egregious violation of rules against commenting on Fifth Amendment rights, and what constitutes waiver or not. Should be fired from his position as law professor teaching rules of evidence!

Difference between mistrial with or without prejudice. Had argument with Richards about need to expose Binger’s deficiencies in and out of court, because he misused everything to bias the public before and doing trial, including suborning perjury.

Mentions some of the things David Hancock orchestrated that damaged Kyle’s case or reputation.

Background on why 17-year-olds can have shotguns and rifles – due to need for defense in rural areas. Should never have had the charge, but glad it was dropped.

“Where do I go to get my reputation back?”
Criminal defendants, even if acquitted, still have the fact of charges made against them so hard to win lawsuits for libel.

Binger probably won’t suffer negative outcome regardless of the verdict, because he has built some “affection” from those who believed Kyle guilty.

Grosskreutz going on media is not grounds for mistrial after he testified. More problematic: governor letting people know he’s bringing in the National Guard depending on the verdict, which is a message to intimidate the jury. Legally prohibited from watching Grosskreutz, but not governor – and can be influenced anything that can’t reasonably be avoided. He could have made the arrangements privately, didn’t have to make an announcement.

Cites example of Arbury case as how a defense should have been handled by lawyers. Calls Kyle’s case a classic of self-defense: if this isn’t self-defense, we don’t have self-defense. That’s what should be high-lighted.

Predicts sleazy slimy performance by Binger.

Frei: The 2 minutes 55 seconds in which this all occurred should have been presented in some way, by a collage video or some familiar time-frame in the court.
Barnes: “This is how long this kid had to decide what to do.”

I hope there is an independent mind on the jury.

https://youtu.be/e2AbfDlhOyc?t=165

That was the way professionals (Lawyers, doctors, and dentists ) did things when I was young. The poor needed treatment and representation. That’s the way they got it. A honorable way to operate that is no longer. Sad.

This trial has certainly been a big black eye for justice in this country. An ethical justice system is difficult to maintain. Unfortunately, many in the legal profession seem to have given up trying to maintain professional and ethical standards. The prosecutors in this case have failed miserably as guardians of the law. Truly disturbing.

Those of us through the nation do believe in self defense and we had the means and the right to do that.

Same here; I’m as nervous about this trial as I get about an election. But with the added dread of watching what this kid is going through.

The above video talks a bit about Rittenhouse’s PTSD – yep, they are spot on with that assessment. And, sadly, I feel that is something he will be living with for quite a while to come.

I was watching some news clips from local TV stations out in Kenosha asking people on the street to opine about this. Unfortunately, quite a few said something along the lines of what one woman said: “well, he killed two people so he has to pay for that.” It seemed to me that she didn’t hear any of the evidence and brought her own bias into play. If there are 12 jurors like her it will not turn out well for Rittenhouse.

So, I hope that there is at least one sane person on the jury who sees through the nonsense of the prosecutor and realizes this kid was someone who was trying to do good and got swept up, and nearly killed, by all the crazies around him. May God help him!

My father was a lawyer, and he died in the 1970s. A couple of years before he died, I remember him getting incensed about two changes in the legal profession. The first was ads for lawyers – that was a big no-no to him. The second was billing by the time spent, in 15-minute segments I believe. He always billed by the job, and he charged rich people a lot and poor people little to nothing. Fortunately, most of his clients could pay, and he made a good living. But quite a few couldn’t pay much.