Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

It was said before that the prosecution's case was ruined or severly compromised because Gaige contradicted himself, but when I watch his testimony, what does he say exactly that is contradictory about his gun, unless I missed it?

Why are you asking me? <joke>
Ask Brictoria, Dox or mom.

Oh I was just asking anyone on here, I wasn't directing it to a specific person, sorry .

From memory, the case(s) which he ruined or severly compromised with his testimony were not this case (directly), but rather his civil cases against the city\state as a result of his being shot. The problem was that in these cases he had not mentioned in the details around the incident the highly relevant fact that he was armed (and the related detail that he had pointed his gun at Mr Rittenhouse), details which would likely have a strong bearing on the degree to which what occurred to him was caused by his own acts, rather than the lack of action by those entities which he was sueing.

Of course, the defence started out by pointing out this failure to provide important\relevant details (lying by omission), and so his credibility took a hit (and, by extension, that of the answers he had provided for the prosecution's questions). His demeanour (some reported him as acting in a smug way, but it is possible that was simply him acting naturally\result of nerves through being on the stand\other causes) when answering the question as to whether a guilty verdict in the case would help him with those civil cases may have also had a similar effect, as well as making his evidence appear somewhat self-serving.

Oh okay I see. I didn't catch the entire video unedited before and just saw it now, sorry. Thanks. But since Gaige's actions speak for themselves in the video, and you can see what he does clearly, is him leaving the gun out of the civil suit relevant though, since his actions are in the video anyway as far as credibility goes?

With his civil cases, the video evidence would be less likely to come into play, with a settlement based upon the statements he had made when launching the case being the more likely outcome. The absence of these highly relevant details (lying by omission) which would tend to have a detrimental impact on his case could easily appear to an observer to have been omitted in order to help himself, rather than being an accidental oversight.

I acknowledge the prosecution shot themselves in the foot

Alright, cultural thing pertaining to what I interpreted "liberal" mean't in America. I associate it with being "progressive" although I also acknowledge the "Liberal party of Australia" is also the conservative party here.

Fascinating.



Has this been posted before?

But even if he ommitted this intentionally, the video still shows him put his hands up, and then Rittenhouse wracks the next round into the chamber. This indicates that Rittenhouse did not accept his surrender like he said and that Rittenhouse was getting the next round ready which provoked Grosskreutz into attacking him. So doesn't the video still supports his state of mind at the time accurately, regardless if him leaving the something out later for a lawsuit?

The guys is largely explaining how Wisconsin law works in favor of a stand your ground/self-defense outcome. We kinda already knew that.

Grosskreutz did not articulate his actions accurately in court but the events seem to transpired so quickly that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse decided that each one was a threat.

Rittenhouse reloading his chamber gives some insight into his mindset but its irrelevant now as there is no double jeopardy in US law so even if it transpires he wanted to kill, the time has now passed.

Oh yes, I am not saying anything about double jeopardy. What I mean is, since the video shows what it shows, what does Grosskreutz's credibility matter, at all, when you can just go by the video? People say Grosskreutz's testimony hurt the case, but how did he when the video overrides anything he says is what I mean?

Shouldn't the jurors go by the video and disregard anything he says or did after the fact?

Rittenhouse and his victims were very close to each other when the shootings occured so the videos were not clear enough and needed some licence to be interpreted. This fed into the lack of evidence and reasonable doubt for the jury.

Rittenhouse was lucky in that the drone footage showing him provoking the crowd right at the beginning was too granular to show that he pointed his gun at the crowd.

The lawsuits where he neglected to mention this, however, are civil cases, where the entities being sued by him (city\state) would have to make the effort to find the footage and present it, should they decide to take it to court.

In those cases, it would be more likely that someone in the legal department (or high up in the entity) of the entity could decide it is "cheaper" to settle the case prior to going to trial based on what is contained in what he provided in his "complaint", not what was omitted but available in video footage of the events.

Your dismissiveness noted.