Rittenhouse trial: The judge is looking at photos with a magnifying glass

[madaboutharry]

as he sits in his courtroom looking completely clueless over the concept of a pixel.

The defense attorneys are playing this judge for all it is worth and making him look like someone who just fell off a turnip truck.

The DAs are doing a good job as they struggle to make him understand that enlarging a photo doesn't change the content of the photo.

It is insanity.

[a kennedy]

1. I know, totally, totally, totally despise him.

[unblock]

2. Everyone knows that when you enlarge an image, iPad adds a rifle and an angry look.

[Budi]

3. Oswald/Rittenhouse

"Lee Oswald, who has idolized law enforcement since he was young, arrived in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, with at least one mission: to visit the book depository on Dealey Plaza."

The New York Times
@nytimes
"Kyle Rittenhouse, who has idolized law enforcement since he was young, arrived in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, with at least one mission: to play the role of police officer and medic. The night would end with him fatally shooting two men and wounding another". https://nyt

Link to tweet

[Hoyt]

4. It does, however, change the perspective, crop some info on the sides, etc. It is possible that

zooming could totally change the impression one gets from the photo.

I'm assuming they are looking at the photo(s) to see where Rittenhouse's rifle was pointed, the victim who pulled his own gun was pointing, etc. But, it seems that even if a zoomed photo did misrepresent, distort, crop, or otherwise obscure the situation, the other side would zoom out and show the jury that perspective.

[Torchlight]

5. Madness. Sheer madness.

It takes bái mù (eyes without pupils) to sincerely believe that zooming in on a picture alters it. I hope the judge's eyes aren't altered by his use of a magnifying glass.

[Girard442]

6. Life is never as simple as you want it to be.

If a digital image is a JPEG, for instance, it has artifacts which can become apparent at higher magnifications. A naive enlargement of a digital image produces "jaggies". A sophisticated algorithm could, I suppose, introduce other artifacts that might be problematic when using the image for forensic purposes.

The defense might actually bring in an expert witness to obfuscate the photo evidence. I'm not much of an expert but I could baffle the judge with bullshit pretty good. Doesn't sound like it would be hard.

[RockRaven]

7. It's always easy to baffle people who want to be baffled...

[Girard442]

8. Yeah, that too.

Being an expert witness to testify about digital photography in criminal trials is not something I'd want to do, for that reason, and a whole host of others.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. Want to do some about the Judge in the Rittenhouse trial, file a complaint.

Link to tweet