When the judge exploded at the prosecutor for egregiously bad, trial destroying things, the jury wasn't in the room.
They're sent out of the room fairly often. Sometimes he tells them to leave the room so quickly, I don't even notice he's done it. But whenever they're having those testy discussions between lawyers and the judge, they're not there.
Second, people are hyper focused on when he goes against the prosecution. They blow that up. They don't notice or mention when he helps them. For example, that bit about the Drew Hernandez thing about the law firm. It seemed like the prosecution was getting weirdly close to that 5th Amendment third rail again. But when the prosecutor explained his purpose, the judge said he was inclined to allow it. That witness was super right-wing, and the judge wasn't thrilled with him.
It happened again with that picture kerfuffle. The defense objected strenuously to admitting it into evidence. The judge didn't quite understand the technology being explained, the defense did not want the prosecution to be able to say what they were about to, but ultimately, the judge came down on the prosecution's side.
People keep saying "Oh, he wants his own tv show." I think it's the opposite. I think he doesn't appreciate enough that he's on TV. Some of his comments veer towards grandpa being weird at Thanksgiving dinner.
I think it comes down to this: When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have the law, argue the law. When you have neither, argue the narrative. We're in that latter portion of things and have been from almost day one.
I knew about this case, but can't say I read too deeply on it. And I thought Rittenhouse was slam dunk going to be convicted of one of the more serious crimes. Then I started reading. Watched videos. Read about witness statements. Then the trial actually started and people started testifying.
There is almost no case here. I was shocked when I saw just how little there is in this to charge murder. Did you know everything Rosenbaum did? I didn't. And the prosecutor lied about it in opening statements.
I think this case has been lost before it was even brought, and I think plenty of people knew that. So now the story is this judge, and it will be crafted in such a way to explain why Rittenhouse walks.
People need to hang their hats on something to justify why there's no conviction. I mean, the evidence and testimony are more than enough to explain it. But, if the Narrative is going to hold when Rittenhouse walks, there needs to be a cause, a villain, a figure for this grave injustice.
Voila. Evil judge. And the story line is being handed out over social media on the most silvery of platters.
The reason I am so obsessed with this trial is because I cannot believe how far The Narrative is from objective facts and evidence. The stories being told on social media are not the story being told in that courtroom. And those false stories continue, no matter how much someone points out it's wrong, false, misinformation, incorrect, or ignorant.
This is all like watching some crazy sociology experiment for me. I'm in awe that so many can be so resistant to evidence all can see and how much buttressing a Narrative will require once someone is invested enough.
As I said, it's fascinating shit.
= new reply since forum marked as read
