Did they really just waive his Prelim?

Oh no sorry apparently that was the guy before him

Yeah it's sort of a revolving door right now.

It's about to begin.

cool thanks

Next court date is scheduled January 5th at 1 PM/2 PM EDT.

My video cut out but Im sure that was enough for probable cause. But if that detective is an indication of how law enforcement will be testifying at trial Rittenhouse will not be convicted.

Watch Grosskreutz eat the table when he falls from chair. lmao.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10160822992482925&id=822542924

Note Kyle diving.

i missed it

what happened in the hearing?

or has it happened yet?

You’ve missed a lot of it but they’re in a 15 minute break right now

ah ok

I find it very distracting to have Grosskreutz and his lawyer present at every hearing. I just find it wholly unnecessary to have him there in the first place

The victim is party to the case.

that is as a result of the boilerplate Marsy's Law which declares a victim before the accused has had a chance to clear themeslves

I'm aware

but you see the conflict of interest?

It declares a victim in contravention to the presumption of innocence

Indeed.

"state versus"

this is solved here by letting council representing the possible victim attend, but not the victim itself.

agreed

To avoid the problem arising from the proposed victim making a statement after having heard the case.

technically, the prosecutor can call the victim last, and if present, the proposed victim can change his/her deposition according to what has transpired.

Which is problematic.

100%

To have proposed victims councils attend is less problematic, but you see them here sometimes, take on the role as co-prosecutor.

Which is a problem, and I agree with you.

But you have the next problem, which is what you say defending yourself from verdict in a criminal case, can get you convicted in the civilian case that might follow.

In theory, as it functions here, Kyle could be acquitted of all charges in a criminal case, and the evidence from that acquittal used as evidence against him in a civilian case leading to reparations above 200k dollars pr v"ictim".

[layman! Forensic. Not!!! a lawyer.]

I'm also not a fan of this Court Commissioner, but that's neither here nor there

I'm watching the bit now where Attorney Richards argues that Count 6 should not apply because a complete reading of 948.60 (specifically 948.60(3)(c) ) indicates that it doesn't apply to Kyle

Commissioner Keating's response is basically "Well, a plain language read indicates that Kyle Rittenhouse was not 18 and possessed a dangerous weapon."

....but that's not reading the whole statute!

so frustrating

I do feel the detective had been coached as well, so it does seem like....what is the English term... a railroad?

Did the victims councils cross examine witnesses?

I havent watched it past the first witness