The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - A Tale of Two Videos

Did the prosecution purposely SABOTAGE the defense?

A thread
Where did the original video file originate?

On August 25, 2020, Brandon Beamon used a drone to capture video of the riots and unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Beamon was working for a now dissolved company ‘UrbanAired’ which likely violated FAA laws that night.
Beamon is a BLM supporter that has a fairly extensive criminal record including || Use Of Dangerous Weapon | 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide to which he plead no contest in 2000.

Beamon lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and was likely only in Kenosha for the riots.
Beamon used a DJI Mavic Mini - Serial number 1SFLH1G0AK01TC to capture video.

This serial was embedded in the metadata of the original video and other video files.

The Mavic Mini is capable of recording video at

2.7k: 2720 × 1530 at /25/30p
FHD: 1920 × 1080 at 25/30/50/60p
Shortly after the events involving Kyle Rittenhouse on August 25, 2020 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the drone video was sold to the Tucker Carlson Show / Fox News and potions of the video were played on his show.
Based on arguments during the trial, sometime after this, Rittenhouse’s first attorney John Pierce, was given a portion of the video, although the video was in black and white.

This is according to Rittenhouse’s current attorney Mark Richards.
When and how did the prosecution get the video?

During the trial, ADA James Kraus, claimed that detective Martin Howard left the courtroom to go to the ADA office to meet a person who claimed to have evidence related to the trial.
This occurred on Thursday, November 4th during witness Jason Lackowski’s testimony while ADA Thomas Binger was questioning him, sometime before the first break of the day.
Detective Martin Howard’s sworn affidavit details obtaining the evidence from a black man of medium to large build who was wearing a face mask and refused to give his name. The unknown man airdropped the file from his iPhone phone to detective Howard’s work iPhone.
Detective Howard returned to the courtroom and text the file (presumably named [B68A8C11-D45E-4598-AA48-24D023F2C25B .mov] 1920x844 ratio 11.7mb) to ADA Kraus at 10:23 am 11/5. The prosecution examined the file during Lackowski’s testimony until the first break.

Not compressed
During the break the prosecution shared details of the new video that they planned to admit as evidence with the defense and further stated that detective Howard would email the video to defense attorney Wisco at her request.

This is where things become a little complicated……
I do not believe detective Howard’s sworn affidavit is accurate. I don’t believe that he lied, I believe however that he did not recall the exact process in which he emailed the file to Atty Wisco, when the video compression occurred. I also do not believe it was intentional.
Technical difficulties and I accidentally deleted this tweet instead of an erroneous comment.


Please find video that was supposed to be here after explanation of EXIF data.
This is not correct.

Howard left the trial Friday, November 5th during Lackowski’s testimony.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with John Curtis

John Curtis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Johnmcurtis

21 Nov
Wisconsin State Crime lab evidence report detailing the creation of the 6 AI enhanced video files.

I do not personally see anything nefarious in this report but do not know what to make of the differences in the file name for the video that was received.
The long file name (listed first) is a typical file name that an Apple device would use.

The other name is likely a date/time associated with the original file. But for this to be true the drone would have continued to record after the shooting for several minutes.
This alone would suggest that the original drone video very likely captured every shooting that night.

Rosenbaum was shot at approximately 8-25 11:49

The file name in the report would suggest the drone stopped recording at 8-26 12:12, 23 minutes later.
Read 4 tweets
18 Nov
Manufactured Miracle evidence.

That’s what the prosecution did in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Four days into the trial a man who refused to be identified transferred a video file to a detective. Then Det Antaramian testified that he could see Rittenhouse aiming at Ziminski.
Then it’s off to the state crime lab to “enhance” the video. They of course did this while sharing a 4x lesser quality version with the defense team. Millions of pixels/details were added during the “enhancing” process. Later they further “enhanced” 4 still images from the video.
This evidence is the basis of their entire case. Without it they could not dream of getting a provocation instruction. Without it they could not attempt to prove their case.

They were doing so poorly presenting their case that the 4th day in, they miracled evidence into trial.
Read 4 tweets
17 Nov
This is likely a question that we will never have an acceptable answer to.

Detective Antaramian testified that the drone video was sourced from “UrbanAired” this is the only testimony regarding the videos origin.

Nothing about the type of drone. Nothing about the pilot.
Detective Antaramian first learned about the drone video after the video was played during a segment on Fox News.

The twitter account @freekyleusa posted about the Fox clip months ago and in later posts questioned if the prosecution was withholding evidence (the original).
The @freekyleusa posts detailed that the video posted within hours of the shooting, was attributed to “UrbanAired” by Brandon Beamon, and that online information pertaining to both were scrubbed from the internet and the company dissolved. Why?

Why remove the video from Fox?
Read 9 tweets
17 Nov
The Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Day 13
Court is expected to resume at 9:00 am CST when the jury will return to deliberations.

Yesterday the jury deliberated the entire day from roughly 9:00a-6:00p

@JackPosobiec reported yesterday that two jurors are holding up a verdict decision due to threats of violence.
The jury has requested to see video evidence. The attorneys and judge Schroeder are still working on specifics relating to how many times they can view each file. When they determine that the jury will view the evidence in the courtroom by themselves and likely the bailiff.
Read 12 tweets
16 Nov
The Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Day 12 Image
Court will begin at 9:00 am CST when 12 of the remaining 18 jurors will be randomly selected to determine Rittenhouse’s fate.

The 12 chosen will begin deliberations while the other 6 will remain at the courthouse should an alternate be required.
Yesterday morning before the days proceedings defense attorney Chirafisi brought up a motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice, that the defense orally requested last week.

The motion has now been formally filed and that the defense team still intends to argue the motion.
Read 7 tweets
15 Nov
Judge Schroeder warned the prosecution of the danger of the inclusion of the doctored images.

Schroeder “..or which phone I’m going to buy… this is being used to decide if someone’s innocent or guilty of a crime…”

Schroeder “this is going to fall like a house of cards.”
This is one of the doctored images admitted into evidence. I use the word doctored bc the image was created using AI algorithms to insert pixels where pixels did not previously exist. This was done purposely push a false narrative that Rittenhouse aimed his rifle.
Do you believe that ADA Binger and Kraus would have published these doctored images or the accompanying doctored video if they actually displayed the actual truth? The truth that Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t aim his weapon at anyone prior to being attacked?

No. No they wouldn’t.
Read 56 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!