Kindly educate me which part of what I said wasn't accurate.
I just did.
OK I'll try to explain more clearly. The prosecution changed tack halfway through the trial and tried to argue that a video they had received after the trial started showed Kyle Rittenhouse pointing a gun at Ziminsky and this is what set off Rosenbaum into attacking Kyle. The prosecution had an expert "enhance" a still image from this drone footage and this was what their case relied on.
There were serious questions though whether this evidence should even have been admitted. As I stated the defence never got to see the hi-definition version of this footage as the prosecution sent them a file that was 3 times smaller than the original and so throughout the whole of the proceedings they didn't have a defence to argue what the footage showed as in their version, Rittenhouse was a 10-pixel blur.
They did argue to the judge that the enhanced image shouldn't be admitted into evidence as the AI adds pixels when zooming and the pixels are only a best guess by the specific algorithm of the software. The prosecution denied this to the judge. The judge sided with the prosecution. It turns out that the software manufacturers themselves say the software shouldn't be used as evidence as it is unreliable, and this is because the AI does indeed add pixels.
After closing statements, the jury wanted to have a version of the hi-def video to view. Now in Wisconsin, precedent is that video evidence should only be viewed once by the jury however the judge thought this was a silly and outdated rule and thought they should see video evidence as often and for as long as they wanted. This was the prosecution's favourable outcome obviously and the defence argued against it. The prosecution made the case that the video needed to be seen by the jury as it showed provocation by Kyle in pointing the gun. So the judge watched the hi-def version. It was only then that it became clear that the prosecution's version and the defence's were different. I think that's called a Brady violation, a reason you could argue to call a mistrial with prejudice. I believe this was also the time at which the defence argued that if the manufactured image showed what the prosecution alleged it did, it would have Kyle pointing the gun left-handed. Again the prosecution lied to the judge, telling him that there is no handedness with a gun. The judge watched the video, accepted the prosecution's arguments and allowed the video to be watched at the jury's discretion and allowed in the enhanced images.
So the jury saw all this doctored evidence and still decided that Kyle didn't point his gun at Ziminsky. Firstly the Ziminsky's were off screen so if he did point a gun it wasn't clear who at. Secondly the image was extremely unclear and didn't make much sense. Rosenbaum was acting violent all night, he had told Kyle he would kill him if he got him alone that night as testified by one witness and from the video footage it looked like Rosenbaum rushed to the car lot when he saw Kyle was alone and hid by some cars looking to ambush him.
To add to this Ziminsky was stopped from testifying by the same prosecutors as they delayed his trial for arson until January. Remember he would have been a great witness for the prosecution if their case was true.
The jury saw all this evidence, even though the prosecution's evidence shouldn't have been admitted but still came to the conclusion that Rittenhouse wasn't provoking, instead he was there to put out fires and give first aid but was attacked by a mental patient who raped five 9-11 year old boys and was violent and suicidal.
Kyle ran away from Rosenbaum, turned when he panicked and pointed his gun at Rosenbaum hoping to warn him. Rosenbaum continued his chase so Kyle shot him only when Rosenbaum was close enough to get his hand on Kyle's gun. Incidentally making Rosenbaum armed under US law. He also shot him four times, rather than 2.
