All iPads Kyle Rittenhouse Trial iPad

[agamoto]

There is value in impeaching a witness when one wants the jury to disregard/question their testimony.

That's not why this was introduced as evidence, though, and it's not why you posted it in this thread. You claimed it was critical to the case for the purposes of demonstrating the fact that he raised his weapon at a particular person at a particular place and time. It was not introduced for the purposes of impeaching the witness.

I respectfully disagree. Binger spent hours of his cross examination framed around the principal that pointing an AR-15 at someone is threatening them with death. Pretty darn reckless in a crowd like that.

The video he was blocked from showing, the video the defense argues has magic pixels in it, "allegedly" shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Josh Ziminski, before Rosenbaum is shot. Rittenhouse had just told his attorney that Rosenbaum instigated. The video the prosecutor wanted to show would show otherwise and could have cracked Rittenhouse on the stand. The amount of effort the defense put into attempting to quash the whole idea of allowing a pinch to zoom and problems with image enlargement in general tells us just how threatened the defense was by that video.

I hope the jurors watch this line of questioning over and over again. Especially the part where Binger asks him why his 3rd victim, the one who lived, should not have felt equally as threatened by having an AR-15 pointed at him as Rittenhouse may have felt at that moment, as a man with a revolver tried to pull his gun away from him. The guy who could have blown his head off as he sat on the ground from 6 feet away. Luckily for Rittenhouse, his "attacker" chose instead to try and subdue him and take the gun away. That wasn't going to happen with the type of strap Rittenhouse wore.

I'm really surprised the prosecution didn't bring up the department of homeland security's own public recommendations for dealing with an active shooter. Maybe Binger et al weren't aware, but Rittenhouse's "attackers" were doing PRECISELY what the DHS recommends they do to counter an active shooter.

https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf

There's more on trial here than just some kid with a gun, you know that.

Anyways, it's been real. I'm looking forward to Apple's eventual response as to what pinch/zoom actually does to videos.

 

[agamoto]

From Apple:

Image sizes vary widely, from single-pixel PNG files to digital photography images with millions of pixels. Because device sizes also vary, apps commonly need to make runtime adjustments to image sizes so they fit within the visible user interface. SwiftUI provides modifiers to scale, clip, and transform images to fit your interface perfectly.

Rendering an image at anything other than its original size requires interpolation: using the existing image data to approximate a representation at a different size. Different approaches to performing interpolation have different trade-offs between computational complexity and visual quality of the rendered image.

It’s easier to see the effect of interpolation when scaling a smaller image into a larger space, because the rendered image requires more image data than is available.

SwiftUI smoothes out the pixel data to produce an image that isn’t as pixelated:

In short it adds pixels based on "best guess" "nearest pixels" - end of story

Here is 2 shots Apple use to describe the "effect"

Fitting images into available space | Apple Developer Documentation

Adjust the size and shape of images in your app’s user interface by applying view modifiers.

developer.apple.com

All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the pinch/zoom of video. That describes a function that app developers can use in within the SwiftUI framework to help them create responsive apps compatible to different aspect ratios, different screen resolutions, etc.

 

[agamoto]

I would say that the fact of so many really good experts on here disagreeing would mean the judge was right to try to eliminate a point which would lead to 'reasonable doubt'.

Wholeheartedly disagree.

"iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms. It uses artificial intelligence, or their logarithms, to create what they believe is happening. So this isn’t actually enhanced video, this is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there,"

They then followed that up the next day with lessons from the defense attorney on how interpolation works, when that's got nothing to do with the pinch/zoom function.

It's ridiculous, and it's what brought me here.

I certainly have reasonable doubt about my own expertise.

In a case of this magnitude and consequence it would only be right to ask the burden of proof to rest with the prosecution.

Burden of proof should be on those making unsubstantiated and wildly false claims. I'm surprised no one at one infinite loop watching the trial didn't immediately try and reach out to correct them.

 

[cybercheck]

Mmmm..

As to the video shown on here as 'proof' of 'aiming his rifle' this has thoroughly been debunked by non other than the FBI

a) Kyle was not left handed which the grainy zoomed footage people on here have shown (shows you ZOOM alters the image! and people see what they want to see)
b) The Infra-Red footage from the FBI shows he clearly did not point his rifle.

So the judge was correct...

 

[cybercheck]

Wholeheartedly disagree.

"iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms. It uses artificial intelligence, or their logarithms, to create what they believe is happening. So this isn’t actually enhanced video, this is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there,"

They then followed that up the next day with lessons from the defense attorney on how interpolation works, when that's got nothing to do with the pinch/zoom function.

It's ridiculous, and it's what brought me here.



Burden of proof should be on those making unsubstantiated and wildly false claims. I'm surprised no one at one infinite loop watching the trial didn't immediately try and reach out to correct them.

Disagreeing is good. It shows a healthy attitude towards the establishing of truth

Burden of Proof is LAW - the prosecution must make the case!

The Pinch and Zoom adds pixels or can you show otherwise? Can you give the link?

Basically as shown elsewhere on here zooming add pixels - whether it be smart UI or any other software.

Zooming includes : enlargement and shrinking processes where these processes require two steps: the creation of new pixel locations, and the assignment of gray (or color) levels to those new locations [2].

IMAGE RESIZE EXAMPLE​

Image interpolation works in two directions, and tries to achieve a best approximation of a pixel's color and intensity based on the values at surrounding pixels.

(See Below)

And of course - the video you refer to has been debunked yesterday by the FBI themselves using the Infra Red Footage released.

 

[clueless22]

So based on a bit more research I think I can confidently say these two things :

1: Interpolation is a necessary part of making an image bigger.
2: Nearest neighbour interpolation only makes an "exact" replica of the original image (comparably to a magnifying glass making the pixels bigger) when the size of the image is being multiplied by an integer.

So even if the ipad zoom function works with this basic kind of interpolation it would still seem like the prosecution should make sure the image is being re-sized by an integral factor.

E: There is a clear explanation here of how this works : https://kwojcicki.github.io/blog/NEAREST-NEIGHBOUR
I have not gone through the code but the explanation of how it works is relatively clear. However it is also clear, and you can try this yourself, that if the "scaling factor" is anything else but an integer then pixels from the output image can "correspond" to multiple pixels from this input image. The textual/visual explanation does not go over what happens in this scenario. It might be clear what happens from the code but I don't really want / know how to go over that.

 

[BlackharoldBlackharold]

I'm not going through all the messages but I saw one guy arguing digital zoom and interpolation fits the defense but he's wrong only time digital zoom affects a picture is if you digitally zoom in before said picture was taken once it's taken like all pictures it just zooms in and does nothing to the picture that was taken

 

[BR3W]

Burden of proof should be on those making unsubstantiated and wildly false claims. I'm surprised no one at one infinite loop watching the trial didn't immediately try and reach out to correct them.

It's not a debatable point. The rules of evidence are well-established.

Presumably Apple hasn't reached out because there isn't anything to say.

You've also made several mis-statements of fact: first and foremost of them, claiming the video was barred from submission; it wasn't--the jury saw the video and are free to make what they will of it. The only thing the judge barred was allowing the prosecutor to pinch/zoom the image for them, which he shouldn't be doing anyway as the DOJ's own guidelines for federal prosecutors explicitly state.

 

[agamoto]

Lol, *my* "several factual misstatements"?

<eyeroll>

Where did I say they were barred from playing the video? As I've said before the video was already admitted into evidence. Exhibit 82. The judge allowed presenting the video again to the jury during cross of Rittenhouse, but the prosecution was not allowed to pinch zoom.

For the umpteenth time, interpolation is involved when images and image frames in video are resampled. Pinch to Zoom is not resampling frames. Pinch to zoom is also not the same process used by forensics when they enlarge images. That's where the confusion seems to be here. You, others in this thread, the defense, and the judge don't seem to understand how the pinch-zoom technology works. The original image is not modified. Pixels are not added.

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Do you think an iPad or iPhone has the graphics processing capability to resample, for example, a 4K, 60fps video while someone is pinch zooming, in and out, in real-time?

 

[BR3W]

The video he was blocked from showing, the video the defense argues has magic pixels in it, "allegedly" shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Josh Ziminski, before Rosenbaum is shot.

Lol, *my* "several factual misstatements"?

<eyeroll>

Where did I say they were barred from playing the video?

Did you author the first post? I bolded your mis-statement of the facts of this trial.

 

[agamoto]

It's the topic of discussion. We are talking about the judge barring them from playing exhibit 82 pinch-zoomed on the iPad. It was never allowed.

 

[BR3W]

Lol, *my* "several factual misstatements"?

<eyeroll>

Where did I say they were barred from playing the video?

It was never allowed.

So which is it? You keep changing your rendition of the facts of this case. Which statement of yours would you like me to believe?

 

[agamoto]

Changed my rendition?!?

The defense objected to the playback of previously submitted video pinch zoomed on an iPad because of voodoo hocus pocus magical reasons which the judge agreed to. That hasn't changed, neither has my rendition of the facts. Pinch to zoom does not add pixels to the video. Interpolation is introduced only when an image or frames of video are resampled. No extra pixels are added. The "proof" people keep posting is misunderstood. It's got nothing to do with how the swiftUI framework manages application pinch zoom gestures and it has nothing to do with Apple's explanation of what happens when an image is altered/edited. Please use your heads. There is not enough GPU/CPU power inside an iPhone or iPad (with the possible exception of the latest M1 processor based models, I've never tried it) which are capable of real-time, frame-by-frame video resampling using the typical resolutions today 1080p and up. If the iPad/iPhone were actually doing interpolation calculations during a pinch/zoom, your 4K, 60fps videos would quickly make your device hot enough to fry an egg in seconds.

 

[BR3W]

None of what you're saying is true, based on information Apple has published, the rules of the courtroom evidence as a defense attorney has explained to you, and two separate forensics experts from two different countries (one of them the US). In the face of that evidence, you simply reiterate your opinion.

Furthermore, you keep going back and forth on whether the judge "barred" them presenting evidence they wanted to show the jury. Of course, anyone following this case knows it's not true--you keep going back and forth on that claim yourself. I've quoted you in no less than three separate posts changing your story! I asked you which one you wanted to stick with and now it appears you're sticking with the claim they "barred" the video.

Now I'm going to post some facts: The video wasn't barred; the jury was, and is still, able to review the video. The state presented an expert witness to testify about the FBI's drone footage--it wasn't suppressed, it's in evidence. The prosecutor wanted to manipulate that image in front of the jury, which the judge allowed provided they follow the rules evidence and authenticate the manipulation. I cited the federal rules of evidence about how that manipulation is supposed to be conducted and who should present that to the court--rules you conveniently want to ignore in order to make your over-arching point that Rittenhouse should be convicted regardless of the state of the evidence.

The judge never "barred" the video. He allowed it but the state had to follow the rules before showing it to the jury. The state declined to do what you've been claiming is simple to do. You marveled that Apple didn't just call up the prosecutor and explain this very simple concept. You were astounded the defense provided expert testimony what these manipulations can do to an image.

What I didn't, and still don't, hear from you is why the state didn't comply with that simple request. Why didn't the state present an expert to authenticate the iPad image that was manipulated after their expert couldn't do the same with more sophisticated software technologies after 20 hours...

If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at the prosecutor for failing to comply with the standard rules of evidence in a timely manner. Those are the rules...we have them for very good reasons...and anyone arguing the state should not have to prove each and every element of a criminal trial beyond proof of reasonable doubt is making an idealogical, political, or otherwise erroneous claim.

You posted a blurry image and claimed it was "clear" to anyone what was happening.

You said pinch/zoom is the same as looking at the image with a magnifying glass. Well, if that's true, then your entire argument and reasoning for involving yourself in this discussion is moot: the judge is allowing the jury members to review the video at their leisure, subject to some threshold of reasonableness of playing it on repeat.

The conclusion here, from my perspective, is that you've lost the technological argument. You have cited no facts--only your opinion--and you continue to post your opinion on repeat now. I assume you know you don't have the technological argument and that is why you've since pivoted the conversation into a referendum on the trial itself. I'm not interested in litigating this case with you. I do this for a living and I certainly am not going to do it in a tech venue with a lay person who's version of the facts are so distorted by ideology. It's already being litigated in a courtroom and doing so here is a waste of my time. I'm here to discuss the technological arguments rather than the overall case itself. To that end, I'll continue to ignore your attempts to drag me into that conversation. It's not a concession that your interpretation of the trial is correct--it isn't--it's just me valuing my time and the purpose of this site (tech--not law or politics).

Understanding Digital Image Interpolation

www.cambridgeincolour.com

Rememberer that Input-Ace software that I pointed out was being used in court earlier in this discussion? Well, here they are answering this very question (spoiler alert: they agree with defense and judge):
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/qsjy9s/_/hkdxpvl

 

[burtx]

In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial the prosecutor wants to pinch to zoom video on an iPad. The defense objected saying that Apple IOS add artifacts into the image when zooming in this manner. What is the truth? Is the pinch zoomed video exactly the same as the virgin video or are there in fact new pixels added?

The judge is going to make the prosecution verify that the pinch zoomed video is in fact the same as the original video.

They can simply plug it into a large TV and the image will be large and there will be no need to zoom.

Or just use one of those magnifying loops used to look at negatives.

There are many easy work arounds.

 

[agamoto]

None of what you're saying is true, based on information Apple has published, the rules of the courtroom evidence as a defense attorney has explained to you, and two separate forensics experts from two different countries (one of them the US). In the face of that evidence, you simply reiterate your opinion.

I don't care what you do, who you are, or what your two forensic expert friends here have to say about the subject. It's ALL predicated on YOUR opinions that pinch to zoom "adds pixels". I'm sorry, but again, Pinch to Zoom does NOT perform resampling or interpolation of the video during playback. It would NOT BE POSSIBLE for it to do so. The information you and others keep referencing from Apple has NOTHING TO DO WITH the pinch to zoom feature during playback of video and it would be great if you all stopped pretending its related. What do I know though, I've only got a degree in IT, a television engineering background, and more years of experience working with digital images, video, and audio than both Mr. Armstrong AND Mr. Black combined.

Furthermore, you keep going back and forth on whether the judge "barred" them presenting evidence they wanted to show the jury. Of course, anyone following this case knows it's not true--you keep going back and forth on that claim yourself. I've quoted you in no less than three separate posts changing your story! I asked you which one you wanted to stick with and now it appears you're sticking with the claim they "barred" the video.

My "story" has NOT changed, wtf are you talking about? Not once. Up until this morning they were not allowed to let jurors see the pinch/zoomed version of the exhibit. However, I just read that the Judge apparently had flipped his decision and is now willing to allow the jurors to see that video using pinch to zoom on the iPads. That's great! Sanity restored! Except the prosecution was barred from showing it to jurors during Rittenhouse's cross, barred from letting the jurors see the witness denying what's happening as the prosecution zoomed in and it was barred WHOLLY DUE to the defense's idiotic claims and the judges ignorance.

Now I'm going to post some facts: The video wasn't barred; the jury was, and is still, able to review the video. The state presented an expert witness to testify about the FBI's drone footage--it wasn't suppressed, it's in evidence. The prosecutor wanted to manipulate that image in front of the jury, which the judge allowed provided they follow the rules evidence and authenticate the manipulation. I cited the federal rules of evidence about how that manipulation is supposed to be conducted and who should present that to the court--rules you conveniently want to ignore in order to make your over-arching point that Rittenhouse should be convicted regardless of the state of the evidence.

I KNOW ITS IN EVIDENCE. Clearly you don't read because I've said that from the beginning. Jesus. No, the jury was NOT able to review that video pinch zoomed on an iPad, UNTIL THIS MORNING, when the judge had some sort of weekend techno-epiphany and reversed his ruling from last week. It should be noted that he reversed that decision WITHOUT requiring the prosecution to prove jack about iPad pinch to zoom passing judicial scrutiny. Hmmm, I wonder why Judge Schroeder would pivot so strongly away from his initial call on the objection and let the prosecutors off the "burden of proof" hook you won't stop yammering on about.

For the record, we're not talking about the infrared high-altitude video, That's the FBI video, we're talking about the video the prosecution wished to present pinch zoomed, exhibit 82, which I thought was also FBI video but it's not. It's the half-speed video of drone footage taken a block south of the first shooting brought into evidence on the 9th when Armstrong was on the stand. From what I've read about it, it may be someone's private video, and not FBI footage.

Furthermore, the judge never "barred" the video. He allowed it but the state had to follow the rules before showing it to the jury. The state declined to do what you've been claiming is simple to do. You marveled that Apple didn't just call up the prosecutor and explain this very simple concept. You were astounded the defense provided expert testimony what these manipulations can do to an image.

JFC man... He barred the damn video from being pinch zoomed and played back during Rittenhouse's cross, and it stayed that way until this morning when he changed his mind and the state didn't have to follow any of the rules you're talking about. I need you to sit back, take a deep breath, and then rethink YOUR arguments on this. Why would he do that? He went from giving the prosecution FIFTEEN MINUTES to fulfill their burden of proof, to allowing the jurors to fiddle fart around on their own time. My theory on why that is is because the intent of that pinched video was its potential impact while the defendant was on the stand forced to react to it in front of the jury. That danger has passed now, so it doesn't matter, precious evidentiary rules be damned. By the way, since you're a whipper snapper legal eagle, here's a link you should keep handy just in case you ever need to debunk how image resampling on Apple products work. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/law-enforcement-guidelines-us.pdf

What I didn't, and still don't, hear from you is why the state didn't comply with that simple request. Why didn't the state present an expert to authenticate the iPad image that was manipulated after their expert couldn't do the same with more sophisticated software technologies after 20 hours.

We're watching the same trial, right? The judge gave the prosecution FIFTEEN MINUTES to come up with an expert to refute the nonsense the defense was babbling about and then they took a break. How do you suppose they'll find a witness to testify to what's in Apple's black box in 15 minutes? The best anyone can do, without talking to a Apple engineer is go with the common sense knowledge of the processing power required to perform interpolation on 30fps, HD video in real-time during playback. Mr. Armstrong seems like a nice enough fellow, but he was kind of a poor witness who had a lot of trouble explaining particular concepts, admitting more than once how much he did NOT know and letting the defense basically run the classroom on the dangers of interpolation. As for the TWENTY HOURS he said it took to enlarge and enhance the two static versions of the zoomed in video. I remember hearing him say that and thinking to myself, "whaaaat?"

You posted a blurry image and claimed it was "clear" to anyone what was happening.

You said pinch/zoom is the same as looking at the image with a magnifying glass. Well, if that's true, then your entire argument and reasoning for involving yourself in this discussion is moot: the judge is allowing the jury members to review the video at their leisure, subject to some threshold of reasonableness of playing it on repeat.

I posted a link to a video some rando made as an example of what the prosecution was gunning for, I didn't judge the quality of their work, just giving people an idea of what the defense didn't want the jurors to see while Kyle was on the stand. If all you saw was an image, you didn't follow the link. It sure as hell looks like someone with his arms both in the position one would expect to be in while holding a rifle. There are many folks who look at that video and say that there's no way it could be him pointing his gun, as he's a righty and the the video shows the butt of the rifle in his left shoulder. To them, I ask "Where's his little orange/black baggie? It's riding high up on his left shoulder which you can see clearly seconds later and that's what you're seeing as the little black mass on his left shoulder, not the butt of his rifle.

Anyways, it's been fun. Back to work.

 

[agamoto]

They can simply plug it into a large TV and the image will be large and there will be no need to zoom.

Or just use one of those magnifying loops used to look at negatives.

There are many easy work arounds.

100% accurate.

It's actually hilarious that the defense and judge were so adamant about it. No one seems to care about the fact that they are playing highly compressed videos scaled to fit within a Windows 10 movies and tv app, output to the court's video distribution system at 1920x1080p, downcoverted to 1920x1080i, and then input into the 4K TV with who knows what friggin' upconversion/upscaling settings.

 

[BR3W]

I don't care what you do, who you are, or what your two forensic expert friends here have to say about the subject.

Yes, it's abundantly clear you care more about your perception of how this case should be decided rather than facts.

How does this end? Apparently it ends with you having lost the technological argument, the moral high ground in relation to this case by advocating for a complete disregard for the rules of evidence in criminal trials, and finally resorting to a conspiracy theory wherein I somehow drummed up two forensic "friends" and I even managed to get the dev team for the software currently being used in the trial to make up a fake post on reddit.

 

[agamoto]

Apparently, it ends with the Judge suddenly not giving a rat's ass about who has burden of proof or all of those precious rules of evidence you keep rebuking me for not respecting in my assessment of this pinch to zoom nonsense.

Resorting to a conspiracy? Lol.

The Reddit AMA by inputAce didn't add any meaningful insight to the conversation about how Apple makes the pinch/zoom sausages. You seem to think it does for some reason, but that's not surprising to me since you are, ONCE AGAIN, continuing to confuse what image enhancement software does when it's resampling images versus what Apple is doing in real-time to video during playback.

inputAce is not Apple, they can only speak to what THEIR software does, and what they've had to say involves STATIC IMAGES ONLY. How do you STILL continue to not get that?

The closest thing we have to real-time video interpolation is the sort of motion interpolation chips that are built into TV's which can add frames to video in real time by inserting averaged frames in between existing ones. They are expensive little chips and they don't use them inside apple phones. They also are not capable of resampling video on the fly, with immediate precision and response you'll find using a pinch zoom gesture on a video playing back on an ipad.

Go ahead and ask your friends at inputAce.

The pinch and zoom is back! There's no point in continuing this conversation. Enjoy all your rules of evidence. See ya later, legal beagle!

 

[Forensic_Dude]

To the people that are arguing against the judge call - here I made you a picture from a forensic test I ran so you can understand in less technical terms. Color isolation of the first frame in a video, original - .mp4, copy - .mov (ProRes). You can clearly see data is altered.

 

[Forensic_Dude]

2nd one.

 

[Forensic_Dude]

3rd.

 

[Forensic_Dude]

I don't care what you do, who you are, or what your two forensic expert friends here have to say about the subject. It's ALL predicated on YOUR opinions......

Actually its not, look at my aforementioned pictures. This is all based on forensic science, 1s & 0s are just 1s & 0s, they don't lie they just are what they are. My first college course was advanced algorithm design in C. I'll decompile the codec if need be and explain it to you more.

The problem with local and state forensic labs is that they may not be able to afford or be aware of internationally accredited training, also lawyers and judges don't have a deep technical knowledge (......and congress understands even less). On that note when you look at WI, no lab public or private, is accredited for Digital and Video/Image Analysis through ANAB. No labs in WI have a scope of accreditation that covers it. So it was a real head scratcher when they testified the lab was accredited..... but its not fulllllyyyyy accredited *Looks Sheepishly, Evil Grin*. Objection! Motion to Strike! Misleading the Jury on the grounds that their lab is accredited for Digital and Video/Image Analysis! Danger of undo prejudice! If only the judge knew then he could rule SUA SPONTE! Ahhh but I digress.

While the FBI does have an FO in Milwaukee and Digital Forensic Examiners (DFE) like me, I doubt they assisted the DOJ Crime Lab Forensic Imaging Unit other then giving the drone footage, they have higher standards then the state lab does based on what I saw in the trial. Plus DFEs cover all technology software/hardware/network not just pictures and video. One day you're working on a next gen smartphone, next day a 20 y/o printer, or 400 5.25 HDDs all in a specific RAID configuration.

I'd like to submit a pic of my bookshelf which is on the verge of collapsing into evidence.

 

[Haust]

@Forensic_Dude awesome! Enjoyed reading that. Indeed, this issue is far more complex then meets the eye. The future of law will become fully entwined with this sort of thing I would imagine.

 

[agamoto]

Actually its not, look at my aforementioned pictures. This is all based on forensic science, 1s & 0s are just 1s & 0s, they don't lie they just are what they are. My first college course was advanced algorithm design in C. I'll decompile the codec if need be and explain it to you more.

The problem with local and state forensic labs is that they may not be able to afford or be aware of internationally accredited training, also lawyers and judges don't have a deep technical knowledge (......and congress understands even less). On that note when you look at WI, no lab public or private, is accredited for Digital and Video/Image Analysis through ANAB. No labs in WI have a scope of accreditation that covers it. So it was a real head scratcher when they testified the lab was accredited..... but its not fulllllyyyyy accredited *Looks Sheepishly, Evil Grin*. Objection! Motion to Strike! Misleading the Jury on the grounds that their lab is accredited for Digital and Video/Image Analysis! Danger of undo prejudice! If only the judge knew then he could rule SUA SPONTE! Ahhh but I digress.

I found the testimony of both the defense and the prosecution "experts" to both be lacking. At least Dr. Black was able to express some of the concepts he talked about without tripping up. Armstrong didn't seem to have a foundational understanding of what he did for a living.

While the FBI does have an FO in Milwaukee and Digital Forensic Examiners (DFE) like me, I doubt they assisted the DOJ Crime Lab Forensic Imaging Unit other then giving the drone footage, they have higher standards then the state lab does based on what I saw in the trial. Plus DFEs cover all technology software/hardware/network not just pictures and video. One day you're working on a next gen smartphone, next day a 20 y/o printer, or 400 5.25 HDDs all in a specific RAID configuration.

Oh I know, I've worked with forensic specialists with local and federal RCMP many times. I was once part owner of what was the biggest electronic recycler on the west coast of Canada many years ago. If it was electronic, we saw it come through our intake stream, and anything that was still functional or had valuable parts we'd clean, test and keep in inventory for resale. We helped with all sorts of stuff, but the most routine thing were calls for specific hard drive models that were needed as donor devices to bring non-functional drives back to life.

I'd like to submit a pic of my bookshelf which is on the verge of collapsing into evidence.

Lol, that image of the book stack. That's what my bookshelves looked like 25 years ago before I started downloading epubs and pdf versions instead. "Cheaper" and didn't require a moving company to haul around. I've saved everything to this day, dumping the data from drive to drive over the past 20 years. I'm sure I have everything you have on that shelf if you need copies.