must cite some evidence of self-defense on the part of kyle rittenhouse. in other words that puts the burden on the prosecution to negate the claim beyond a reasonable doubt. so in wisconsin, that is a particular uphill climb. let's listen in. >> i can't speak to that. >> so you can't -- >> i want to be clear. the sign in the middle, those are the added ones? >> yes. >> so the added pixels to be fair, in terms of what we're looking for to make sure the color is correct, that we're not distorting the color of the thing we're looking at. it's adding pixels and my concern, my question for you is it adding the correct color of the original image? >> that goes beyond in to the algorithm of the program that i do not have the information for. >> if i can ask you this. these two photographs that you have enlarged, so you added pixels to those, right? >> correct. >> and are you able to tell the court the colors that were there originally are actually the same colors when i expand or enlarge the photographs with the added pixels? are you able to say that? >> i'm not able to say that, no. >> so you -- i'm not -- tell me if i'm right. so the things that the court would be looking at here and the colors that the court would be looking at, you can't tell the court that in fact the color from the original picture, correct? >> it comes down to the program and the algorithm. i cannot say. >> one second, sir. >> yes. >> a couple questions for you. could you have used another algorithm that wouldn't have changed the potential color of the pixels that you had? >> there's no testimony that the color had been changed. there's no testimony that the color had been changed. >> it was my impression and i beg your correction -- it was my impression in the upper two enlarged image that the individual is inserting some -- i'm going to call them uncharged pixels that the algorithm is going to assign colors, which is beyond his control. where am i going wrong? >> i don't -- my question was, could he have used a different algorithm? >> no. i'm not -- i'm trying to understand if i have the basic concept down. >> my understanding was he could -- it was i don't his scope of his expertise. >> no, no. i'm way back. i'm still using water colors. he is enlarging -- he wants to enlarge the image. he is inserting some pixels in there. so he gives it a command to insert the pixels. he doesn't know what color they're going to come out. is that it? is that it, sir? >> i would say, your honor, it's -- as to how that algorithm interpolates those pixels and where it places them goes outside the scope of my knowledge. >> with no disrespect, what do you know? >> what i know is that the process that i use to expand and enlarge this image and the interpolation method that was used. anything beyond that with the software i used, i do not have any additional information. >> and competing programs might insert different colors. >> it's possible. >> you wouldn't have anyway of knowing that? >> i would not. i do not have anyway to know if those different interpolation methods would issue different colors to different pixels. >> what were you telling me? >> i wasn't telling you anything. i asked a question that suggested to was there a method that could have been used which -- i think the wording i said wouldn't have changed the pixel color, which drew the option. >> what is the objection? >> the objection is there were no colors that were changed. >> how would he know? >> he may or may not. the way he asked it assumed the colored changed. >> i'll rephrase. >> go ahead. >> is there another interpolation type of program that you're aware of that when pixels are expanded would keep the colors constant through the expansion? >> i cannot say to that. >> would you agree the more pixels that you add the more interpolation happens? >> yes. >> shoe the question that i have is when you expand the photograph, you're adding pixels, but you can't tell the court what color is being added, if any. >> i cannot speak to that, no. that comes down to the program and the algorithm in the software. >> so the original system has colors and pixels. it's expanded. the pixels expand. the question is do the colors stay constant? >> i do not know. >> that's all i have. >> mr. armstrong is the some wear you use similar to the input software? >> it's similar. >> so same algorithms and methods as far as you know are also in that software? >> both softwares are made by two different manufacturers. i can't comment whether they're the same. >> so when you enlarge these images, are you changing any details? >> i'm not changing any details. >> what are you doing? >> we're simply just adding pixels to make the image larger. >> when you're looking at a smaller image on a screen, say 20 by 30 pixels, in order to enlarge that, there needs to be more than 20 by 30 pixels and also staying the same size. >> that's correct. >> so you didn't witness it, but the defense expert was zooming in on video with his input software. would that also add pixels to enlarging it? >> irrelevant for purposes of what his testimony would be. >> i'm trying to get an understanding of how this works. >> go ahead. >> you may answer if you can. >> i do not know as to input and how their interpolation, if any, is seen by zooming in on there. >> so the only way to enlarge is to add pixels. >> correct. >> now, you don't go in and say put in black pixels, put in blue pixels. >> that's correct. i do not. >> the software program does that. >> that is correct. >> it has to do that to make images larger. >> that is correct. >> now, is this -- the defense expert called this the gold standard of video editing. is it one of the best programs out there? >> it is a program that we use at the lab, yes. >> now, is it a -- >> you asked him who was the best one. he responded that's what we use at the lab. that's not the same thing. or it doesn't -- it doesn't establish that it is in fact the best. >> i understand. >> not everything the state supplies is top notch. i'm not talking about the judges, by the way. i said not everything the state supplies is top notch. >> is this the same process when you hit full screen on computer? >> no. >> now, this software has an algorithm. >> speaking to -- exactly. >> when you interpolate, there's an algorithm that builds in the image so that you can actually see it so it's magnified. >> when you are dealing with looking at it from a preview, it uses its own nearest neighbor but it does not add pixels in that preview. >> so these processes that you use, are these the standards used in the forensic imaging that you do? >> yes. >> this is the kind of software you're trained at? >> yes. >> this is an accepted software program in the forensic industry? >> yes. >> these are accepted procedures in forensic imaging? >> yes. that's all. thank you. >> so here's my question. the for example that we're talking about to be admitted in to evidence, to have people look at can you say that that image didn't add color in to pixels that weren't there originally? >> i cannot definitively say that because i did not write the software program. >> is it possible when you enlarge an x pixel that you're adding color that wasn't there in the original photograph? >> i don't know. >> the nearest neighbor, if i'm right, what color goes here in the nearest neighbor? >> i don't know. >> would it become purple? >> possible. >> purple is nowhere on here, there? >> that's correct. >> nothing else. >> in order to answer the questions, would you have needed to written the algorithm in the software program? >> yes. needed to see how the programs are interpolating those pixels. >> do you ever check the enlarged image against the original image and see if there's consistencies? >> yes. we can compare the original to the enhanced version. >> were these images and your work on these images peer reviewed by another forensic imaging specialist? >> yes, that's correct. >> nothing further. >> i have a motion but i don't have anything else to ask. >> you can step down, sir. >> judge, based on his testimony -- so what the state is trying to do is introduce a photograph that has been enlarged where this person, mr. armstrong, cannot testify that in fact colors weren't added that weren't there originally. the photograph -- i'm going to tell the court that the photograph that the state intends to offer i believe they will be arguing shows mr. rittenhouse doing something with his firearm. if it is not the same as the original and colors were added to that, that is a distortion of what in fact the original photograph was. it should not be admitted because it is not relevant if he can't testify. if there's no appropriate foundation that in fact it should be admitted, if he can't testify that it didn't add colors. that colors that originally weren't there still aren't there. i think under the circumstances based on the evidence that you heard today, you should not admit those photographs because they're not what i would consider to be mirror images of what the original photograph was. >> judge, all due respect, i think the defense is trying to take advantage of your lack of knowledge about technology, which you've expressed. with the defense argument, you can never have an enlarged digital picture. i understand we didn't object to them, but all of nathan's pictures that he brought in were enlarged. if the defense is trying to argue that enlarged digital images are not reliable, i mean, first of all, it's hypocritical and second of all, it's not the age we're. in we're in an age where software is able to enlarge and do things and yes, this image we believe, although blurry because of the enlargement does show a rebuttal to mr. rittenhouse's testimony, does show him pointing his gun at individuals just before mr. rosenbaum chases him. the defense, this is clear, the drone video. we pointed it out in the drone video, this defendant denied it. this is an enlargement of the drone video so we can see a better picture of it. this whole canard of adding pixels and changing colors is dishonest. i believe the defense knows that. their expert used a similar software to zoom in and edit and change things because these things are reliable and they're reliable and this is what is used by a digital -- by forensic imaging, forensic scientists. it's the industry standard. so if we're going to say no technology can be brought in, no enlarged images can be brought in, that is a ridiculous standard. we've heard from two experts about how these algorithms are used and what they do. simply because this evidence may be not beneficial to the clients but show the client is lying, they're stupid to try to keep it out. i think making a dishonest argument based on a number of further scientists that have e-mailed me to discuss this issue with the apple zooming, which is similarly -- i don't want to say dishonest but an inaccurate argument. trying to keep out these enlarged or cleaned up images that show that their client is lying. he pointed a gun before rosenbaum chased him. this is rebuttal evidence. this is based on someone trained in this area that uses software that is certified in this area. he's trained in this area. this is what these forensic image specialists do. and it's peer reviewed by other forensic images which dr. black's is not. so this is a higher standard that the evidence that dr. black got in. i understand we didn't object. but for them to have an expert come in, use a similar software, use similar things and try to pretend this is voodoo magic is preposterous. >> wait a minute. a couple of things, number 1, you know, this happens sometimes. lawyers sit there during the trial and all kinds of stuff comes in and out and there's no objection raised. then when there is an objection raised, the party says, well this went on before in the trial and it was admitted. i think okay. but there wasn't an objection. so it was never scrutinized by the court. it came in. number 1. number,2 you're the proponent of the evidence. you have the burden of proof. they don't have to disprove it. you have to prove it. number 3, the witness was just here. when he's asked what does it depict in terms of whether the color will change or to what color, he says i don't know. now, this is the person who is providing your information to support your claim that it is an accurate depiction. i will tell you that i totally agree with your comment about my lack of familiarity with these concepts. although logic, i have some logical skills. when you start adding -- if i take this piece of paper and i start drawing squares on it and i -- then i start -- decide i'm going to put it on a bigger piece of paper and when i expand them, but i do it by creating even more squares and i don't know what is going to go in to those other squares, i mean, this is difficult concept for me, yes. you know, the fact that i can blow something up on my phone and it's accurate on my phone doesn't mean that the particular program used by the crime lab is doing an accurate job of increasing the size of the image. >> this is an a credited lab using software -- >> what does that mean to me? what does peer-reviewed mean to me? you haven't presented any evidence as to the science or to the algorithm that is involved. you know -- well, no. i want to see the images. >> okay. >> let's take a look. not that my naked eye will be necessarily capable of making the distinction that i need to make, but you have -- you have the burden here. i'll take a look at them. >> would you like them on paper or the screen? we have two of them marked. we can put them on the screen. >> let's have a look. show me the paper. you better put them up. i can't make anything out of these at all. >> please put up the exhibit. actually, i've had the best success looking at this one. >> neil: all right. want to point what is going on here. at issue right now four photographs of the night of the shootings and this lab that was taking care of this, milwaukee county lab. had apparently enlarged these digital images to the point that the defense was saying they're distorted. the prosecution said nothing untoward was going on but they show mr. rittenhouse aiming a gun at two individuals, presumably one of them was joseph rosenbaum that died and anthony huber that also died. this happened earlier in the evening. the photographs allegedly show that in clear detail when blown up. what the defense is saying that it distorted the image. they're going back and forthright now with the judge as to whether this could be entered in to evidence. the jury has not in that room right. the judge is deciding to say he's a little skeptical of the prosecution's push for this would be an understatement. back to the courtroom. >> this is a blown up image. it's blurry because it's blown up. but you can see the black firearm being held in his two hands. albeit it's blurry. would you like to see the video where this came from, we can show you that as well. >> let's have that. >> neil: again, the judge is weighing on the significance of, this we're going to go back and forth here. while we're looking at this and what the judge is looking at, jim trussy, a former prosecutor, is with us. why is this such a big deal parentally to both sides? jury not in the room. the judge deciding whether they will get access to and see these images. >> well, the judge is the gate keeper for evidence. the case law establishes that they have to make the calls on whether the proponent of the evidence has established enough foundation to deem it reliable evidence. of course what is going on, the prosecutors are saying these are the pictures that we want to waive around in closing argument. check it out. he's aiming at people contrary to his testimony. while the defense is saying hey, they haven't set up a technological foundation of enough detail to let these in toefd. the prosecutor doesn't have a ton of credibility with this judge. they have overshot, trod on his fifth amendment rights, mr. rittenhouse's fifth amendment rights. he's jaded to the prosecution when they say trust us, they use this all the time. he's thinking hey, do i want an appellate issue where i winked and nodded at the foundation. they have not proven there's some sort of distortion. >> neil: andwhen a digital image is the expanded as we would let's say on a smart phone, there's some distortion that occurs. but this distortion in the eyes of the defense makes it look unfair to kyle rittenhouse. they're saying he wasn't pointing a gun earlier than thought. so this idea that he was threatened and responded to that, that was the entire prosecution's argument. that chef brought this on himself and that this was not a self-defense. they have great import in that. but if the judge were to allow these images, what kind of a difference would that make? >> well, it comes down to how clean the images are to the jurors. if the jurors look at it and say i'm seeing a bigger blurry image where he may or may not have been pointing the gun, it's not going move that far, this could be a huge battle over something that has little import to the jury. the jury can look at this, hear these issues and say i'm going to consider it for weight but not for admissibility. he can even instruct the jury there's a lot of issue whether the algorithms distort the pixels in some way. he can discount them in front of the jury but still let them in. that is a safe route for the judge to go. but what the jury makes of it is hard to know. from this case, you've had very powerful emotional moments. a lot of video. so i'd be surprised if a single still photo is going to tilt everything the prosecution's way at this juncture. >> neil: if you can hang in there. i want to go back to this. this is an important point in the trial for the prosecution gets these images out to the junior. right now they're not in the room. the defense saying it's unnecessary and this is the distortion of what really happened that night. let's listen to the judge. >> the witness will be cross examined in front of the jury. >> judge, he doesn't get to say what the images are, right? >> no, you're not allowed to do that. >> okay. >> we were just made aware of a couple of issues with the defendant's testimony. we believe we were just made aware of it. so at the end of the day -- [inaudible]. >> tell when? >> we're working to get a witness. >> we want to rebut the fact that mr. rittenhouse was issued a bulletproof vest by them. they said they didn't issue him one. i can't imagine to find someone -- the arizona state university claims to be attending says he's not enrolled there and is not going to college there. i don't imagine we need a witness for that, but we'll work on that. >> all right. are we ready for the jury? >> yes. >> okay. >> neil: they are going to bring the jury back in to the room. jim, there was another development here that could lengthen this. an additional witness. can you update me on the significance of that? >> well, what they're talking about are witnesses that would affect credibility. not anything about the night in question. but it does appear to be true rebuttal. it's information that came out during kyle rittenhouse's testimony about where he goes to school, how he got a bulletproof vest. now the government says they're hearing from people real time to contradict that and they want to line up the people and bring them in to the courthouse. so it seemed to have struck a fairly reasonable cord with the judge that it's not something that the government should have anticipated and that they will probably have a chance overnight at least to produce one or two of these witnesses to come in and take shots at kyle's testimony. >> neil: you know, you're the lawyer and a good one, jim. it seems pretty clear to lawyers and nonlawyers that the judge has been particularly tough on the prosecution. i'm wondering if this issue not withstanding where he seemed to be open to such witnesses. is that a means by which let's say the prosecution lost this case to appeal? >> in general, no. if your a prosecutor if there's a not guilty, you're done. if it's something where the judge takes control and dismisses the case, you might have appellate grounds. they act as a 13th jury basically. most of the time if the brakes are going against you because the judge doesn't trust you or doesn't like your case or some combination, there's not a lot you can do as a prosecutor. >> neil: you think about it, jim, you're the defense. all you have to make sure of is that one juror has doubts. has the prosecution -- let's go back to this right now. >> all right. received. did you wish to present rebuttal? >> [inaudible]. >> you're still under oath. >> welcome back, mr. armstrong. >> thank you. >> you testified a few days ago about videos from a drone footage that were entered into evidence. >> yes. >> did you do any additional work on the drone footage? >> yes. it was requested that i enhance a person near a vehicle underneath a sign. >> and how did you go about doing that? >> i took two different approaches. the first one, i frame averaged, which means that i selected a group of frames. from there, i frame averaged those, stabilized first and then frame average. from there, i went through and clarified it, which means that with using levels, which brighten it up and then enlarged it. >> and these practices you talked about, are these standards in the forensic imaging world? >> they are, yes. >> are these accepted practices in forensic imaging? >> they are. >> the software that you used, is it accepted software? >> yes. >> is your work -- does it go through appear review process? >> yes, but another qualified analyst. >> did you write this software? >> i did not write this software. >> then largements, does it use any kind of computer programs to make the enlargement? >> yep. it uses an algorithm to enlarge that image. >> and what kind of process or algorithm was used for the image with the individual under the sign? >> for the image underneath the sign? the image that is on -- towards the left a smart resize. and then the image on the right was bicubic. >> are these accepted procedures in forensic imaging? >> yes. that is correct. >> did you write the algorithms that do these procedures? >> i did not, no. >> so do you know the actual specifics of how the algorithms work? >> i do not, know. >> but they're part of a software program that is accepted and use in forensic imaging? >> that's correct. >> it has been -- i don't know that he will get the witness to make an answer he wouldn't otherwise so the objection is overruled. >> what is the some wear that you used? >> it's called amped 5. >> we've heard the testimony today about a software program called input ace. is that a similar software program to the best of your knowledge to amped 5? >> to the best of my knowledge, yes. >> to the best of your knowledge, did the crime lab have to choose between those two? >> yes. the amped 5 was chosen. >> were you a part of that process? >> i was only part of the process of making the recommendation. >> is that what you recommended? >> that was my choice, yes. >> sorry? >> relevance. >> i think you said it was your choice? >> it was my recommendation to our technical unit leader for my preference of software between the two. >> state's exhibit 155. do you recognize this? >> yes. that appears to be the report print recreated. >> and this has two images it? >> that's correct. >> is it a true and accurate representation of the report made? >> yes. >> you said there was some differences of the algorithms used? >> yes. >> what have the difference? >> the difference being is that with regards to the clarification techniques on the image on the left, that was frame averaging. the image on the right, the difference being that just a single frame was used. >> and i put a piece of paper down in front of you. you mind flipping that over? what is the number on on the of that one? >> exhibit s 156. >> do you recognize that? >> yes. print number 2. >> what is report print number 2? >> clarified and enlarged file or images that i produced. >> where were these -- where were you looking to enhance these images from? >> we were looking to enhance the positions -- i'm sorry. the area where the two individuals are observed. >> so a difference part of the drone video, the first exhibit. >> that's correct. >> what did you do to produce these images? >> to produce these images, i just, again, clarified, so i used levels to brighten it up and also to enlarge as well. >> and are the procedures you used standard in forensic images? >> yes, that's correct. >> you created six more reports as well. >> correct, yes. >> and just to not go through every one. were they all created with standards of forensic imaging? >> that's correct. >> you recrewed them and know the state submitted to -- >> neil: that's james arm strange from the milwaukee while lab describing these images. i believe there are four. back with jim trusty, the forger doj prosecutor. the judge has allowed the jury to see these photographs that have been digitally enhanced. in other words, enlarged. so you get a better idea what you're looking at. the prosecution claims it shows that kyle rittenhouse was indeed pointing what they say is a weapon at someone earlier in the evening. the defense argued against getting access to these images to say that it's inconclusive and it's been distorted anyway. the significance of this back and forth and now the jury having access to these photographs, what do you think? >> probably overblown by both sides a little bit in terms of fighting routine technology from the defense perspective when they have allowed other blow-ups to go into ed and also for the government acting as if this is the end all, be all that this is the smoking gun that shows that kyle rittenhouse was pointing a firearm. i doubt from a drone's angle that it's such a devastating piece of evidence. you never know how the jury will take it. the prosecutors need something to break their way in terms of having some better arguments, closing arguments than they have at this moment. they're pushing and will get it in to evidence along with everything else that the jury has to consider. >> neil: we'll go back to this, but you really -- if you're the defense, you have to just convince one juror that it doesn't add up, that it's not a deliberate action on the part of rittenhouse, that he killed two people according to the defense in self-defense. you just need one, right? >> yes and no. one will prevent convictions. one won't be an acquittal. i think that they have a strong enough case from the defense perspective where they're hoping for the acquittal on the serious charges. they might have problems with a minor in possession of a gun or crossing state lines. for the homicide charges, they're feeling it. they realize they're in play to get 12 people to agree that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this was reasonable self-defense. that's the legal standard where we are. >> as well as the definition with the way they died, murder on manslaughter. how does that come into the mix? >> right. there's essentially reckless base charges and intentional base charges. what you're telling the jury if you're the prosecution is this guy had time to essentially willfully shoot people without justification. the defense is saying we have what is called a perfect self-defense. we generated self-defense. it's been the junior. it's another thing the government has to prove didn't happen by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. you hammer away on the fact that it's justified and hope that they keep that burden in mind a they agree whatever they think happened, whatever bad jumps that kyle rittenhouse exhibited doesn't translate into proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was unreasonable in defending himself. >> neil: so the uniqueness of wisconsin law that states the defense must cite some evidence of self-defense, it seems to be less of a burden for if defense by that definition or am i misinterpreting it? >> no, it's defendant friendly but it's not uncommon -- this is what is referred to as an affirmative defense. in other words, it's not in play until the defense has enough of a threshold showing of substantial evidence that it's part of the case. so again, that's the big reason why kyle rittenhouse testified, was to sufficiently generate self-defense. it's hard without him testifying himself. now that it's in play under wisconsin law, it's another thing the government has to knock down by proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. if the defense makes it an issue, the government has a new hurdle to try to leap over. >> neil: all right. we're going back now. the judge has allowed these photographs for the jury to see for themselves. also he's allowed other witnesses to come forward to dispute the testimony that kyle rittenhouse gave yesterday. let's go back to the trial. >> you're going to be adding pixels around my shirt and my tie, correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> so the question is this. in terms of the accuracy of that enlargement, you don't know whether those pixels are black for my tie or white for my shirt? right? >> i cannot speak to the algorithm that's being used and how it's interpreting. >> that could distort or not make an accurate picture of what we're see something. >> it's possible. >> right. so the images -- when we're looking at smaller images that are blown up, adding color that is not actually there can make the photograph not accurate, right? >> all this stuff said, we're taking a repeatable. >> what does that have to do with the fact that you don't know what the colors -- you don't know the colors added. how do you know it's accurate? >> i don't know as to the algorithm and how it's using it. >> so when we're doing that on small images like a marker in my hand or something like that and you want to see what this is from a far distance away, it might be adding color. that's not actually there, right? >> it may be. >> so the image that we're asking people to look at might not actually be an accurate representation of the original image, true? >> it's possible. would it take something that was present, the exact i gave you was my tie. if you expand that, is it going to add more black pixels? >> it will add -- no, it won't -- it will not add any more details than what is originally there. >> it's going to add pixels, you just don't know what color they'll be. >> correct. >> is it more difficult to do that in situations where you're further away meaning the distance from the photograph, the further the distance from the photograph the more pixel that needs to be added to blow it up? >> you're saying more distance from the photograph, the object depicted? >> the object depicted in the photograph, the further away that is, the more pixels that needed to be added when you enlarge it. >> correct, if you wanted to enlarge it, correct. >> and the more pixels that are added, the more availability there is for disportion in terms of the color, correct? >> in terms of the color, it's possible. >> would that be also true -- would that be true for the -- i think i asked you this. i'm trying to figure it out -- the size of the image that you're trying to make larger so the bigger the image in the photograph, the easier it is to enlarge? >> there's more pixels present to enlarge in that area. >> okay. so if i, for example, was -- if i had something on my clothing and you enlarged it, would that make the thing on my clothing more pronounced? >> it may not, no. >> would it make it less pronounced? >> it may not. >> it may keep at this time same even though the photograph is bigger? >> it does not -- interpolation does not add detail. if you're enlarging something on your clothing, all its doing is making that image larger. the detail that may or may not be there is not added. you're not adding additional detail to that image. >> you're just adding unknown information. >> yes. no, you're not adding unknown information. you're interpolating the pixels and adding those particular pixels. >> and those pixels contain information. >> yes. >> and that contains color. >> yes. >> you're not sure how the color scheme works in that situation. >> i don't know. >> okay. >> thanks for your time. >> cross? >> do these programs add detail? >> they do not add detail. >> how long did you work with this drone video all told? >> all told, i received it on sunday and i finished all of my work with as of yesterday. >> so you worked on it more than three days? >> correct. >> would you have submitted an exhibit that did not seem to be consistent with the original footage? >> objection. argumentative. >> and foundational. >> it is argumentive. >> did you make sure that the -- if the reports that you identified were not consistent with the drone footage that you've become familiar with, would you have produced them? >> i would not have produced them if there was any information there that did not seem accurate to me. >> so you do compare it to the original? >> i did not compare to it the original in this incident, no. >> are is this sampling that you talked about? >> my re-size? >> yes. >> those are 2 different algorithms that interpret that information. >> do these algorithms look at -- let me ask it this way. on a digital photograph to make it bigger do you have to add pixels? >> yes. >> if i take a photo from my phone and i want it on a 5 by 7 i would be adding pixels? >> you would be. >> this is commonly done to photographs? >> it is, yes. >> these algorithms how do they know how to add the pixels? >> to the best of my knowledge is depends on the algorithms. >> what is the sampling process? >> it is looking at the pixels and providing more data to that file. >> it looks at the pixels and adds pixels? >> that is correct. >> it's not just arbitary are choosing colors to put in? >> not to my knowledge. >> nothing further. thank you. >> sir, you never compared the photograph in front of you to the origin? that's what you testified? >> i did not -- i am sorry. i did my analysis on the original video but did not compare them side by side no. >> you would not submit it if you didn't think it was a fair and accurate representation? >> right. >> but you never looked at the two next to confirm that? >> to compare the original to the file? no. >> he talked about you take a photograph of your family and make it bigger. you are probably not as concerned in a family photograph that you are adding pixels and where colors are going as you might be in a homicide investigation, right? >> that is true. >> okay. making sure that the information that is added to these pictures and the information is in the pixels, making sure that is accurate is an important part of your responsibilities? >> correct. >> you don't know how that happened in this case, correct? >> i do not know the algorithm use within the software. no. >> that's all i have. >> how do you know the interpretation is accurate? >> based on the fact that it's a bi-cubic algorithm is commonlily used and a sound forensic tool. >> how long did you work with this drone video and the different images? >> asked and answered. >> sustained. >> do you know how many hours you worked on it? >> i would say approximately -- approximately 20 hours. >> nothing further. >> you may step down, sir. >> [inaudible]. >> any other evidence? >> [inaudible]. >> any objection? >> the same objection i noted. >> it will be received. did you have some for publication too or was that done? that was completed? >> yes, sir. >> folks the evidence is closed. i will ask that you return to -- >> go ahead. >> can we get the screens up? >> [silence]. >> neil: it looks like the judge is going to be wrapping this up shortly. maybe with another witness or two. the only thing that changed was the request of the prosecution to add for evidence and an additional witness or two which they appear to have gotten a guarantee from the judge as well. let's go back. >> [silence]. >> that's all. thank you. >> all right. folks, the evidence is closed. you know what? i want to talk to the lawyers for a moment. hmmm. i guess i will ask you this. step into the library. >> neil: this is almost done but not quite. a couple of developments that might stretch this a tad longer. a witness you heard in kyle rittenhouse's testimony yesterday and the prosecution disputes remarks rittenhouse made regarding the night of the shootings. we are told the judge is still intent on hearing all closing arguments as soon as monday. we don't know how that is potentially pushed back by threes latest developments hearing from at least one additional witness. the jury will get access to four paragraphs. -- photographers. it's in the eyes of the beholder. kyle rittenhouse the prosecution argued he came to wisconsin to inflict damage and do arm. the defense argued that anything that happened including the death of two individuals and one other severely wounded, it was all self-defense. the details continue. that will do it here. >> ♪ ♪ >> i am jesse watters with judge jeanine and dana perino and greg gutfeld. it's 5 o'clock in new york city and this is "the five." >> ♪ ♪ >> "the five" is outside on fox square for veterans day paying tribute to all of our men and women who served. we will honor veterans on set later. first, the united states of america is the greatest country in the world. a place where you can do anything and

Related Keywords

Kyle Rittenhouse , Case , Shot , Thanks , The Story , Courageous , Veterans Day , Us , Prosecution , Martha , Neil , This Is It , World , Country , Goes On , 00 , 3 , Judge , Jury , Witness , Crack , Drone Video , One , Issue , Trial , Rittenhouse , Law , Wisconsin , Analysts , Evidence , Self Defense , Words , Part , Burden , Beyond A Reasonable Doubt , Uphill Climb , Sign , Middle , Pixels , Color , Yes , Thing , Terms , Ones , Image , Question , Concern , Information , Algorithm , Program , Photographs , Two , Colors , Court , Correct , Things , Fact , Picture , One Second , Questions , Wouldn T Have , Testimony , Impression , Correction , Individual , I Don T , Control , Understanding , Concept Down , Scope , Water Colors , Expertise , Command , It , Sir , He Doesn T , Honor , Knowledge , Process , Disrespect , Software , Anything , Programs , Interpolation Method , Interpolation Methods , Wording , Method , Pixel Color , Which , Objection , Way , Option , Colored , Interpolation Type , Rephrase , Interpolation , Expansion , Photograph , Shoe , Any , System , Algorithms , Mr , Input Software , Wear , Armstrong , Softwares , Methods , Manufacturers , Images , Details , Comment , Same , Screen , Order , 20 , 30 , Defense Expert , Size , Zooming , Add Pixels , Video , Purposes , Works , Put , Software Program , Images Larger , Lab , Standard , It A , Video Editing , Everything , Best , State , Notch , Supplies , Judges , Computer , Neighbor , Processes , Preview , Imaging , Kind , Standards , Wall , Procedures , Forensic Industry , People , Example , Weren T , Didn T , Add Color , Wasn T , I Don T Know , Purple , Nothing Else , Original , Consistencies , Work , Forensic Imaging Specialist , Version , Nothing , Motion , Person , Cannot , Something , Doing , Firearm , Distortion , It Didn T , Foundation , Add Colors , Mirror Images , Aren T , Circumstances , Technology , Lack , Defense Argument , Advantage , Respect , Pictures , Enlarged , Nathan , Age , Enlargement , Rebuttal , Individuals , Defendant , Gun , Joseph Rosenbaum , Expert , Canard , Forensic Imaging , Zoom , Forensic Scientists , Digital , In , Experts , Industry Standard , Client , Lying , Clients , Number , Argument , Scientists , Apple Zooming , Area , Someone , Rebuttal Evidence , Black , Dr , Specialists , Peer , Expert Come In , Couple , Voodoo Magic , 1 , Lawyers , Stuff , Party , Kinds , Proponent , 2 , Proof , Depiction , Concepts , Familiarity , Logic , Piece , Paper , Drawing Squares , Skills , Squares , Phone , Crime Lab , Concept , Job , You Haven T , Science , Distinction , Naked Eye , Take A Look , Look , Exhibit , Success , Night , Shootings , Point , Milwaukee County , Care , Four , Detail , Evening , Anthony Huber , Room , Courtroom , Understatement , Skeptical , Push , Hands , Significance , Jim Trussy , Access , Sides , Parentally , Deal , Course , Case Law , Gate Keeper , Calls , Prosecutors , Closing Argument , They Haven T Set Up A Technological Foundation , Credibility , Doesn T , Ton , Toefd , Trod , Fifth Amendment Rights , Sort , Eyes , Smart Phone , Idea , Import , Chef , Difference , Jurors , Make , Issues , Battle , Move , Front , Lot , Admissibility , Weight , Single , Route , Juncture , Junior , Cross , Inaudible , Vest , Claims , Arizona State University , College , Witnesses , Development , School , Government , Cord , Courthouse , Lawyer , Shots , Chance , Nonlawyers , Prosecutor , General , Doesn T Trust You , Most , 13th Jury , Grounds , Brakes , 13 , Juror , Let S Go , Doubts , Combination , Received , Oath , Drone Footage , Videos , Welcome Back , Approaches , Vehicle , Frames , Group , Levels , Practices , Forensic Imaging World , Review , Computer Programs , Analyst , Yep , Left , Smart Resize , Bicubic , Specifics , Use , Answer , Amped 5 , 5 , Input Ace , Recommendation , Choice , Relevance , Unit Leader , Preference , Exhibit 155 , 155 , Representation , Differences , Clarification Techniques , Being , Regards , Right , Frame , Over , File , Print , Exhibit S 156 , 156 , Positions , Reports , Six , Jim Trusty , That S James Arm Strange , Forger Doj , Weapon , Both , Bit , Fighting Routine Technology , Defense Perspective , Smoking Gun , Ups , To Go Into Ed , Arguments , Angle , Drone , Add Up , Action , Acquittal , Defense , Won T , Convictions , Play , Charges , Homicide Charges , Crossing , Possession , Minor , State Lines , Problems , 12 , Doubt , Definition , Murder , Base Charges , Guy , Manslaughter , Mix , Justification , Jumps , Mind , Hope , Uniqueness , Doesn T Translate Into , Affirmative Defense , Showing , Threshold , Reason , Wisconsin Law , Hurdle , Leap Over , Tie , Shirt , Accuracy , White , Repeatable , Up , Distance , Hand , Marker , True , Situations , Object , Pixel , Availability , Disportion , Clothing , Add Detail , Color Scheme , Situation , Programs Add Detail , Three , Argumentive , Footage , Argumentative , Incident , Sampling , Re Size , 7 , Sampling Process , Data , Origin , Analysis , Side By , No , Family Photograph , Family , Where , Homicide Investigation , Responsibilities , Interpretation , Sound Forensic Tool , Sustained , Publication , Folks , Silence , Request , Add , Guarantee , Developments , Step , Library , Prosecution Disputes , Tad , Testimony Yesterday , Photographers , Threes , Paragraphs , Arm , Beholder , Damage , Death , Jesse Watters , Five , Fox Square , Jeanine , Greg Gutfeld , Dana Perino , New York City , Women , Place , Veterans , Set , Men , First ,