Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial digital image inlarging question.

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
Major Jack Reacher
Major Jack Reacher Senior Member • Posts: 1,555
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial digital image inlarging question.

Vernon D Rainwater wrote:

Major Jack Reacher wrote:

jerryf128 wrote:

I am not sure if that is what they were talking about, when I watched it. I think they were talking about an image taken from a drone, and enlarged the image with a special forensic program adding pixels?? The drone was flying over the riot occurring in the city.

I watched that also. You are correct, they were discussing "captures" from drone video. They used a few "captures" of Kyle, that Prosecutors were trying to claim proved Kyle Rittenhouse was seen pointing a hand gun at someone. They had to ENLARGE those photos for clarity purposes to try to prove their case. Evidently the images were very small crops from the drone video, and highly distorted. So they (Prosecutors) hired someone to try to enlarge them using forensic software. They were trying to explain to the Judge how "Interpolation" works, and the Judge did not understand it at all.

Bottom line was the Prosecutors were simply trying to prove Kyle lied on the witness stand when he said he never pointed his guns at anybody BEFORE those three guys started attacking him. The Defense Attorneys were claiming the interpolation process could have added pixels, (which it clearly does) and could have created a photo that was not an accurate photo depending on how many pixels it added, and what color those added pixels created.

Since we were unable to see the original photos, compared to the enlarged photos, it is hard to determine exactly what the interpolation process actually created. The Defense team was simply objecting because the photos WERE ALTERED via interpolation.

Images altered in any way should not be presentable in court, news media, or any other purpose of that type.

I can see using enlarged photographs if they help solve a case.  One example would be to enlarge a license plate to track a car and prove that car might have been at the scene of a crime.   In that case, the license plate just leads to the car and potential suspects, and then you would have to do more investigations.   The jury would have to decide if the images have been ALTERED beyond reasonable, and the forensic experts would clearly need to testify that the images reflect a real and truthful depiction of the photograph.

Now, if you take a photograph of a suspect that is small, small, small and increase it in size, then the jury would REALLY have to consider whether the alteration via interpolation created an unreasonable depiction of the suspect.   Tough call, and in this case, both attorneys argued over these photographs and the Judge ended up making a ruling that the jury could see the photos, but the Prosecutor COULD NOT state during closing arguments that Kyle lied.   The Judge simply did not find sufficient evidence in the photographs to clearly see that Kyle lied.   But, he allowed the photographs to be entered if the Jury wanted to view them, themselves.   Personally, I agree with you on altered and enlarged photographs, but I can see their use, SOMETIMES.

-- hide signature --

Major Jack Reacher
Dpreview Members are welcome to EDIT/RETOUCH any of my images which I post to this website without prior permission.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD pdqgp
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow