Prosecution Collapses His Face Into His Hands As The Case Against Rittenhouse Crumbles

YouTube Screen Shot from ABC 7 Chicago

Gaige Grosskreutz was a top witness for the prosecution against Kyle Rittenhouse on November 9. Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz during the fiery riot that led to the death of a known agitator who ran in Antifa circles. The prosecution attempted to spin the narrative that Rittenhouse shot three men, injuring two and killing one, without being provoked.

However, during Grosskreutz’s testimony, he admitted to Corey Chirafisi, Rittenhouse’s defense attorney, that Rittenhouse did shoot him but only after raising his gun and aiming it at Rittenhouse.

Chirafisi asked Grosskreutz under oath, “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun pointed at him, that he fired, right?” Grosskreutz responded almost immediately, “correct.”

At that moment, most lawyers watching the case collectively agreed that Kyle Rittenhouse should be set free. Now without a doubt, we know that Kyle did not go to the riot with the intent to kill BLM or ANTIFA. The phrase “How do you not acquit?” erupted on social media, including a now-viral reaction from a group of lawyers spending their days live streaming the case to explain in real-time what is going on in the courtroom.

Although thousands have called for the trial against Rittenhouse to be over, it lingers. The State of Wisconsin rested their case on November 10, but their nationally broadcasted humiliation would continue now that Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys would be calling their witnesses.

One of Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys called photographer Nathan DeBruin to testify about the circumstances surrounding the shootings captured on his camera. During his testimony, DeBruin was asked about statements he made to the prosecutors about the day in question.

According to DeBruin, the prosecutors insisted the name “Joshua Ziminski” be added to his official statement. DeBruin said the prosecutors wanted to ensure that Ziminski is clearly identified as they charged him with arson and are using DeBruin’s photos as evidence in that case as well.

DeBruin testified:

“I was called down to the district attorney’s office. I met with Mr. Binger, and … I was called into a room, sat at a table, handed my police statement, got to read over my police statement, and then I was asked if I would like to add anything to the police statement. And, I said I would not,”

DeBruin described the exchange:

“Mr. Binger pulled out a cell phone and showed me a video and also a photo – which was actually one photo that I brought today – and asked me if I knew who a gentleman was in that photo, and I said I did not. He said, ‘This is Joshua Ziminski.’ Mr. Binger also has a case with him, and I am subpoenaed for that case also. [Mr. Binger] says, ‘Well, that’s who that is.’ He put the phone down. He picked the phone back up and says, ‘Who is this?’ And I confusingly said, ‘Joshua Ziminski?’, and he said, ‘Would you like to add that to your statement?’ and I just felt I didn’t want to change my statement.”

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus decided to press DeBruin about the exchange assumably to save the appearance of any impropriety.

“We had you read over your statement, right?” asked ADA Kraus. “Correct,” answered DeBruin. “And we asked if you knew anything beyond that statement,” pressed Kraus. “Correct,” DeBruin responded again.

Kraus continued his line of questioning, now insisting DeBruin agree that the prosecution “didn’t ask [him] to change it.” DeBruin shut Kraus down, answering definitively, “Yes, you did.”

Join The Discussion

Related Posts