I think that this may be a surprise to many people’s sensibilities, but it should not be a surprise to your logic. And what I mean by that is trials are oftentimes a tale of competing narratives. And I oftentimes say that the important piece is to control the narrative whatever side you’re on. And in this case, what we saw were the competing narratives of Kyle Rittenhouse on one hand being a victim and on one hand being a vigilante.
Ultimately, what we know now is that the jury bought the narrative of Carl Rittenhouse being a victim.
… This was not a slam dunk from the prosecution from the get go. They had an uphill battle to climb [sic]. The judge did not do them any favors with many of his rulings all the way through the entirety of the case.
“However, it should be noted that the prosecution did not have great facts to work with from the outset. And so while a lot of people out there may be looking at this case and wondering how could this have happened, if … they were watching the trial and paying attention to the details, you may have seen some of this coming.