What possible difference does it make who the source is? You don't have to take the interviews seriously if you don't want to, I linked the video because it collects video of the events of that night.

You said neither Huber nor Grosskreutz thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. This isn't true. In fact, most of the things you said in your comment weren't true. This is hardly surprising, there's a ton of misinformation about this case. That's why the video evidence is useful.

Yes, Grosskreutz travelled with a gun. You can point out that this is suspicious behaviour (I'd agree with you), but doing so is perfectly legal. And no, the overwhelming majority of protests haven't ended in rioting and looting.

I mean, it's all academic at this point, right? Rittenhouse had his day in court, the prosecution did a horrible job, but the charges they filed were never likely to stick, and here we are. My point is that anybody who disagrees with the Rittenhouse verdict (me among them) has a problem with the law. That's what needs to change. It makes no sense to insist that Rittenhouse should have been found guilty of things that aren't illegal.