[unanswered]

False and misleading headline.

The judge explicitly stated on the live stream that he did not "buy" either side's arguments that zooming was or was not a manipulation. He stated that an objection was lodged and that he needed a sworn statement in evidence, from someone other than the lawyers who were admittedly both guessing, that there was no distortion of the image. Based on the livestream he never prohibited the prosecution from doing their pinching and zooming.

Moreover if it were really as "obvious" as the prosecution claimed it was, then I can see no reason why they did not produce such a statement. Or, alternatively, why they dug their heels in so hard and insisted that they be allowed to show the evidence on an iPad, despite 100% of the substantial audiovisual evidence so far in the trial having been shown on courtroom screens. Defense lawyer was completely wrong about upscaling (possibly getting confused with gpu AI upscaling?), but I can find no fault at all with him smelling a rat.

Source: the livestream, https://youtu.be/mNnfHUtwFBg. Sorry, I know primary sources are scary in today's soundbite world.