petition his attorneys could nappie or violated that provision that's correct does it not indicate that perhaps richmond is still the law i don't think so in the reason i say that is if you think properly about most  to just order try to speak with mr store it was just happenstance they ran into each other there's no evidence in the store was living at the residence where the investigator encountered him wh retain is removed from the obligation to have these talks with the client to look at the trial record record may reflect that there has been compliance with the rule i think it's clear that the certificate was not filed would you wish to comment on whether or not the record reflects that there was compliance with the r client was willing to waive the conflict different fact it was something that was way will go by the client i'm sorry could you repeat that give the conflict was something that the defendant client could have waived ok then how do we know whether or not the attorney discussed possible i understand mr wilson's arguments regarding fairness and i understand his arguments pro taint so far as as it regards fairness but the law currently  because equity suggests that you do the same thing to everybody right which means you can screw everybody equally ok worst fear is related to something rather beneficial or  we're nice so if it's not so much fairness it's equity are you going to treat everybody the same or not because this rule could be draconian and if it were but what they want is they want to be treated equally with other people and they see other people getting lesser penalties or punishment than they do so other than this short soapbox discussion  please understand we're talking about not so much fairness whether or not the proceed with appointed counsel is being treated the same or differently than someone with retained counsel or vice versa right and the supreme court has had time to review that since richardson and michelle to score for a few days in bennett and express some concern but don't i understand your concerns are expressing regarding equity but i disagree that they aren't being treated the same i do think that and of the information that he provided to the officers and as the illinois supreme court has repeatedly said we can't be sure testimony is inherently unreliable and should not warrant  judge given the fact that calvin stewart was one of the victims defendant could have asked the trial court judge for a subpoena not a subpoena for calvin to testify at trial without defense counsel suggest that it is cultural but you're suggesting that somebody has been there by failing to be diligent you're making an oblique reference to someone who as yet i or president is anonymous requesting an indication of who this anonymous person may be i would agree with your honor that the anonymous person would in fact be defense counsel  would like to changed my position because in or tease the supreme court the illinois supreme court did say that even if the defendant provides an alibi witness at his trial which he did he state at trial then it's considered to be non commutative so arguably yes this is not cumulative so i would change my position on that that being said that it is not material it would not probably change the result on trial because here we have the testimony of ronnie green who was one of the victims running agreement in talking to the officers who were ri of discussed here there this is fact is there anything in the record that reflects what you just related to us in other words i can't tell whether what you're doing is making arguments he was making a conscious effort not to talk to him about this case we don't know why maybe he was morally criminal activity at the time of the shooting and he was concerned about getting in trouble or being charged with that and therefore he was trying to avoid everyone we with our ha