circumstances under which he found a reasonable person would not have considered himself to be in custody or quite frankly mind by what the court rewrite a con man with the state relies upon are a couple of the less statements by two detectives claiming that they told the defendant at the police station that he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time first i believe that he ma that a person may still reasonably reasonably believed so to be in custody despite officers gensis to the contrary and when you look closely at the circumstances surrounding that arrest statement to the defendant and someone was shot when officers responded to the scene the first officer that arrived so the two defendants standing in the driveway and what the officer did was get out of the vehicle his lights and siren have been activated he pointed a gun at them ordered them to the ground with their arms out to the side he did this because he did not know what their involvement was now mr mayes the codefendant had explained the opposite of what occurred that they another officer had instructed that the defendant be brought to the police station so he can be interviewed quote a little more to see what involvement was upon arrival at the naperville police station the defendant was brought down to the lower level investigation section of the department and placed in a separate interview room then his friend still handcuffed detective liberia would then claim that he went into the interview room t that he was free to leave at any time but told them quote we will be taking a statement shortly he also told the defendant that the reason given hancock is that there was uncertainty as to what their involvement was defendant would be considered under arrest and in custody at that point and here's why the manifest where the evidence i believe shows that statement was not made and they were not told there first i find it troubling something of that leave the room and he said they did that however if you look at officer where's testimony one of the officers that was in the room he stated that he would then and he waited out cited your interview room and waited for instructions the other the reason i stated that was the information regarding codefendant is i don't think there's any reason to assume there these two people are being treated any differently so you have one officer after being told to leave standing outside guarding the room waiting for instructions and another officer saying that they could not have come out of the room and walked out of the station and that anything that they would have done i would want them and maybe interview them together i imagine if people come into a police station just off the road maybe it's a family and they say hey we just witnessed this crime and the police are going to split them up and interview rooms and interview them separately maybe to challenge inconsistent claimed that she had told the defendants that they were not under arrest and free to leave was contradicted by detective bish regarding that statement i believe he had said i don't shout i don't believe that she told them they were free to leave we just told them they were there to take a statement and when she came in the room mr moore was physically destroyed he was crying he was shaking the environment on him and when asked what she told him to calm him down she said i told him he needed to be cooperative he needed to focus and needed to provide a written statement at that point of course i believe i believe the defendant had told the police that this was the victim's blood but at any rate and they were investigating whether somebody else is i don't i don't know also look at the fact that he's asked to provide a statement in writing and the form that he was given which the police say was by mistake the form that he was given says right at the top that he's advised of his rights and karen what  defendant's second interview which ended at approximately five thirty am the defendants were located by detective library all around three forty pm because the decision had been made to release  down again to the lower level and again separated just the same as they had been done before separated in separate interview rooms then when the trial court finally how they were under arrest thank you so at that point he she becomes what is the probable cause at that point what do they have in addition to what they had earlier and that's were you look at the details of the judge or found it page one eighty eight if you come on record th guess as to their physical characteristics are wrong but he still found probable cause based on other information in the court comments and how the informant knew that you were in the house when the shooting occurred but if you look at the tippit only one of the males is described as a black male the two did not describe two black males the court also how because the police knew that one of the men used a phone in the residence that was consistent with the claim that they were set up in that i believe it's arbitrary basis because there's no knowledge is explaining what's that i meant means or even had the descriptions of the people at the station right and whether it's nicknames or physical characteristics even th as far as why he would split up witnesses that happens periodically in any investigation you stand over here i'm going to talk to this person even a simple traffic accident occurs so i don't think that that's really relevant and what a reasonable person would be thinking at that point when they're left alone for ten hours in orange jumpsuit without a cell phone without any access to it right etc and the fact is that they would let the testimony was that this this area this lower level sections was that they're just they're just completely innocent and saying that because there were so many hours there are legs that you can hold that there were so many i was hearing that they were in custody just doesn't make sense or they don't relate to each other one of the things i want