and we all saw margin counsel f we focus for a minute on the show of that show up was conducted very near to the shooting very close in time while the police were still in fresh pursuit i mean it has to be inherently suggestive well that's a problem with the show is that all shows are here he suggests all right but that really isn't the standard doesn't it i mean the standard if if the show up is let's say inherently and a white sort of handle on the front and on the back there's like two bars in white lettering and if you have described a shirt that said oh yeah i saw this guy by a t shirt with red lettering or some sort of writing  in the psychology but the reason why these courts and psychologists say that these are inherently suggestive is because people get them wrong quite often in situations where you see a picture of someone and they're later better it's not it's arguably worse when you've got one picture in an article saying this is regard to the i believe taking three or four medications as the officer did when questioned about the show and it wasn't mr downer i guess his name is or do all wasn't he also presented with a female to look at from the same distance under the same circumstances and didn't he say no that's not the person that's correct but the female he described in this part of the shooting was pretty and this other female was not so she did not even fit the description of the  vocalize or or explain that difference and he was able to say that is not the woman notwithstanding that she was taller she was sure that is not the woman he was we have a definite on those issues well good well are often very definite had the opportunity to see he's in the front seat looking over his shoulder there's other people there's three strangers he's never met before and the shooting happens with them there's a car going lower to the bureau there is of the gunshot residue and you argue that the state had to a sample should chain of custody for the gun residue but really it was the blue jeans that were the evidence was one thing i mean and they have gunshot residue on that's correct and then the foundation has to be for the bluejeans it has to be back area then how his shoes along with all of his clothes st on the floor of the police station and that into a bag which everyone i mean the judge says there's a real risk of if this is gunshot residue from this incident gravity says it's going to go down you're saying it's going to go up from the shoes that he was walking in not saying they put his shoes and a bag with his clothes so everything this identification out and certainly back now sydenham cation out it certainly would have been pretty difficult to convict this defendant would it not and so i guess the so there i can see there's also  would have been kept out and i also don't for back now i mean how how was there an independent basis for is he in court identification when he looked in a newspaper article but that apparently had a mug shot well you don't y say you know you got the wrong guy but it's not shocking that he wouldn't you know haul back and say yeah you should write but his testimony in and so are you saying this does not go to the admissibility but rather the weight of the testimony regarding the gun show this is a place where hockey's raised another interesting question that i hadn't thought about he was not speculation is whether the computer program if it's run a nd time will come up with the same results or whether if it's run a nd time it comes up with slightly altered results because there may be or may not be an algorithm that's involved so my question to you is you know if there is an algorithm involved and will it come up with the same selection of the nd time as it did the st time or will it come up with something different