car these days has a video camera showing things that you can't see with your own eyes they really have to rely on a live human being having to be on the front of the train and see where there are these signals or  that fighting and what he mr smith did is you should let was deployed even though he was not the scene of the accident even though he knew that every soul in this case had said so there are really two separate versions of what happened here there's this version the smith one of the this must describe in which humidity critical information the reason why any claim or disprove discipline he refuses to consider any circumstances suggested and we think it's really strongly suggested never saw i was responsible for the derailment he refused to all the reason why they have these particular case and why they were to hear him and the whole premise of having this taping system is in order to investigate if there's an accident and and thorough investigation and my colleague on the other side is pointing to smith and attempting to create the impression that mr schmidt was the sole investigation of this direction but that is absolutely not true according to mr  amtrak had to offer him the full evidentially here something that amounted to essentially bench trial before a neutral hearing officer who is not a number of amtrak's transportation and at that hearing this really was represented by his union he was able to testify in his own behalf he was able to present whatever evidence you like he was able to cross examine and press witnesses and the hearing officer examining all of the evidence found that mr burley was responsible for the tape he gives a report that doesn't explain that ever saw what was supposed to be on the front of the engine and jumped up without saying anything and if this is this is pretty mitigating for mr brown that's not a matter for later on and i would agree with you if this one page document that's about seven sentences long were in fact investigation but there was an entire hearing that included mr ebbers always a witness mr burley was a witness mr smith was a witness to mr morley union are  in the hearing because it wasn't mr smith's job to perform the investigation that was the role of the hearing officer in fact could not disappoint mr perley based on mr smith's one piece report alone we said that there was a hundred  p transcript with exhibits and documents cross examination that in fact was the investigation here and i think more importantly this is a this is a race discrimination this is not an arbitration or whether mr be on the train no you are in fact engineers are armed i'm sorry conductors are frequently not on the train this is not not on the train or in a place where he's in the line of sight and can warn the conductor i mean the engineer if they're  a blue signal while you're on it it's interesting that you mention it because the very rule that requires someone to be in a line of sight also requires an engineer if they don't have visual contact with the person that's supposed to be got in they're not permitted to travel for well there purposely decided not to review but most importantly again this is race discrimination so even have to present some evidence that whether mr smith was right or wrong sloppy or throw out his decision was guided by racial animus and so even if they were wrong even if they overreacted here again this is a race to scream and so the very fact that they don't know mr burley phrase would preclude any reasonable jury finding that they denied him a waiver because of because of his r on cases articulate the summer always situated employees being treated differently as a way to show a pretext and that seems to be what they are really resting their case on here so i take your point as to the the broader issue but they a is one of the people we don't know we don't know what would be needed and the defendant says well we don't remember who did it why can't the jury infer that while they're the defendant this pretext this is out of line with what has been done by a number of different supervisors in a number of different here situations with serious serious damage to property but with respect to our danger to the individuals i think  ok you can take two minutes if you like