in the car that was perjury or shortly after the crime well there are multiple explanations i mean he may have given this had a way importantly and i'll start with more of this testimony if i may have miss parked at the location where the crime occurred and there was testimony by the little boy that he was thrown out of the me and too man i drove off with a van that the same van was found back in the parking identification of the people who were in the store so there is other evidence and besides that in goannas there was another explanation for how the evidence  got to be in the location which was that the person had been in the home to pay his rent and different time there is no other alternative explanation for finding this hat in the v hats a darker hat who the state of your eyes was the heavier set stabbing man and a white cat turns out to be that they find a similar hat in the bed of  for ten to twenty seconds when he approached the hardware aisle from a distance of twenty feet on cross examination he admitted oh yeah i was actually are there a way then you testified that no i got a frontal view of those people like  split nd that wasn't in his report again we have to like extend a lot of inferences in his favor then he claimed he got as close as ten people from these people when they pushed sharply on out of the out of his mother's car and he saw their sides of their faces again this is a loss or a asset protection person and he misidentifies two people and then we have on top of that what we know from our own supreme court and people be lerman that identity eyewitness identifications are normally infallible and there are so many reasons of net asset protection guy we have to be suspicious about the i this case he's identifying two people as maybes and on top of that is identifying our client as the wrong person and then having to admit throughout his testimony that his perceptions which were mistaken  his report doesn't match up with his testimony he says for example i got there two minutes and eighteen seconds after b b b admits finally that i got to the floor at two minutes and eighteen seconds after this incident when he said no he got there within five seconds and on top of that the i have the photo rape is not videotaped and and on top of that he detected mace cannot find his report so even assuming the credibility of all of these people and who believe what they testified to fit their memories are fallible the reports verify i can't i didn't hear them testify the jury heard them testify correct i can't say that they didn't they were there there were inconsistences but i can't say that they weren't telling the truth the jury you know alone can say they were telling the truth or they weren't telling the truth your honor i don't dispute that they didn't believe they were telling the truth but that they're credible i'm just saying simply that their the number for our client at the heavier set back man and we have no in court i know the vacation that here on earth is before you in this record but there is other evidence that we've just talked about a few yanked out of a car waiting for his mother to bring his medicine out i mean this is rather significant in why he can't specifically identify and that's understood the fact remains he's taken with this car this car is taken it is a sympathetic crime we don't have enough to say that and that any rational trier of fact could find mr starks guilty of this offense based on the prosecution's case did defense counsel during the course of his arguments or the trial challenge the and said my yes it manager but how can you be so uncertain when this is your job was it type of question every answer it was he was he was subject to a very heavy in this case yes but i'd like to speak i would be remiss if i didn't get into a little bit about the d n a evidence here there was no testimony under rect examination about how many sites there was a match she said she the will didn't challenge the the issue of the legals and things of that nature yes and she testified that in reference of the d n a that they didn't non conclusive d n a that they found in the car that we normally  no in fact actually people the harvey has spoken to that that the bar court's a caution about these enormous numbers that we provide in giving d n a testimony of one and two thousand two hundred and five testimony and i i wonder what would be better if you just said it was a a match that almost doesn't give the jury any indication because what the defense is saying here three weeks ago only had three working to test you say it was a pool match capable conclusion and then he goes and he goes into the two pieces of evidence one being the d n a and ten peterson's identification when you put these two together it brings us to the inescapable conclusion that the defend that was one of the two offenders he repeats that's one hundred percent match one hundred percent chance over and over again in the case this week we can see where the jury after its finding of guilt this is more that i think he went that far would he support one hundred percent match one hundred dollars in unequivocal but even if you're right your honor he did he over inflated the identification as well and that's an argument as well in talking about peterson in order to find his i could be gay sion tended to be it's an identification when you look at all the problems with his identification if you look at the video we're talking about a difference of two men over one is allegedly two hundred you to look at the evidence as a whole both all pieces of evidence here we're looking at really shape and not identification a reason back hat and i would refer back to what mr peterson testify to exactly what a prosecutor should argue or not what the prosecutor argued here in this case you do have to be are you that was a key for the prosecutor was quite limited in his testimony not here