whether the defendant was rightfully convicted and found guilty by a trial judge a bench trial for the offense of having possession of one hundred to four hundred grams of cocaine and this is a constructive such as the powdery substance that was on the table in the basement with a digital scale in the bag as the ties as you mentioned her symptoms and say that were consistent with the use of powder cocaine which is what was found in a safe  is because she's going to the house and she would have had access to the basement without being disingenuous there's no question she would have access to the basement the husband had also indicated that he would put was still living her she had breast cancer so then she came back to live with him and i think it's so point when she was living with him she came to the realization that he was  you but whether she had access to the basement i think once again i think it's fair to say that she could have had access to the base of what was in the case but there's no evidence that you head actually access think it's a question of who's credible necessarily it's a question of i think the police could be very credible names were credible or whatever but that i believe that there is no credible evidence that this woman actually had control over what so the real question isn't whether the individual is credible in so far as what they believe it's whether the story or the allegations such  to some of the some of the findings of the truck work believe he said that the stakes with this is regrettable the defense witness and we were in were not credible that introduced that they were actively granting use or anything right and there were no fingerprints found on the card correct but who needs testimony conflicted with her statements because he said that she took the critic cards out of her purse her testimony was that she used crack cocaine instead of the powder so i think she's trying to distance himself not from everything in the basement you know this stuff head knowledge of the drugs in the house she had intent to use those drugs and then the circumstantial evidence shows that she had control over that cocaine yes it forty three and then sums it up i believe the know or the defendant were directly question about it a large part of that comes out i think in defense counsel's argument in closing that you know there is no evidence regarding the key and i believe the trial judge's respon in his ruling may have been in response to that but i couldn't find that exact spot and do you think kids finding of not guilty an obsession with intent to do with her church don't you think that's inconsistent with his finding with respect to the to deliver in this cocaine according to her view she was really the benefits of mr hermes intent delivering the cocaine this is true mr self didn't want to get involved in that she wouldn't mind apparently using cocaine but she didn't show i don't think so no i think her husband had prior convictions and i think that was testimony to so i think that certainly consistent there was testimony that she had left him when she found out he was a drug dealer so the death certainly  think that is all indicative of a lack of guilt on her part or entirely be somewhat due to her computer state but certainly if she'd left him previously when she found out that he was dealing drugs she could've stayed in the hospital and said you know you're the drug dealer i'm staying here to face it they did they stayed with his mom for a couple hours then it won't tell me for a week and they we nt up to her realty is in michigan and according to the testimony she stayed there for ten days and then came back to the illinois she said she was going to take care of things here  today half months later she still hasn't taken care of anything she is arrested when she goes to a beauty parlor and one of the customers or someone to be part of an recognizes her from a defendant testifies herself or proof read or presents defense witnesses there they will you know rise or fall by the credibility of their testimony here the judge repeated evidence that they're also looking at some other inconsistency and a lot of that came out contrasting the defense witnesses testimony with the police and what they said they found in the house such as the judge in particular noted that conversation from the jail between the defendant her husband saying you know they have to appear to testimony that he only lived in the basement separate from her and then on the finding by the police of meal clothing in the master bedroom and her bed you know it's all hers including sports jerseys but inconsistent you know she's whose sex toys are they and you know the fact that he had a side of the bed up there when all the testimony is that he lived a separate life in the basement there's  made that so in addition to the facts and circumstances as i said you know if the defendant presents evidence then he will you know rise and fall you know by that as well as the evidence presented paraphernalia is normally kept by her drug dealing husband put away but on this day when she has an obvious impairment and the evidence is is that it's from  it's power to cane because there's evidence regarding sniffing and i think even the judge comments about it from the tape of her in the hospital i know one of the officers stopped giving a blood test out there's no evidence the medical testing secondly that the attempts by the to say that if you can't control it for purposes of the liver you can't control it at all are you saying that one is distinguishable from the other or is it distinguishable from the other even