proposed list of witnesses paul sanders i think joe this court determined were not newly discovered they were there they could have been discovered based on two divisions and as a result  i have to take a look at the attitude if you ever again i i would not be saying that unless i did not think that that was what the specific purpose was was asked with this court in she's only she doesn't know the victim all she was able to can testify to this to what she saw on the unborn which is the location of the body of the victim as the defendant drove off with the victim attached to the car so sandra's testimony is not guess the only reason why i bothered to raise that is because it was a jurisdictional question and i don't i didn't want to take him and seemed as though i overlooked that particular aspect now whether or not the court agrees or not i is very specific about what it provides and i thought and i thought about your question because believe me i thought of all that but there are also and i'm sure your honour's have dealt with cases in here in the course of being on the bench most situations where why our victim here be accountable for whatever reason he then says what i did is i sent my nephew to cut them off doesn't say cut them off and boy doesn't justifying anything at all about knowing that before and be evidentiary hearing occurred which witnesses and what they would be allowed to testify to was discussed between defense counsel deceased attorney and the judge and from what i remember reading and from i remember being there it was decided that the judge wanted as much evidence presented as possible so that basically the case and keep telling backwards and forwards and try to prevent any further and that ultimately the judge allowed her prior testimony to be admitted because it did have the chance for examination and cross examination just for the purpose i believe of looking at all evidence old and be obviously any convictions for by the crime things like that they're admitted under lynch but when it comes to firsthand accounts i would say that aggressive tendencies don't necessarily have to violence against a person someone could be aggressive in that they rob people a lot of people and i would say most people aren't going to voluntarily give up their property unless they're feeling threatened and i would say threats are gratian so as for kevin jones i would say that the purpose of his testimony was to show vic williams who he had known since childhood he went to school together scared him to the point that he left the state after jean weeks this means you're going so much he left and moved to a different city i think that's highly relevant paul was not issues but he did have more than one instance unfortunately testimony was only done about the instance with the robbery attempted robbery with guns at the house so these people knew victor volumes they they knew him point well and they were all willing to come forward and say yes you know what he was going to present got me got a lot of fights he did a lot of things he should have done i could see why someone else would run scared my last point take off he decides to leave he was trying to retreat from a bad situation ok mr pickett said that picture williams grabbed onto this car door handle as the car was taking one i don't think a person who's reasonable not aggressive is going to try to take a hold of the car handle door most people are not going to try to hold on to fleeing car and if you're holding onto a door handle most people are going to like but i'm just saying i would say that and as far as self defense goes mr williams has been able to show that they were serious aggressive and tendencies behalf of victor williams and he acted reasonably in trying from five feet away after he let him out it was a complex situation people you can use the word rock and yes it connotes ok violence you're going to give up your property of all this other kind of stuff but that's not what john's testified to he's testifying robbing them by selling them dummy