must we consider the videos independently or can they can take them so i mean i think they can be considered independently should they be considered independently in the first video that's kind of what i'm wondering can we look at his state of mind in the second and third just supporting the argument that knew what he was talking about you really didn't want to lawyer i from hearing things such as you're going to make a mother and her brothers put her in the ground knowing we're thinking that we're dealing with a cold blooded killer here officer told mr lee she's not going to have any kids she's not going to have the grandkids videos unquestionably should have been surprise and there's no denying that the prejudice really and errors like this there was no room for them in this case because of the closeness of the evidence though see so the evidence is overwhelming if that were the case the defendant is arguing that parts of the videos should have been a surprise ok that's really my ok well there is no motion however there was no motion as to the second and third so we really don't know officers but it put the officers are clearly in the video expressing alternative opinions the opposite opinion the jury was told that the officers didn't always tell the truth and it's whether it was it was prejudicial and here where the of course the whole tape was admissible to prove it back on the dependent on the force of the which was about ninety minutes of the defendant's hopefully screw up that video that he knew nothing about the shooting and he continued with that story throughout the first ninety minutes of the second video that he knew nothing about the shooting then he said a motion as to number two three because i am concerned about the state's position on that's where they say that well the issue may be doing i believe until we want to hear that the argument was that that the trial court mistakenly denied the motion to suppress the second half of the murders video and then there were first video and then the first video was a challenge but none of the other women in yours would challenge at all and that's my question if you are going to argue that that was tr strategy how is that trial strategy what would what would be in your mind that would make that trial strategy that he's claim of innocence for example  nothing was going to make the police take the defendant and the hospital to check on britney also the facts and howard were really late and the officer interrupted the defendant's first mention of an attorney by saying are you that stupid and then yeah and then  was the one who wasn't giving him what he wanted which was then and on exclusivity with him she was the one who was afraid that he was going to freak out and that ends that she had another suitor and she surely did try to get away from him that night i can't even count the number of times she walked away from him or stopped away from him or physically rebuffed him on that on that bar and you know i think that the evidence is extremely  about just what happened that night and finally where was the guy from his position was that it was on her person you can look at that video and see that gun was not her person and if a defendant is going to tell a story he needs to be judged by its inconsistency and that is a really big hole in that story and it's evidence like that which i don't have time to talk about here that that shows that the evidence was