messy crime in fact the murder weapon this was tested board so that of course there's not that's not a big deal in terms of being substantially exculpatory however now you have mixed with the victim's d n a you have a mixture that  trial the eye witness present testified that all three of the assailants the perpetrators of this crime handled this two by four and in fact that she was the last person to hold the two by four was and identified introduced by pictures  four and used it to strike the victim and given that and certainly the case in this court has previously held that d n a does not trump all over other other and we certainly did not make that argument below and we certainly did not make the argument that when at the end considered with the other evidence conclusive and here there's i think no dispute that the law of the time of the trial in illinois was that social science concerning eyewitness identification was not looked say you know the testimony that was you know that the illinois supreme court in durst endorsed environment and the types of evidence that it is typically given allows that the expert to talk about the phenomenon  because the post what i was missing was the post events information that influences him and sort of becomes integrated or contaminated with the myth of witnesses memory is sort of can't be undone and that's one of the if i can finish the trial court didn't hear any other instruments hunters either and so who the significant thing that would impact a jury's decision making is to know that a well meaning eyewitness can make a decision or not that there's a difference between the two pictures and that would still constitute post and post event information and further as i think the very end of redirect dr loftus is asked powerful is because it's highly counterintuitive lay jurors believe if something dramatically stressful happens to some it's a terrible incident that happens you're going to have this quite security in your mind forever but what we have learned or through social science you know many of the cases involve you know single sailor rape victims who spent an hour and a half an hour with their with the perpetrator and say i'm that person and they were simply wrong and that's why this evidence assume because it's not about that the defendant did not prove in any  initially i would have let's talk initially but with the court with speaking about most recently which is the editor vacation and the post conviction court essentially found dr block just not particularly persuasive in part of delia connors testimony when she was st shown the picture of a defendant eighty to nineteen she specifically said well yes it is him but he's a lot younger and a lot smaller than when i thought was next going to be close to what she had seen and she was able to discern that when she saw it should i say yes this is the guy because it's a lot younger and the pot smaller than the guy that i saw so i think that to the extent that it was  about the nature of the protocol i would i will say that i have an inherent bias against this type of thing going back to having done a great many child cases and you know people say that children can only say something that occurred by their birthday or christmas in the type of thing and i find a home i find much of this stuff why does gun unrelated to the individual involved to be unpersua but also because the experts seemed not to understand that she made just turning choices both when shown the one million digital picture and three years later when shown the photo array was a small and more more brightly lit room and they spoke for a few minutes apparently before the other two assailants threw the victim into the kitchen and she then observed the defendant take the victim and she observed all three of the assailants strike him with the war and apparently the the last one to strike him with the board was the defendant and the defendant then left to go out and get the gas can while he was gone the smaller of the two assailants told her he wanted her jewelry or something and at some point during this period the defendant and the smaller the assailants went up stairs and ransacked to get stairs of the house and there in the course of the discussion among all three of them the victim kept see her and again i don't know if the specific amount of time with disgust i do know that she saw him during the course of conversation in more than one in more than one room in more than but likely they were not sweating your touch d n a is not something that is left typically in murder it's i'm doing this for thirty years and i really see touch d n a from the perpetrator of her to the extent that this board h ball was on the board with the victim club but there were other things on the board apparently if i have the story straight during the course oh yes of course investigation later in time people have access to it and whether it was prior to the night of the murder or after the night we know that once they had discovered that there was more d n a he did exclusion tests of court personnel and i believe i know the bit i think the bailiffs and different people have handled it to find out that it if it had not been deposited in court when it was shown to the jury  testing prior to the trial and it excluded the defendant to try or effect at all times knew that there was no d n a connecting the defendant to the effects to the extent that according to the court even to the report that was done subsequently there is a possible link to another famous murder but again there is no way of knowing when this was deposited by whom w murdered to which this is supposedly connected occurred seven years before this murder so it's hard to see how this is exonerating as to the dependent who we have no reason to believe even touching probability i don't think in the context of the evidence as presented there is a legitimate probability here the fact that a defendant continues to be excluded from the d n a and in january night when he may as well as the weaknesses of his testimony which included not only not interviewing mr connors but also himself not being able to pick out the picture of the defendant when you knew the picture was there assuming it's a different body i think that it's i believe that there still has to be a level of reliability in the social science testimony that's going to be presented to  that it was when i saw the gas and it was in a box i don't know that the jury had the opportunity to remove it from that box the assistant state's attorneys they were part of the elimination standards and all of this goes to there is d n a there it's not real for us so i and this was a very violent crime so the fact that the same person is involved in a very violent approach is really not that shocking and i really feel what we do think is shocking when you consider mr well over who has never been involved in a violent it was an individual who lived at the home where the victim was so that other person the information that we have about that other person matters and i think is significant here in that we'll look for would have the right to argue that the other and it's only a few more questions to lay the foundation i wanted to address going back to the issue with respect to the identification the social science social science tells us that even if let's say was injected with twenty minutes that they were in the same building that the functional duration of her opportunity to memorize the perpetrators used to make an identification would be reduced by a lot of other factors for example the stress of the event the fact that the world multiple perpetrators she's divided and the fact that as a human being in a very violent situation she would be more likely to focus on survival as opposed to memorize we had education and this actually  of course the situation is completely different if you look at it from the lens of how the social science it happened because what dr loftus testified to with the functional duration despite the absolute amount of time of the witnesses ups or opportunity to observe the person's identity would become low because of all these factors and these factors and why there's manifest here with medical care here with respect to the bigger  honour's later testimony even though it was completely undisputed below that and the police report about that confrontation is in the record and was admitted as an exhibit so when you get to the assessing all of this evidence cumulatively what in the trial