wrong it doesn't come back to some unknown serial rapist mr killer it comes back to rex husband who said i had consensual sex with her shortly before she died he doesn't know the date was he's not brought into your sleep how does that help your client but he this new review is this new d n a evidence that has since come to light since the trial well as i was as i said with this new d n a evidence the jury very well conclude that mr brown was lying about the assault in this case and if it determines that he was wrong about the brown's boxers and she tested the spreading it revealed it was a mixture of human bread and semen however both for the conclusions to be made from that from those samples thirty thousand hispanic  innocence defendant acknowledge it at the hearing he acknowledges as brief in his or lightman this evidence is not really exonerating that should be the end of the story because his burden is to make a substantial showing that this evidence is so conclusive that it would change the outcome of trial and he'd be acquitted because the will of the girl or  evidence medical evidence scientific evidence is not required to establish a sexual assault which by the way sexual assault was just one of the offenses defendant committed this is not just strictly a sexual assault case nor was the at trial that the testimony was that semen could not be extracted from the same general swab the testimony the evidence of the evidentiary hearing presented now it goes it just said biological materials can fish is not  was told that he had been ministry yes and even with that there was hardly any and physical tangible evidence to that was available or for scientific examination and of that they didn't do a sharking and if there's very little scientific evidence that comes out of what he describes right there doesn't have to be scientific evidence the tests tony is that decided they were going to go to mr jones and there's a question about whether what is what what motivated his his his testimony yes there was and that all that was before the jury the jury heard it that he was an accomplice he testified to his plea agreement the jury was instructed to do was accomplice and that his testimony should be viewed with caution those arguments were made to the jury the jury found him guilty because the jury properly knows what what anyone understands is that you don't have to leave fluid to commit a sexual assault or leave your d n a and it doesn't in just the absence of it doesn't mean that offense didn't occur and defendant raise a claim on direct appeal attacking the credibility saying there's no d n a evidence and the supreme court said there's sufficient collaboration for johnson's account and as fire is here i'm remarks regarding they didn't do  it was the but it was that there was no there's lots of different there is no difference your honor there is no a difference that's a cumulative evidence it's not conclusive material evidence that he's actually innocent and these claims that somehow the strange husband was on a date i mean i mean it's just it's just doesn't make any sense there's never been any evidence whatsoever to suggest that and trying hudson was involved in these offenses and it's actually offensive to suggest that the victim's husband's d n a suggests that he committed this offense this is not this his d n a did turn up in a code a search of the illinois database but it should be noted that his was the only one that showed up in that database no other offenders were revealed in that search defendants also arguing about the boxer shorts which is not proper there was no evidence presented the evidence you're hearing regarding the boxer shorts and he's also misstated the evidence with regard to the boxer shorts there were two tests done on the boxer shorts and the nine low site test had to do with the stains that were found from the boxer shorts people's exhibit number thirty one but the blood in semen sample that was cut out of defendant's underwear which there isn't that's not a nine of thirteen lowside case and that the the d n a evidence showed she could not be excluded as a contributor and far from suggesting that defendant is innocent that is evidence of his innocence that only further supports the people's case that in fact the defendant was the offender who sexually assault her you have to remember defendant underwear was taken from him and there was evidence that he didn't have any kind of injury that would lead to blood being on his underwear but the victim wasn't this complain that she was mentioning at the time and now there's blood and semen mixture in defendant's underwear from which she cannot be excluded and those numbers might seem small in the or in the sense that statistics in the population but they're not considered in a vacuum they're considered in the context of this case how likely is that how coincidence is it that the blood stain that's found in defendant's underwear the victim cannot be excluded not likely at all that's evidence that defendant is guilty or further evidence that the people would admit in any event the nine to thirteen most eye in the box a short evidence was not in it at trial yet if the hearing and should not be before this court if you have no furthe questions we'd ask you to properly to affirm the trial court's popular denial of post conviction relief where defendant failed to make a substantial showing that he was actually innocent of the offenses thank you