arguments prior we will not be the panel will not be asking questions until the attorney is done making his or her presentation and when the questions are asked they will be just the such and such a proceeding st and justice bridges and then finally myself please do not record any of this qualified as an expert in g p s or  the date and hines recorded for each of the coordinates actually meant how they were recorded by the computer or whether they were even have shared by a tracking device he simply assumed that they work moreover he testified that the time stamps on the g p s coordinates were consistent with surveillance with the surveillance videos and that the timestamps were consistent with someone walking  you know as seen in the video and then also the where the g p s coordinates were now but the problem was that that intermission was like i said they were not consistent with those things the time stamps were off and two hours at least and the fact that you know the st g p s coordinates were recorded as twenty eight pm and the last ones recorded by the smith home where recorded at nine thirty pm not to my knowledge in the only possible for someone to walk least a mile in that a time because those you know his opinions were not based on anything reliable and they should not have been there probably the value was far outweighed by their prejudicial coordinates eventually became the theme of the state's rebuttal closing that the g p s tracker showed the walking from where he abandoned the car and such as lee and all the various points where wanted to get this information in as other crimes had accepted and then ordered as proof of most or evidence of motive and in order to do so the state must prove beyond a mere suspicion that the defendant committed the other bad act or participated in the commission at the pretrial hearing the court correctly found that there was no evidence on top was a person who actually threw the flyers in the parking lot that the court found that the evidence was admissible for two reasons st the court said that the fact the words from the flyer were recovered in the high profile entries during the forensic analysis of the computer was circumstantial evidence that the flyer and nd that christina bias testimony hearing that when she spoke so testimony could should not have come into trial on that basis and the fact that the court st bats the information was found words from the flyer were found in the high  there was no proof at trial or at the hearing as to when the high profile entries were made and you know from other evidence that the police had shown the wire to todd and the family during the investigation before the laptop and we don't know the exact date that katrina moved out so it's possible that after the fire incidents trina had used computer to search for information or that type of use the computer without knowing when the high profile contain the word created no reasonable person could find the high profile with proof beyond the mere suspicion that todd participated in or knew about the fire incident or that he knew about the what role did stacy capella play here in in its stablish ing the issues the records and the purposes of the towers and the things that they do she was presented to basically lay the foundation for the admissibility of the records she was a keeper of the records for the one of the cell phone companies but didn't she also address things about the actual dell towers their capacity their power things of that nature that as the analyst for bribes and she was capable of doing she has testif to some of that information her testimony was not nearly as in the cunningham's testimony she did not or rely on the same principals that they're not exact they have different they have different distances it depends on the territory on the geography didn't he do much the same thing in his testimony he did and i guess my response to that would be at the use of any without without having someone  sort of has become meaningless in that if the state has not you know if they wanted to put in testimony about locating the phone needed to have an expert know we don't know actually because she was not presented as an expert in our analysis whether she was qualified to do that or not she was you know she was considered an expert to the extent that she could verify that these were the records and where the towers were and what they're now general range of she does not get into anything taht a specific location well it doesn't appear that mr cunningham did either because there's a point in talking about signal strength of the equipment and he says that because just because something is powerful that it could go a certain distance doesn't mean that in fact it does it just depends on how the antennas are arranged on the sites themselves as to how far they actually that's actually going to shoot so isn't he just speculating as well i mean not speculating but he's not saying this is where he was and this is how i know what he's just saying that based upon his knowledge cell towers can be helpful and can give you some information but it may not necessarily be true so isn't he qualifying and recognizing that he's not an expert in this case no he  was qualifying what he was saying i agree however that the state you know questioning him at length and having him basically testify for pages about how  about testifying as a late witness about something that requires information beyond you know general knowledge and his observation that you testifying about scientific information and things that and goes into the realm of expert opinion and he should not have been permitted to do so all the trial judge found that the the weight of the testimony was that it should not be admiss rather than addressing the question that sound counsel was presenting which was there needs to be an expert for this kind of testimony and has not provided me with no discovery regarding an expert and this person they want to have testify about the i've received no information that qualifies as my next as an expert and the state that repeatedly to the judge oh we're just going to put this in for a course of investigation and you know to the extent that the judge you know i believe that the judge may have believe you may have understood that the state was going to have you know cunningham testify that i did some cell phone  analysis and discovered that you know and i and and because of because of the cell phone analysis i conducted i ended this that and the other thing and that at trial defense counsel would be able to argue that you know the weight of his testimony or the weight of his you know the question whether or not that investigation  was reliable based on whether or not cunningham you know knew what he was doing and was missing the point that the issue here was it must be presented to expert testimony and we either need to that point you know the reliability of his testimony never determined and saying that it went to the weight not the admissibility misses the  point i probably could i probably could take a lot of more time with questions but i think i'm going to say thank you counsel and let my colleagues continue thank you so this bridges you have any questions i do  thank you very much this man very the trial court allowed the flyer to be admitted for a motive evidence is that correct so my question is does the phrase regarding the guy and his wife that was in the field of his computer provide some evidence that the defendant believed his wife was having the relationship with another man and isn't that classic mo evident i mean that if the state had been able to show that that information had been recorded in the computer at a specific time which would be after before katrina you know before katrina the my that might have gone to motive the problem here is that in order to have it be motive evidence i mean the fact that he may have known she was having an affair yes of course that's classic motive however in order to present other bad accidents and motive evidence they have to show that the defendant didn't just have motive in the abstract this case  a proof that the defendant knew about the motive at the time of the crime here without knowing when a high profile was created we have no idea when that made the flyers it could have been todd or somebody else searching the computer later we don't know when that was created and without knowing that the state has completely failed to establish that the defendant knew about it at the time  i've said the case and based entirely on circumstantial evidence and many of the you know much of the evidence in the case was there was a lot of evidence of the they put on that looked at in a vacuum might seem like who this is bad there's this g p s thing following him and google there's this thing found on a computer that says that maybe he made the fire and that doesn't follow doesn't go inside the the theory is a lot of evidence that makes health of guilty but none of it really it's together and that's why the evidence is very closely balanced and with out these major areas like granites motive does not have to be proven but the fact that a lot of evidence got in had not gotten in the jurors would not have heard about anything about  without that evidence  or you know in fact there is in your honor i was just going to say because in fact when you case it was an f b i agent who provided the testimony regarding  analysis isn't that correct correct and in fact that f b i agent appears in many many many cases in illinois well published in unpublished as an expert in cell tower analysis so you know it is possible for the state to have a cell tower analysis performed by an expert who can come in and answer the appropriate question and the qualified appropriately here for whatever reason the state chose not to do i would suppose yes and you know that was one of the yes my answer is yes a problem with the fact that kind of ham was not disclosed as an expert and was not qualified as an expert in the appropriate manner meant that the defense was anything maps and have that spot show up on a world map and i don't consider myself an expert so i don't know really why a lawyer or a secretary for a lawyer or a librarian or anybody i would think could be qualified to get up on the stand and say i took the same  came up with a designation indicating that this happened in joliet instead of in mchenry county so the idea that you needed being something that's done with expertise would you like to comment on the idea that virtually anybody could have taken the same information and be plotted it and seeing that it came up in a different place and could have testified or even the cross examination the witness could have been impeached with such a i put in the locations of where the towers are and here is the math that shows where they are that is not expert opinion that doesn't require an expert simply transferring data about the location of something into a map and putting it because this cell tower ping the phone was you know at this location or that you know if you place if you're using you're trying to say that the person  here that's that's what requires the expertise because it's more than simply that as how or have you know a specific radius or you know has a range around it of you know one to three miles or may have more because the the cell phone is not always you the tower closest to the location of where the phone is and there's various things that go now which tower is used and why so you know in cases where the issue is something like was the phone near joliet or was the phone near rockford know i i agree that in that kind of a situation this would be not as big of a deal but here what happened was they had kind of ham testify that these are the towers that were you so and these towers were within range of you know this that and the other relevant location therefore we know that his phone was there so he must have been there and that it was yawned you know a can of the average person because it is not simply  end and saying this is where the tower it is saying because this power was used we know that the defendant was in this location i don't believe be present with his ball am i correct i thought the the witness never testified but he said what you just said which is well his phone has to be with him and therefore he must be there by that you know it was with one of the towers was near where between his wallet had been found which was far away from all the other evidence and then there was a ping at another tower in a different location that you know and then another location in another grove back home and did something else and so they weren't placing a fairly placing todd replacing his phone and in chases there are cases where you know the with his phone or that someone else has his phone so the only implication than if he had phone is in a particular location or is taking off howard's in particular location is that todd is there and so you know simply in this in in this instance saying that the wi fi officer only testified the the non experts only testified that the phone was within range of the tower  in other words my point being that the defendant didn't call somebody in the location of that the power indicates where the law was found and you would not have or there is no rd party witness who would testify you that yes at such and such a time and such and such as a i had a conversation with with the defendant which would then indicate that the you couldn't implied that based upon the fact that the person was talking on a phone that can be in this area and the person recognized the defendant's voice that therefore there could be in fact a location given correct ok you mentioned that the reason why this officer was supposed to  were you know overloaded or were down for the day or whatever that requires more information and the lead witness has the ability to testify to your question is do i know that's what science says yes i do i'm married to a chemical engineer cope the point is that i believe that the nature and extent of this witness's testimony is consistent with the states vary but it doesn't necessarily prove that would you agree with that  dear and then it would have been you know could be consistent with a theory and that also assumes that having done so we would know that and you know are you confusing aren't you confusing the testimony of the employee from the phone company who qualified the records in the nikkei did where the pings were located and now you're ascribing than the sesa the for the officer to have that expertise he is doing nothing more from what i can tell is taking the information which was admitted into evidence based upon the foundation laid by the employee of the phone company and so you have experts or at least someone who's given a foundation to those figures and the only thing the officer did was apply those figures to a map so why do you need an expert put another way how many experts do you need you need an expert to lay a foundation as a business reference and then you need another expert to plot the researched in working on the case that wasn't an issue i was raising but i believe the case us as that person from the company does not have to be qualified as an expert in order to know the business record rather than  continue to pass the lunch hour i'm going to ask one more question and that is what was the crime that was committed when the  vehicle distributed or dispersed the flyers because i believe your argument was claiming that this was other crimes that were inadmissible with did you  somebody it's a tort and so and truth is a defense besides so it may not even be a tort and from what i understand there was some admissions that would suggest that it wasn't necessarily a tort so if it isn't a tort what is it well there is littering but the also the other issue was that the state presented it as as other bad acts in the umbrella of their parent so it's not limited to something to my understanding that it's not crimes and so would it be correct more correct to say that it really wasn't other crimes so much it was basically whether or not it was more prejudicial that it was provocative in so far as being an any act know is that the lead of the defendant the three issues raised by just sending all involved computer internet and cell phone as a defense the evidence challenge is highly detailed it was generated via current computer  his resistance to aid the police also pointed towards his guilt is confrontational in reaction to the police and his consistent  there to request help from the police also pointing to his guilt he lied to the police about files he deleted from his computer that were revealed in two thousand and fifteen through searches conducted by detective wanted us using newer software techniques and that also pointed towards his guilt that's just a smattering of  incident the trial court ruled that the flight instant evidence including the high riffle evidence was admissible as it was relevant to motive because it allowed the inference to be made that the defendant had knowledge of the extramarital affair prior to   file was relevant and missile d that and admissible to show defend its knowledge of katrina's fair increase of the flight itself wait to be true to the evidence on the issue of defendant's knowledge was for the jury to determine which it did there the defendant's conviction that without the player incidents the bridge would likely have been different as i noted there is overwhelming unchallenged circumstantial evidence that support a conviction in this case clear that an individual will be permitted to testify as an expert in this experience and qualifications that were him knowledge which is not common to lay persons and where such testimony will either trier of fact in reaching its conclusion but testimony however is address the most common knowledge however is not admissible and was the subject is difficult to understand explain here the foundation for the nd one as expert opinion under rule only rule of evidence seven of three and five was provided in the decorum data was recently relied upon by law enforcement in forming opinions about tracking data defective want to testify was from the super track stick device he did testify that it was from it was g p s coordinates and it was from some tracker that had been tracker or other device that had been plugged in to defend protective computer the court did not allow her to i'm certain the court did not air by allowing the nd one is to testify about tracker data as a foundation was laid without objection and detective one is the base of knowledge regarding the super track six function has been explained for their detective one as it was extensively cross examined about the facts underlined his opinion that's the court did not use discretion by admitting detective wan it was difficult to understand and explain one his testimony explained the matter of common knowledge that courts did not violate evidence rules prohibiting play when this is from testifying about technical process testimony was in this bill because the testimony explained a subject that might otherwise have been difficult for the jury to understand detective one is opinion based on the court a doubt that the courts were consistent with a person walking down a foot or on a bike along the path where the evidence was recovered this was not observe a nation that required sect of one has to account for timing distance or speed or and he in fact explained that disparities in the  recorded time of the chordates he could not explain without having the actual tracking device he was unaware and would not testify you know as to what that what the time i read in state's brief that page forty five detective one as was extensively cross examined about the timing distance and speed and did explaining again and that without having the device he was unable to say with certainty if the recorded times lot of the computer had captured were accurate in a post to show the court abused its discretion by permitting its active want to test about to testify about the source and meaning of the coordinates and codes from say the records and plotted on a map to a kind that defendant cell phone was within one to three miles of the cell towers his testimony inter drofoil evidence on the issue of motive by a lot of experts that computer or by permitting lay witnesses the leg witness testimony of detective cunningham to testify about the cell site tower analysis that he basically plotted onto a map as an investigative tool which claimed in a demonstrative exhibit for the jury there was no need for an expert to testify the foundation for the records provided and the testimony of as well as many pieces of circled chancel evidence of the senate was elected to check between and as i mentioned it continues to die there was no marital problems when in fact there was evidence that there were many marital problems he lied about where katrina was she was not how sitting there was physical evidence supporting the conclusion that katrina was killed in the home including blood evidence found on a bat in the garage of the sentence so your time is up y for justice hutchinson you have many questions yes but i will be brief for defendant argues that the information on the computer that the words there there's no evidence of when that information that on to the computer and it could have happened after the i took over nd date when people were just checking to see what might have been related in the news or otherwise is there any evidence in fact when those were just particularly the you know guy kept is it anywhere when those words were placed on that computer based on my recollection of detective wanted testimony he was unable to say when when the words were placed on the computer he was able to see that almost the entire balance of the flyer which was created was present in the high profile you also explain the hyper full file how how it would come to be there he knew about this so the court as he defended didn't challenge that ruling again of course the motion for a new trial would have been the most likely place to do so and that this information on that computer not to my recollection one other thing that's bothered me throughout this we're spelling katrina's name with a k but yet the the phrase that we're all talking about has cat with a c is there some significance to that i don't recall any significance being attributed by the detective but i do recall that the flyer had many contractions of words and different stylings and with the significance of that is unclear from the jury's perspective it would be unclear i guess it could suggest that someone was unfamiliar with with katrina or it could suggest that somebody was intentionally trying to portray themselves that way ok one last question then and i i did not know and still don't after i tried to wrap my head around the concept as a movie and a sector radio and i do not consider myself you know a reasonable person all the time most people don't know that i think about it but more importantly how are those terms that the jury would understand without some expert anything that was listed in those certified business records the switches were noted the strength the signal strength his his role really was just to plot those then if they were contained in the records why would there be a need for him to talk about what they work which i believe he did he did that he was again explaining his investigative tool which was the map the radio and he gave a very very non specific he answered the question but the answer he gave about he did not pinpoint i should say where the phone his testimony about call details record and his opinion regarding the cell tower analysis place place defendant in areas where the physical evidence alone and his eyes own admission katrina used a desktop he used a password protected laptop there was at the hearing on the motions in limine a there was a lot of responsible for this on this flyer that he you know had wondered if that's where she has had to be working and she was suspicious that maybe this was an attempt to get her fired  the the real evidence that he included the information comes from the fact that it was not an email appeared in an index search as part of the document that had been saved into this high profile and he was the you know in the real world he was the one that access to the password protected computer there was no evidence that anyone else ever used that computer was a file that not typically like word or word perfect there or an e mail it is the data or it is a backup system that works behind the scenes is that correct that's my understanding although i i i do believe it could be from word processing program me put it another way it's a shadow as my understanding and a shadow normally isn't created unless there is some object that creates the shadow was there anything i'm suggesting here was there anything on the computer indicates that it was that the image that created the shadow well the point was he figured out the crime because the dog should have parked but that didn't and in this instance we're looking at a high profile and there is no quote unquote image that the h backed up which means that either through an act of god or some sort of solar storm that computer was wiped and it was wiped and so far as that high profile shadow was concerned is that the tracking device i believe it was would indicate that the defendant would have to be similar to the flash and so far as moving a mile or for some substantial distance at a walking pace with the works really impossible so therefore this individual either is supernatural or the information is has been and what's your response to that as i said detective cunningham we're talking about detective explained that without having the tracks to devise and knowing what time zone it was set to he couldn't account for that meant that the the painting was due south of the the tower it was two hundred and seventy degrees it was due west of the tower and then we completed what it was a compass so is there something unusual about as a myth  hutchinson do you have any other questions no thank you justice bridget's you have any other questions i do not thanks thank you thank you your welcome  argument that there had been testimony that things had been deleted off hitter there was no testimony that established that the specific wire or document to that  extent had been deleted i believe there was some information about the fact that he had deleted some internet browser history not that he had wiped my eyes off of the computer  was not that he said he knew nothing about it the testimony was he had no idea would have done and that is the that is a distinctly different statement than i don't know anything about that wire beyond simply testifying and showing the map as i argued previously he testified for about twenty pages that various points were within range is based on for instance on page three thousand one hundred and twenty one dollars of the record the prosecutor asked if there were any calls made by then he goes on cunningham then testified that todd has a office that is covered on the coverage area of the mouth of sixty degrees so he is placing various things at issue in the case to show you know and he's not just reading it off of information he's interpreting we're things are based on the tower and the asthma testimony i reviewed her testimony she didn't very general have any and all the range of towers and said basically that they were understanding was that it was a range of three to miles she  do justice hutchinson do you have any questions you know i do not that would be repetitive thank you to justice bridges do you have any questions asked no i do not think  exchange was whether it was you know that the call was placed that ping tower at a specific address with the asm a sixty degrees and then the question was asked as sixty degrees what would that coverage include and cunningham responded i was told that he had an office over at perry place that would include and that office would be within that coverage area high within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty or expertise yes i'm not aware of anything maybe you can tell me if you're aware of it how you locate a specific point without triangulation and so i'm having a problem understanding how an expert who is using an as a myth who could extrapolate and determine with some sort of expertise a particular location along a  line if you've ever done geometry and you quote unquote created a perpendicular to a lot and you use a compass and you make a semi circle or an arc and where it intersects above and below the line if you connect those two intersections you create a perpendicular my point is i don't know how an expert could opine about a specific location based upon my common sense  everyday experiences which means that it seems to me that the objection that should have been raised was this is speculation or this is weird science we need a fry hearing of supposedly this individual be it expert or otherwise is going actually raised as part of the issue here the found counsel did argue that at least in the motion eliminate hearing that his testimony was   now be clear of the proceedings closed thank you