least the court only has a substantive due process claim of actual innocence james walker has consistently maintained that he was in moments illinois with this family at the time of the shooting this evidence is additional evidence that he was in moments it's evidence that he was not at the shooting so with that there was the cited at the trial they said they didn't buy  they didn't buy his alibi defense at trial but this evidence is additional evidence that he was not the person he was identified as the shooter which therefore supports his alibi afterwards what took twenty six years for this to come for i have no idea your honor and i again this is at this stage proceedings mr walker is required to show that it's capable of being proved he's not required to actually prove it that's something that would happen at their trades proceedings at and the founded in terms of diligence and trying to specifically identify enough information to make this affidavit and this potential filing something that's color can you repeat that question really fully understand well what i'm trying to figure out is what we have here is an affidavit that brings up the same stuff that he's tried to bring up to other occasions not to mention at trial and a direct appeal and  the thing to these trying to bring up now is adding to it by saying that there's a fellow inmate who knows that there was somebody named strickland we don't even have a first name for strickland so i mean isn't there some burden on the defendant should require that more information be given to make it something that is more colorable i think at this stage of proceedings he's just required to so that there's newly discovered evidence that couldn't have been discovered earlier that would have seen that's that's the thing i'm quite why couldn't it have been discovered earlier well the situation is just like in ortiz we have a witness who could sense walker wasn't there according to where we're at right now at this early stage there's no way that he could have known that someone was there who saw it and saw that it wasn't him there but there would be that could be true in every single case that ever came before this court i mean comparing this to work eases a bit of  a stretch i mean in ortiz you have somebody who was there and who made himself very on available getting out of state because he thought that they were coming to get him and that there would be gang retribution i just don't i don't see that there's anything it actually is the same it's just different you know factual circumstances but it's the same thing where a person who saw the offense was not known to the defendant earlier and so now that he's learned about it even though you know a sense of it may seem unbelievable we have to presume it's truth and unless it's actually about it on the record in here there's nothing to rebut the truth of that so just as our tease we have someone who is last name well horton probably knows and we don't know if he does or not but exactly that that's something that could be fleshed out at the third stage but there's no there's no burden on tyrone to say who strickland is because it's not what he's saying walker and all of this evidence is newly discovered because with mr powell there is no way that mr walker could have known about him until two thousand and eleven when he was found in prison however that happened we don't now and only as a shameful history of wrongful convictions and faulty eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions so again we're at this case early stage where it's talking about leave to file it's not you know we're barring him from even getting attorney to try to see these things to deal with these problems he's a pro se petitioner who's been in prison for you know over twenty five years at this point  and this is a constitutional rights of bringing this claim so to say that he can't even get through the door is i think contrary to those principles that are enunciated in washington took us to where you draw the line in me asking that same question you know to get through the door yes i understand you're saying there is you know we don't want to have frivolous petitions left and right but he has presented evidence that should get him through that door and for these reasons are so diverse and did he die hasn't been dead for twenty years did he die last week this is absolutely insufficient to go to second stage hearing this is almost offensive he doesn't have any color is just a slap in order if this is allowed to go to a second  can go to starbucks and have coffee they're missing prisoner but it's still not like they can go to starbucks and have coffee i'm not saying they want to serve on the mass are controlled by other people who may or may not be hostile to what they're doing my point being just this is that mr morton has spent me to do diligence to enter further aside from the fact that mr horton i feel so explain that he's had any interaction with mr powell because his affidavit is created a year and a half earlier mr horton the affidavit is clearly herring we also know the horns have to be this clearly rebutted by the record in many other respects he claims that mr puri told him that he and all the victims were out in the street getting drunk well we know from the testimony that mr porter was in the doorway of the tavern waiting for a ride to get picked up by his needy buddy he wasn't with the victims on the street corner and we also know that vicki and rico tested negative for alcohol and opiates so that's clearly after this shooting there's no indication that mr powell in saw crime much less this triple murder it's wholly devoid of detail and is a middle of law this court should not find it that suffices to move to a second stage hearing fled to wisconsin and then years later returned and this is a hernandez approached the defendant's mob are telling him what he saw the claims before you today are nothing like that as a matter mr powell is obviously a very cooperative witness there is nothing in his statement that would lead anybody to believe that he would not have been cooperative or that he would have come forward he witnessed shouldn't we don't know what he witnessed but what we strap a lot of these insinuation and innuendos and then claim trust me that's enough we'll get to the details later on third stage sharing and that is a matter of law cannot be held to be correct mr has no mention of mr strickland there is no claim that he was intimidated there is every indication that he was cooperative once he was approached by me this is nothing but a box missing an alibi to finance further should be noted that the alibi a defense in this case was almost comical and absolutely preposterous and was quickly rejected by the jury the defense in this case was that the defendant and his would be wife were picked up by so when they gat to moments they had to call the stuff father to have him kong bruno's with their mothers house who had just been released from hospital at two o'clock in the afternoon after being in hospital for a serious heart condition the up evidence also show that the alibi and after speaking to the founder mr dahl was ordered by the defendant a general in the l brookins to report his car stolen this court has to consider morton's affidavit as inadmissible you the procedural the facts of one twenty two point one with the other ensuring requirements set forth in one twenty two point two this court should not be confused in any way shape or form about the requirements the defendant has noted by the justice this defendant has had his day in court he's had many day in courts he knows what he's doing and he is playing this system hoping that this court will get his argument that trust me i have the evidence i'll let you know what the third is currently pending in the illinois supreme court and people versus our number one one three one three five and but just for what it's worth if you want to decide that there's another as evidence is still eviden discrepancies in this case those discrepancies are something that so that there's a lot of questions in this case and this evidence is newly discovered evidence of his innocence so if proven it