away from the trier of fact granted summary judgment i don't see why there's a probable cause problem if two different people have picked out this man from the photo lineup there's a second line in which it is you point out mr mr ball it goes to mr jackson's picture a mr jackson happened to be in the police station on that day talk to scott talking with police about directly if you if you go by that probable cause and that theory of probably cause you could do that with any any to anybody once the police find out that they've got a couple witnesses who say well hey we can't identify who the person is we're not sure the person was wearing sunglasses we're not sure and they do that with a lineup and then you're like well and then the police are like how we we have you know we can get back at somebody and i think you have to assume that the witness was going to pick this person and go no reason to think in the october twenty seven lineup that anybody was going to pick jackson's picture they put that witness is you're not accusing the police of having an unduly suggestive who's they plus expire i two hundred fifty pounds they put him into a lineup with the only thing you're getting from witnesses that well hey maybe the i mean the person who was the the first person into the house was  five foot five foot eight five foot nine hundred thirty going to them that's the reason maybe he got acquitted maybe he just looks so different i mean we have a probable cause stage that lets you get to trial and then we have a trial stage where you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt well if i mean if we have right but if the police know i mean there was loser e probable cause and the police know that they don't have probable cause but they're going to use the system that's i mean that's basic malicious prosecution he's using the system to use for some other purpose i mean just trying to get that i wonder where's the concrete evidence that this kind of abuse of the system is going and that's the basis of this case is that they do have a history not in that didn't come out in the record but i mean the deposition that was taken of my client at that point was taken by the defendants and not taken by me but a trial that would officers to start sort are these two particular officers are known for doing for having this kind of attitude and obviously if we if we have that go by that definition of problem caused somehow probable cause was was involved make mr hines or mr bullet hit jackson's picture and the second photo lineup as opposed to anybody else's if that unless you attribute some sort of bad motive to hines and bullets that were not doing that they thought they saw a match perhaps they were wrong you know people can make the statement like that that you have to add the fact that the witnesses who were not coached who were in it nothing wrong with the lineup the witnesses you don't you are unhappy that the picture is part of the menu but i'm not clear why the ads in evidently a problem inevitably did i mean good look nothing like the robber for example and they would never pick him if in their are description i mean they seem just like normal ordinary witnesses you know mistaken witnesses and the question is who put the mistake and i think we we have plenty plenty through a year of jail and a year of having to go through this and the put him through the potential going through you know thirty years or so of this you know and so that's i mean that's really that was for the purpose of bringing this case and i here the motives of the police officers as you indicate are not relevant to the question of probable cause and really are not a factor for most of the claims here to the extent that counsels and again that he would have brought this up because it was relevant to the most prosecution he could have raised that by affidavit a summary judgment stage to the extent of the affidavit would not be inconsistent with his deposition testimony and he did not do so and he's indicated some question you know that for some reason apparently unknown to him his client was included in this lineup the reason he was include in the lineup is because his own children who were being questioned about her tori's implicated jermaine jackson and said you know my dad's putting my brother up to doing some of these burglaries so there was some suggestion that he might be involved in some of these cases so they put him into a light up and the witnesses identified him with respect to some record was detective garners a trial testimony and he was cross examined about the identifications that was addressed at his trial so the plaintiff  mr jackson defender of the criminal case was aware of the issues that he's raising now had the opportunity to raise those at this criminal trial and therefore was not denied a fair trial and to the extent that he points to some of the other  defendants mr hughes other people as you know people who should have been looking at as he's also indicated you know these were newsworthy events and they were all very familiar with them at the time so he was aware of those unable to raise those at the criminal trial so unless the court has any particular questions for me i'm prepared to rest apparently not so we thank you very much and thank you very much it's an honor a pleasure as always  police's incentive for or that was that the reason they put in there or after they decided to put in to this sixty five percent in a lineup who theoretically there was a five eight person involved is that are they to decide they are it's a jury going to decide well hey the child is the reason that they died there is this this song that he was in the line of or are they going to decide well hey there there was some nefarious motive for putting him in the lineup