we need a nice to be a theory that i think well he did follow his hand right and then he got up and walked away so i mean there's i mean times and hours where for the fall i would like to address issue one is your honor pointed out we don't have an issue as to what the jury found unlike in griffen there is no question from the jury of pope what does knowing mean there was no question about instructing the jury they were properly instructed i would like to point out we're talking about what the definition is that applies to knowing murder i had said my brief the state we had argued that application of the conscious awareness practical certainty definition of knowledge was not required by the illinois law and i had looked up in chen zone and the murders dating of course they did not even contain that language and i didn't require application of that standard and i did uncover griffen where we would like to acknowledge this court said the knowing elements to  including knowing murder clearly pertains to prohibit it result rather than creativity and so that statement indicates that the knowing element to be established in proving knowing murder is by definition the conscious awareness practical certainly definition found in paragraph two of the statutory definition of knowledge and i p i only when it doesn't matter in this case the jury found   the strongest evidence of course is dr humans testimony it was unreported she described at least six blunt force trauma to the victim that indicated that he had been consistent with a point back on the sidewalk and suffering a skull fracture in the back of the head that eventually led to his bleeding that result and bleeding eventually led to his death but there was quite a bit of evidence that we talked about in our brief that i don't need to go over here unless court would like to hear more about it the overwhelming evidence that the tenant acted knowingly rather than recklessly and  counsel is required to go into the differences in the mental states between knowing murder and involuntary manslaughter but then it also says that they should have to get defense counsel should have  specifically talked about the conscious awareness practical certainty knowledge death definition and of course since the jury wasn't instructed on that that would have led to jury confusion and would have perhaps itself lead to a claim of ineffect assistance the jury was properly instructed there's no authority that saying that tense counsel has to talk about what the elements were in all the instructions it's well settled that applied to count one knowing murder and not involuntary manslaughter but actually only mention knowing their murder it said nothing about voluntary manslaughter but in arguing on appeal that that instruction also applies to involuntary manslaughter defendant cites only the committee comments in the murder statute and the trial court relied on those things to say that only including the language regarding knowing murder is consistent with and the committee comments mention section nine dash three a reckless homicide and nine dash three a of course defines both reckless court so defendant can establish that counsel's conduct was objective and reasonable on that ground and also you can establish precious not only because it would have made a difference in the result but there's no reasonable probability what we are here brief patterson strongly supports the admission of those statements there are very similar statements in that case and we would emphasize again that the defend talked about i've done things like this before i'm on probation or i just got out of jail for this so he only admitted in his statement that he struck the victim once and he did make statements that indicated the  so when he's referring to this he's referring to only those things so and they could as your pointed out support his argument that he was only acting reckless and also some of the statements that he made your honour's watch the recording of the statement he made while he's crying so the defense counsel could have made a strategic decision that this could have because the jury just feel sympathy for him or see that he was showing some remorse of some kind so there was overwhelming evidence of guilt under any definition of knowing conduct manslaughter you would think that would remove any problem that the jury might have the thinking gee does this instruction fit the crime but then i and i do see that what you're i understand you're saying but then defense and so went on to argue that someone else in between or something else