is involuntary statement that i'd be happy to address the other issues that this court which is raymie confessed only because detective cries yano promised him that if he did he would get just seven years on a robbery count i would not be charged with murder given that lee had been in custody for forty six hours at the time he gave the statement had been slapped by detectives and that his repeated requests for counsel had been ignored rightly on his promise to give him no more than seven years for robbery induced him to make a statement b know given that there was a codefendant in this case even though the statement begins by stating that this is a homicide investigation the fact is that they mean they could reasonably believe that he was giving a statement that largely implicated only john mitchell his co defendant in the actual murders and the statement indicates that he and john mitchell intent entered into the house in order to get their drug money and in the course of an altercation john mitchell was actually the one who spread gas around the apartment and it ended up that raymond they actually was stuck in the apartment as as the army went up in flames he had actually no role in spreading the gas or in starting the fire in fact he was he was stuck in the apartment while it was on fire what were you thinking you could be there because away right officer and i'll get my speeding ticket no no no how now we fooled you you are now accountable because you're a getaway driver and whoa whoa whoa will be although he is not charged under accountability because frankly murderers don't his partner shoved a baseball cap into the mouth of the other old man tied him up with duct tape and then poured gasoline on both of them and set them on fire while your boss still alive and it was only the reason you stuck in because murders  so now they're out and we have this confession where he says i want us to believe he only said robbery he was promised robbery he went with robbery he didn't confess to robbery because best of beating somebody horribly with an iron himself had given statements that they basically brought up all of these details and the detectives had been repeatedly coming into the interrogation room and telling raymond lee exactly what they had learned from the other witnesses so you know at this point just actually crossing out of goes into the room lee had been in custody for forty six hours and tells him here's where you are and this is what we've learned from all of the other people that we've been interviewing over the past two days and i'll make you a deal you know if you tell me what happened i'll give you seven years no more than seven years for robbery so there was no reason for raymond lee to think that all of these other details were going to come back to him because because detective cross and i had explicitly told him these are all the things that we know about this case  they mainly believed because of what does have surprised i'm told him that if he told the truth that he would be cooperating that he would be helping out the prosecution and that he would only get seven years for robbery i mean it's a technicality i know clearly told him if you continue to deny any our involvement will charge you with murder however if you tell us what happened we're only charged with robbery so it because of that statement it was very reasonable for raymond lee to think that really what the police officers wanted to prosecute was john mitchell are you saying that wit and another thing for this court to be aware of is that there is a glaring omission from the videotaped statement of any question about whether or not any offers had been made to raymond lee the state's attorney who was conducting the videotaped statement and again this was in a question format this was not you know really to not have the opportunity to just give the narrative this was not a videotape interrogation this was a question and answer statement the state's attorney went through and asked all of the usual questions that they generally ask at the conclusion of a videotaped statement such as how the police treated while have you been given you know food in the opportunity use the bathroom the six trays did not ask whether or not any promises have been made to raymond lee in order to give him the statement which is one of the standard questions and i think that's an issue for this court to be aware of th thank you may it please the court the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress statements in this case was not against the manifest weight of the evidence the totality of circumstances showed the defendant's confession was voluntarily given the trial court already considered the three arguments raised by defendant on the piano namely the claim that there was an offer of leniency on which defendant relied upon to confess defendant's argument that his confession was the result of psychological and physical coercion and that he  denied that denied it telling defendant that he would only be charged with strong arm robbery and given seven years with detective guys yano did say he said and this is kind of a pair and think this may get a direct quote is that when he was when he met with defendant on january sixth at eight pm and confronted defendant with the admin insist they had been gathering and was having a conversation with the fan and i think it is important to view this statement in context because defector explained that after giving him his miranda rights that he then said you know defendant we we've interviewed people i think i have an understanding of what's going on here if i tell you what i think you know you use i think that's what he said what you used to injure pro basically believe me that i know what's going on here and during the course of that that conversation or what the fact of gravity and i was saying he said you know isn't it isn't it better to be known as a liar and a thief than a killer of old man that's discrete from the offer also referenced a detective gazi on a statement so i mean i think there's there's an allegation of an express offer of leniency and then what the second statement which the detective guys iana did say that he made i think defendant's argument is that was that was some kind of implied way of telling the truth i believe there's case law there that says that more and a general sense i think when the statement is viewed in context it's more appropriately placed in that category there was no offer there was no reference to any type of sentence or charge it was does tend to discredit his argument that he in any way was confessing only because he believed he was going to be charged with robbery when you view his confession in its entirety not only at the beginning does the assistant state attorney reference the homicide but then he goes murder was being in these murders are being investigated it's clear that they kept updating defendant on the status of the investigation it gave us an hour by we broke it alibi we've talked to these other people i think we understand what happened that's that's designed to to basically iraq confide to find it with what they have so that defendant then will be aware of the mounting evidence against him and then confess which is exactly what happened in this case and it also  even though he the defendant doesn't understand it's murder to beat somebody with an iron and take their money because he didn't set the fire let me clear that that does make sense i mean and that certainly would say that police officers are aware of  that too but i would also say with respect  it's a it's a divided court on the issue i will say that also curtis leached is also pending before that when i supreme court which is the specific medical examiner issue and presumably that was argued back in september presumably that's being held for williams as well  to actually testified at the original hearing on september twenty fourth in two thousand and four was that he said isn't it better to be known as a thief and a robber than as a killer of men after remained on october fifteenth two thousand eight  decade of of a promise that was made that he's perhaps you know not not fully testifying to given the fact that after forty six hours investigation when the detectives are continually coming into the room telling raymond lee you know that this is a murder investigation here all the facts we've learned only after forty six hours to the detective say wouldn't it be better to be known as a robber and clearly that that is an implication in itself that he was bringing up robbery i mean why else would he suggest robbery except if he was making an