the final argument for the day united states of america versus shawn girard travel to her residence miles away from where the incident occurred and gave her the details we're told are exactly what happened in this case so she goes across it testifies in the trial that that she had no personal  look if there's one thing we know in retrospect it is that many use perjured herself she did either before the grand jury or would have also w of her own graduate testimony which meant that she would have had to observe the evidence in the first instance and what she said she did she testified as she did because it just seems that establishes the person what if you don't know what there was no evidence in this case that well i'm talking about credibility brett when you when we're saying you're saying the evidence is equally about right in the  foundation this is prior testimony under oath that she had personal longer try because that's that's foundation in square is quote gets religion is willing to testify in open court that in fact she does know what happened and here's what happened so the defense counsel the reason women preclude that testimony because the witness is not enough for the witness to get on the stand and say here's what i was an eye witness here's what happened the judge is supposed to examine whether there's some other corroborating evidence to support the legitimacy of that testimony before it's admitted well so what we know from back chronology is that she told the story as an eyewitness account at least twice right once to a law enforcement officer and had she been deceiving a law enforcement officer she could be subject to prosecution for that and she told the story as an eyewitness under oath before the grand jury is that correct that's good all right so again getting back to this preponderance of the evidence in and the whole of credibility in the total determination by the trial judge as to miss ability doesn't that seem to suggest a reason record under oath exactly how that information to them about how she got all the information all right thank you will have you back on rebuttal mr manning mr andrew they don't want to be one is designed to protect a party against the turn coat witness who changes the story on the stand and then toss deprives a party of essential evidence so we have a witness who goes into the grand jury she gives a version of the events she says she was there and now she comes to court and she sa oh i wasn't there i think we all would agree that if misuse had simply said everything i said in the grand jury was a lie we won't be here but no she adds to that well you know everything i told them i really didn't know someone else told me that is also inconsistent but if you follow the balance of reason then whenever a witness then shows up trial and the inconsistency consists of the witness saying i had no personal knowledge department and could never get that evidence then we will never should look not to the trial testimony but to the testimony in the grand jury itself the evidence that the government was trying to put in to see whether or not it was personal knowledge and i think that's clear from the going jury testimony due process and that it was cumulative again nothing about personal knowledge the fourth time he objected and by this time  it's still unclear as to what he's talking about trial testimony or grand jury testimony because in terms of any testimony that dealt with decide to of what the girlfriend told her that only happened a trial and so you know that argument wasn't really developed below sort of the court could was forced to make a decision as to whether or not the wit testimony itself to determine the existence the person not as and i think if you do that it's clear that in fact there is more than enough evidence with respect to the witnesses personal knowledge  from this case the witness clearly suggested that she was not there she had no firsthand knowledge and she slain the source of the of the information that she got they started that i think that outside of a traditional mr andrews argument that it's interpret six o two as you request that it will socially right the one the one out of the evidence book what not not exactly be in the reason is is is testimony it was given to her now if you're just going to bring the grand jury testimony and there's no issue with this is it if there's a witness that comes in and she testifies that look i have a memory loss or i could somehow contradict one of the facts that they've that gives a grand jury that you can bring in but in this situation as you contradicting she's actually contradicting the entire testimony from the grand jury so in that situation it's most inconsistent it can come in but if it's completely inconsistent