case there's no evidence which tends to prove or disprove that emerged was committed there is the circumstantial evidence which gives the big picture and there is the evidence which does or does not connect three witnesses throughout the case in the course of the investigation and trial the three of them make specially eight different in conflicting statements just over a third of those statements  t in this particular matter i'm using the words independent to describe the marie messes or the row houses people who are not alleged to have been in one or all of the other cars that were brought up at the time of trial people who do not have a say vested interest because they might be charged or have been charged or they'll know each other in some sense loosely don't th related one is in relationship with the with mr where does uncle sam really bad if the family trees her so yeah we do know each other but they have different levels to dress your honest question be different levels of potential exposure little make to the theme of your start with your argument obviously you're playing to some inconsistency some conflicts admittedly in the witnesses is support him and in this is you know i think the cooperating item that still would be troubling is a few days before the murder defendant left what i think we consider invective laden messages threatening me a message on the victim's phone did not  terrible with names which use very important yes but it's the other three statements i mean it's clear how the state value them at trial if you look at how hard they fought to get those videos  even though the videos in and of themselves we were improperly put in the way they were it's almost as if they forgot that the statements made were the evidence in question and not the videos didn't during the course of the trial during the playing of the tapes defense counsel stated you know if you're going to allow the state to play a substantial court portion of the recordings and we want the entire recordings playing didn't he say th redactions made and if the time goes redaction should have been present and present in the court call there is a somewhat heated exchange between the state's attorney and the trial judge in this matter about why he wrote a ten page brief supporting the entry question from birth to days she does not have a parent presentation that offered a parent present the officer who is the juvenile officer in this case who is assigned to essentially make sure that she is not coercion or uncomfortable you have a video when she is crying and throwing up doesn't go in the room and ask i mean there is evidence even on the videos that she is under duress there's no explanation for why she throwing up of crying or it's hard to tell from reading whether they got every instance of expressing her gra which are most valuable to the state and in fact that's exactly why they go to such great lengths to get these videos in the statements themselves made to the officers or the  moved the statements on the video themselves what are they adding for the jury is the trial fact are they simply trying to make those statements more credible because there's no video too far in this case is that it goes only to prop up one version of events the state's version yes they even the statements which are made after police department at the time which do not support the state's version  whole statement comes in or the whole statement doesn't come my primary argument to these statements coming in is that they don't actually amount to impeachment in a situation in which another way where i'm coming from is this way your argument sounds like this is not inconsistent well it is not inconsistent then it's consistent if it's consistent is it prior consistent statements it was prior consistent guess my main issue here is this my concern is that we have made the video the testimony where is the evidence is actually the statements they contain if you have one of which is whether or not it's going to be considered as substantive evidence or whether it's not going to be considered as substance to something substantive evidence whether or not it's going to be limited in its scope true  the other thing that i have a problem with your argument is if they are making claims on the stand that they were a worse and a war and or and or effective in some way shape or form that there is it would displayed some evidence or proof of their claims then would see that the videos would not only be testimonial but they would be demonstrative as well specifically the complaint regarding redaction was that there were corollary statements that there were three hours of the time that two and more statements that were supposed to come  is only the the court determined that it was going to permit the disc of the playing of the videotape in their integrity because the defense wanted to make reasonable inferences as to coercion and threatening by stowing the long believe justice hudson pointed out that was agreed to by both parties at the trial court in terms of to move along that statement it's not as if there were issues where this state was fast forwarding against us all on its own court came curative instructions to disregard there for issues were in emotions and limiting the second part is that this in terms of daniel rogers is statements there was a discussion the course of they were taking on a witness by witness basis data point the court determined after some discussion between all parties that they were only going to permit the admission of videotape statements that were inconsistent with the witnesses statements at trial at their point the state filed the boundary in between the playing of the tapes and that discussion in the states and in a written memorandum asking the court essentially to reconsider its ruling that stated previously that the court also determined that the tapes went to coarsen and threatening because both all the witnesses determined that or all the witnesses said that they all made these statements based upon the threatening manner being held for our you know being how said i wasn't there i was with my girlfriend i was at home with the defendant in chicago that was the statement made at trial the statements and they said they explained away why they made these statements to the police that inconsistent with the statement these witnesses made to the police and that i was there i saw that she happened and the defendant was the shooter and there was davis who admitted for that purpose to impeach the knowledge then at that point the state was created under section c to see to admit the videotape statements and it's not the videotape it's the statements on the videotape that go towards to the to their statements to the police  two components one fifteen test ten point one in harvey on week there were breach canteen witnesses and the state in order to discuss in to put their prior statements as assessment evidence came in under both the grand jury your defense argument is nothing new that the court that the trial and the jury did not hear in their closing argument those are all issues for the jury to decide for the jury to weigh credibility for the jury to determine inconsistency is in testimony and things that and things of that nature and the jury determined that they found that there was enough that there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the defendant  and yet his statement is substantially similar to daniel's testimony today as was his testimony and their credibility is undermined by showing just how low for lack of a term couple they are at the trial court read that making a quantitative or mathematical analysis a one of the entire state of the with this is inconsistent with the statement to be admissible and i think it bears on with a truck or saying cracker doesn't have t route it's very large but she didn't actually recall that time what her work schedule was her testimony was oh no i generally worked at bed time and then i'm cautious that i don't recall  and the second statement of mr rogers which is not videotape was taken by officer bryant through him comes in through his testimony were there  in that particular argument they do give examples of i'm sorry i'm working on what exactly these apples were right at this moment may finish and thank you and again