remember only the court is permitted to record these proceedings today focusing my argument on the don't iow i believe about petitioners actual innocence and due process plates the factual underpinnings for these issues are similar they were about overwhelmingly around the radical sea change in the forensic science community as it relates to bite mark evidence from nine hundred and eighty four trial to today and while there are nuances that legal analysis for both issues have significant overlap they were revolved around the newness cause reiterating that it is a leading standard with the lowest thresholds and briefly before i get into the legal issues the factual record is long but for this appeal it's really not complicated carla brown was murdered in one hundred and seventy eight the top part of her body was submerged in a barrel of water no one ever saw a bite in nine hundred and eighty from a black and white photograph a forensic odontologist named homer campbell identified a supposed bite mark years after the crime a media cramp ain't what it was initiated with the prosecutor let the local community know about the bite mark and that it would solve the crime and they let the community know there was a suspect and at the same time my client john that makes the witness testimony relevant and with that factual context as you consider leave the file issues in this case given the procedural posture your factual starting point or this analysis should  today it would not come in to have what supports this conclusion well st a series of reports beginning in two thousand and nine at the national academy of science reports which were the which was a leading panel of scientists associating a particular injury with temptation the overwhelming majority of existing research these reports find do not support the contention that bike mark comparison can be performed reliably and accurately from examiner to  in that affidavit he reiterated the same conclusions about even in the best of circumstances scientists cannot agree on the threshold question of what about market but as you might imagine when the evidence is poor it gets even worse and he reviewed the evidence in this case and he found it is of the worst lowest possible quality essentially the injury itself isn't skin which distorts it was submerged in water which the starts of even more in the photos are useless because it wasn't  they didn't even notice the injury at the time so there was no scaling it wasn't taken directly he says the end the quality of evidence your fault well below contemporary standards and it would not be scientifically earl i really supported today to conclude that injuries of the issues here is whether or not your client has ever filed a success a petition right because you don't keep getting successive petitions so you can grant leave we have we have agreed that this is should be considered the success of petition he has filed previous petitions and so this should be considered a success of addition but there is no actual limits to the number of success seventeen there's two in the last few months sheila denton from georgia and he is our who is actually honoring it yesterday and this conviction was make it in december richards in california all of these cases to look a fight material and a bite mark all of the new science and determine we don't trust that it cannot come in it doesn't meet the standards for under or i dauber whatever jurisdiction those apply this this illinois has never looked at this in closing argument that the bite mark evidence was not reliable and was useless and the case not only didn't there was never a hearing before trial though as under from whether this evidence throughout the proceeding was to attack the reliability of the state's expert witnesses and attack the reliability or the use of the by mark evidence and the case and that is trial strategy and strategy that defense counsel used  situation that we have going on today and just to make it pretty plain and simple i work evidence it currently has medical evidence and the state of illinois i haven't come up frequently there's not a ton of body of law in the state of illinois about  out to the public and there was really no way that he would have known the things he cannot he made many statements to people all to witness says about the position of the body he stated that he had even been the victim's president witnesses and the area saw him at the neighbor's house and potentially even talking to carla brown on the day of the murder he made her a statement that he was actually interested in heart to friends with the by mark evidence and he did make comments to people that she had a mark on her body and he had to then lots and be during the commission of a sexual encounter with her so there was other evidence that prophet could not race in till till now until when he raped that wasn't available and look at the direct appeal decision in this case to impact mr prout they tried to argue on direct appeal that it was say that there was a bite mark on the shoulder because it's not scientifically appropriate because and that's what we fight and that's what dr i i am pretty says if that's not there the link between these witnesses between susan lots and testifying about it but mark irrelevant it can come in and makes no sense it's entirely sever the witnesses memories of mr president talking about a bite mark it's irrelevant it's moot it doesn't even come in it happens no role in the trial it's entirely sever competing rationale in competing arguments it's just one of her to work and that in our opinion is absolutely the factual predicate you should take at this stage at this stage and we think that it should be remanded to consider the rest of those issues i think i will unless you're on it as have any other questions we maintain that your confidence in the spring should to be significantly undermined and that the case should be reversed and reman