why frankly rather we don't know the record doesn't show us why he took that amount of time however the post conviction hearing that explicitly examines claims of actual innocence from the time his requirements therefore under the this would come up there would be some question could counsel have gotten this information sooner in which case that would leave you with a question is this actual innocence or is this ineffective assistance of counsel and you could rationally argue that it's one or the other but here evidence that is newly discovered for the reasons we discussed the fact that mark was clearly unwilling to provide this information of the time the trial the affidavit issue was not signed into five months after the outlets williams was tried and convicted testimony so how does the evidence at issue here are probably changed the outcome of the trial well your honor the reason is that you know yes we still have the evidence from probably have ultimately it several witnesses nothing i believe  a hypothetical reasonable trier of fact were presented with the evidence that was presented a trial in which there was no physical evidence there is no confession this was all dependent on the credibility of these witnesses testimony would it make a difference  question is could a reasonable finder of fact if it looking at this new evidence and the evidence that was presented if they can even get so far as to look at this and say honestly we have no idea what happened out there that's good enough because the result of guilty and so when you consider those credibility issues and particularly the way that the evidence that mr powell was not only responsible for this should leave but was encouraging witnesses one of whom testified at trial and testified against the office well it was i mean does this make a difference in how the how the finder of fact reviews this evidence we would argue that it absolutely does and given that you had what basically came down to a credibility contest between the defense witnesses and the state's witnesses with this new evidence yes we believe that this would there is at least a substantial showing that this would make a difference for retrial let me ask you one question just being got a point you know you could back you you know that this the record we have to take it is true and whether mr mark williams was or was not in prison whether he was or was not paid by someone those are all matters that would presumably be brought out an evidentiary hearing to attack his credibility as a witness was is mark williams credible when he says this ends or not and at that point then a decision can be made about the ultimate question as to whether the should go in front and your honors i will just briefly would like to address the re not the evidence to find it is presenting his conviction is a such conclusive character that it will probably change result every trial as here we have very unique circumstances as you have aren't pointed out here the concerning his knowledge about the shooting when he was brought before the trial court by defense counsel to see if he had any evidence defense counsel would use to defend defend it and at that point  so that's a much knowledge about what happened on the b of the incident but it's about you know who may have been the the actual shooter in the in the incident what excuse me if i'm not understanding told the day after the shooting or eight years ago you know we do have a timeframe here but there's nothing to say that he found out this information after he talked to the trial or that's not what we have or what we have couldn't see i didn't take anything except i don't know anything about what they're talking about that one compass the entirety of the shooting anything about so he made that affirmative declarative statement to the trial don't i think we're looking at at this stage nd stage actual innocence claim what we need to look at is whether the affidavit is contradicted by the record of a worse human that council was conceding that that's correct and so therefore defended fails to make a substantial showing based on the evidence he's presenting of actual innocence at the nd stage so this shouldn't go to a rd stage we don't go to a rd stage and let it the afghan explain why change the affidavit we have no explanation for the contradiction for why he is now saying he knows something as opposed to nothing so based on now it's the role of this court not to result in consistencies or consistency we don't get there unless this affidavit the defendant is presenting meets the criteria we're arguing that it doesn't there's no explanation contrary to the other cases that defend in the event that this co multiple times i would have dismissed this at st stage this should have been business this shouldn't be here but now we have to deal with it he told the defense attorney i've reviewed this it's not complicated he actually prior to hearing referred to this says this should have been dismissed previously there is nothing to this this so called point of actual innocence that we think pretty clearly shows bias as far as issues are we don't have a here st of all this statement at court prior that i don't know anything about this this was not under oath this was not someone who got on the stand and subject of themselves to perjury and testified i don't know anything about this this was somebody who stood there and said i'm not saying and i don't know anything about any of this not positively rebut this affidavit it might be an issue again when credibility comes up but not at this point and we could again we look to people be harper we can look at people be ortiz the fact that other witnesses testified to something different if that were sufficient to render something rebutted by the record there are literally could not be a claim of actual innocence because of course everyone who has been convicted there was evidence presented at trial suggested that they committed the offense that necessarily to some told us who the shooter was it was the it was the st shooters brother it all makes sense there was no conflict and ultimately after ortiz was let go it is an innocent person the person  around or some of those things you have to make your determination of after it gets to the rd stage and many of the factors you're discussing are factors that address credibility and credibility that may ultimately be a reason to kick this claim out but here