on the first issue there were multiple categories of improper comments in the state's closing the most serious one in the one i don't like to begin today by focusing on with the prosecutor stating his personal opinion about the witnesses credibility if you are saying that because he used the word i think that's very different than for example in the roach case where the prosecutor talked about his own personal feelings well  and i think becomes clearly obvious is that this woman is fundamentally fundamentally decent and honest person and so it's the combination of them using the first person i think as well as so these intuitive judgments about her being decent honest kind that really is what makes this argument improper what separates it from him is merely commenting on the evidence or on on the way this is credibility which is solely the role of the jury in this case to now there were other witnesses in this case and there was other evidence as well up so well she made a good point witness she certainly wasn't the only reason that she paid in the evidence in fact the contracts themselves contradict her or her testimony regarding why she was willing to pay the defendants over a million dollars because  the of the townhomes themselves i'm trying to understand the point is is it that she is so stupid that the criminal intent in your client as been disproven it would seem that the usually exclusive you can have very smart where victims off and the person is still committed the same crime so what does what does her ability to hear her ability to decipher whether or not these were written i mean paper and contracts to be true therefore there is a reasonable doubt that fox herself did not believe that these contracts were legitimate and if that's the case then there is reasonable doubt whether or not she paid this money loans coming from millions of dollars in loans that this was going to be a successful project so she had a motivation to present first to herself present false contract to the bag so there is believe fox's testimony that the the things i've been talking about here the lack of reading green in between aren't paying any thought i and the defendant did the problem with the contracts themselves the fact is nothing happening in terms of does this nine twenty two project and if that were your motive then doesn't that seem to be consistent with him corroborate the abstract perception almost a million dollars for an escrow period but then there's no written documentation to support this escrow agreement she's never talked to our whole bank nor from our call the bank has talked to her and in fact she knows it's not the when they were calling total for the count one total amount of the set and the jury instructions didn't use the words checks they used the word property in count one and they are the jury was also instructed on the the green and the court didn't just talk to them the twelve years didn't the court waiting a mile seeing the defendant said you're giving up the right to argue for a less than a twelve year in bowling where the prosecutor said i do think that the victim statements were credible there was fraud be improper and here we have the prosecutor saying i think this woman is decent and credible something that the jury doesn't know well it's usually wouldn't make any difference at all or if the jury's verdict i don't know i think any comments about her credibility to the extent they were they were improper or they were incorrect or really irrelevant i think they were not prejudicial in this case in any way contrary to what defense counsel is more than this is not i don't want a close case and it did not rely in any sense exclusively f sprees before this court he admits that he provided the victims with force purchase agreements forged loan agreements so this was not a close case consistent testimony that the defendant was pay this money to more himself townhouses he's never until this morning offer any kind of explanation of why he would have been paid this money if it was not more consult town houses now for the first time this morning he  costing the company did have a loan that was used to finance this real estate project she's paying interest on that loan every month if she wanted to commit bank fraud she certainly didn't need to pay for the defendant one point two million point in time in the argument look they're all together yeah we absolutely agree your honor that at one point the prosecutor inadvertently when he was discussing the total amount of money stolen he did inadvertently refer to this one hundred thousand dollar wire chads as the defendant him is when the prosecutor was discussing the basic elements effect of over a million dollars he only mentioned checks when he was discussing the smaller charges only mention checks that's important because it's the smaller reason for anyone to include this small wire transfer in the theft of over a million dollars and there's no reason for us to see in the court the jury did as well so i think it's a red herring argument and i think the record is clear that there was in no way that the jury was counsel began by saying that the prosecutor just flatly asserted that the victim was testifying credibly that's not what happens he said i think that she was testifying correctly i think she was credible verdict unless there is substantial prejudice where is a substantial prejudice to the defendant here given the evidence that we've just been talking about the this prejudice comes from  on these intrinsic characteristics of our about her person and and with ours the jury being able to do that with a jury focused on what the prosecutor thought argument and really that's all you need and there's no way the jury would know from the evidence presented from that structure and this from the closing argument there's no way the jury would know that they could not use a wire transaction to calculate culture that slightly different perspective could you just wondering how if it wasn't a gift or why the defendant's own actions didn't reasonable doubt if this was a gift there you had some sort of intimate relationship or something of that nature or who he was with a protege and she was going to mold him like a musician to some financial empire builder or something you know unless you unless you presented or i should say your client presented some pieces to believe that there wasn't a quid pro quo there wasn't consideration of any kind  everything starts starts to go haywire so with no written documentation with no all agreements on on what is going on it's the question and that's why her credibility convicted of more than one offense some of which are by definition lesser included offenses so i think that is a requirement in this instance as well i'm i disagree respectfully your honor i believe that