was successful in the jury never heard anything from the two women he would be left with the positive identification of a single witness which of the case long would be sufficient to sustain a conviction would it not i see in this case no because  know if i was making some argument about the police you know getting up i mean i mean i could see that that could be a stretch if you got to understand what you're saying absolutely but i don't think it's a reasonable one when you consider that putting evidence before the jury in the first place is going to be so harmful that it is the trade off by say the first thing that you know he's being person of probably you know persecute persecuted by the by the police to be able to you know it  isn't reasonable especially when we know what we know about how juries look at evidence especially identification evidence and how important that is to them well what are you suggesting is a standard of whether or not a turn he was required to follow a motion to of in the context of everything that was going on and you know there's also this issue of you know how much investigation did counsel do in the first place we have mysteriously is allegations after a trial that there was no effort to find this stuff person so i and when we look at it in the hole we have to wonder you know was this just a reasonable strategy or was it just you know putting forth the effort and looking at how  jury would look at this evidence and how harmful it could be i don't see how it could be reasonable to especially since juries are not going to be inclined to believe that the police are after the defendant that's just not a really winning strategy people generally right away with any information after the police took her ritually talked to him he was protecting himself he was not a disinterested witnesses witness these girls were disinterested the prosecutor hammered home an argument that you know they have no reason to lie they just happen along they have no interest in this case but mr pitts was involved in the fights he purposely did not cooperate with police he admitted that he lied to them he said he wanted to keep his name out of it for whatever reason so those loosely compelling close i mean if the defendant had a very consistent story that he told to the police when he was originally question that he told at trial it was reasonable it was it was not unreasonable and we had you know this other witness who was the victim who owner of the gun and she testified that it you know it had disappeared that she gave the gun case to mr easley and mystery's lee's brother was arrested in chicago with another gun at his mother's so it's not reasonable to believe that maybe so if he really wanted to get rid of them you would think he would not have taken them back to his apartment or if he was you know it had the presence of mind right after refusing to ditch the evidence that he wouldn't take it home but it got rid of the gun case to it that was the case i mean with it's were basically saying the reason he didn't bring in for this because stuff was a witness for the prosecution and it was bolstering their case by putting testimony in this mouth of this witness who wasn't there and which they couldn't even manage to purchase so that was even that much more we're successful that somehow these witnesses which is entirely disappear from the case but what they had told police about a shooter wearing gray for example or being tall things that corroborate in the end would be important evidence against whether they were paying attention to his hair or her his hat is not necessarily going to destroy whatever they did testify to which is what they were able to see a weapon for example the intense tektites of weapon focus for example  sweatshirt so that's something that would have been very easy for the defense to challenge particularly in terms of whether he was like the you know did we have to be obviously does not have buzz cut hair the defendant  in the photos that were shown the club had him with long chauffeur like parades he would have been able to challenge that in the fact that it was a great a great type of clothing it was one piece of clothing they couldn't