special relationships to require duty of protection now the rocor talked about security measures but it's all right obviously you've got a big building here so it has some kind of security depending on whether it's a doorman or alarms or anything else this case is really about the credit checks in the in the prescreening of the tennis how does this fit into the security measures our supreme court talked about the role i would respect those were being done for the purposes of safety and security in that was part of what they were suggesting you on the other hand i didn't know this was strictly business we were doing this that every people's credit worthiness and whether they could pay the rent and different argument from the one they need to make it good no reasonable person come to the conclusion that the kinds of questions that were being asked on this application process would be for some purpose of person that we've been convicted of a crime i mean would that that's the kind of thing that i think a prospective tenant would look at and wonder well why would they want to know that nothing trying to keep the riffraff and that's a that's a g to any of all that i have come across but the reality of the situation is this this criminal background issue that was made in advance of trial is essentially already here and because there is no evidence  assume a get him but didn't have mother claimed that she told her keep go or whatever the lady's name was who was in charge of the the building the mother said that she told that person who that person would take care of it because according to the mother who was also the tenant in the building the building managers did not like tenants calling the police because they didn't want any police around the you and then at the going to jump into the jurisdiction argument judge toler mentioned before i just point out that even though counsel's admitted that he should not have made that oral motion and that it was a no it's yeah i'm sure that he would have the motion have been granted by judge much that he would not be reading that it was the no that's on the the issue here is whether or not the defendant's atheism which allow them to rehearse their arguments hear my arguments listen to the judge the circuit court's ruling on those arguments preview his thoughts and pin him down on his thoughts of the arguments case the only reason you can appeal is because you followed the rules as written and so here when you when you up and and if you look at the transcript there was a back and forth between judge flinch and counsel for the defendants and whether or not they're going to make it or overs not be allowed to do that it's a great way for me to hear my opponents argue that it's a great way for me to hear what the judge is thinking about my arguments and then i can come back with a written motion and if the judge stressed veer off what he's said or she said i can  three ninety five eleven third age sixty the petition for leave to appeal was allowed march two thousand times so that's actually been pending for quite sometime this is a criminal case it's a criminal case but the issue that's very excited about how things were going and it just kind of jumped out of my mouth to have it happen because the motions that if the motion is spread the judge i'm sure is a symbol for they would not be here admitting that let's sort of move on to the the main issue here right if if the if the woman company had done what you believe it should have done how would that have prevented this this tragic occurrence but they had several that they were doing was credit was it appears to be essentially a credit check over that was their argument trial right there thirty minute trial was this is just a credit check even though frankly if you look at that mr holmes testimony he admitted that it wasn't the sole in the reasons that he talked about such premium in your questions to defend a counsel here they asked for criminal background why would you ask that question if it leads some part of it wasn't related to security they had a rule that if you provided any false information that epoch issues would not be would be rejected why would you have that role if if and some for some reason you think that's a person that should not be in the building because of their character they talk about they want good  in you know the background check the fact that they didn't do it isn't what's important the fact that she was toll in the meeting by with with the on site supervisor that they do do background checks is idea who this person is and that's what the credit report indicated it were it revealed that the that the social security number that was provided was completely false here you had a person who was in their twenty's who had worked at several different places before and in the credit report came back no subject found that should be a huge red light going off in your head that something's wrong and so they didn't follow up on all three of the people that were reviewed here that were their own policies with regard to ten screening they would never have allowed to live in that building in a reasonable jury could have certainly i mean there's no connection between mr ramirez and melissa dorner other than the fact they were living in this building they didn't know each other they didn't work near each other  murder on the street all right and how would he have been prevented from getting in the building somehow i mean have the front doors locked ok there's that's my question of the front door is locked there's no public access to the building you have to have a key to get through the front door and the key is given to you by the lead on this case and affirm the third wouldn't that they have some kind of a chilling effect on property managers where they were simply not do any checks and say you know if we do no checks then we're never going to get a million dollar verdict buildings the building owners have something once a you know you may have somebody who's perfectly economically evil to pay the rent but you don't want them living in the building because they disruptive or to have a history of i thought so whatever it is that w addition to simply the tenets raining here so if you know if it was just a tenet screening issue then maybe they would have a point but here you have the attack on allison drake that and she she would have been don't call the police tell me and we'll deal with it what that i think it's a horrible holes the jury thought that's orrible alice what does the record reveal about the identification of the would be attacker right  n that in effect was the same person the record is that she says it's the same person she knows that this person lives across the hall from robert and she had seen him several times prior to the incident she describes one time where he's but she never told that the the keys but the the point is that for the power the key is a was to follow up and ask alice and rick and if she said who was this man else if they could have said he lives across the hall from my brother i see times that would have led the he's a directly to him so that it's playing with us as a list of the facts to say that she didn't know who he was he didn't she didn't know his name but she knew exactly where he lived and that's all that was necessary  they would have an acquired to file a forcible interactions of a victim but at the very least if he's living there is the third tenet all right then i guess this is my question is he wouldn't be happy would he be on the lease and therefore that might be a basis for right i mean i don't know that they would have been required to file for support of terror but the point is that they confront him i think i think the point is that if they were to confronted him told them we know what happens that's a target if they would have alerted the other people in know his name but she knew where he lived there was no identification made that he's a about who it was because perpetrate didn't know who it was else they didn't know his name so the point is that her negligence in following up should provide her i think the last thing i want to point out all my time is done is the reliance issue that mr goh can mention in his remarks there's a couple facts i think are important for the court to keep in mind in assessing this remember that melissa the time of this her murder was twenty one years old when she's looking for an apartment her folks are moving to florida she had been attacked the previous her last apartment and they had booked a five or six apartments before opting for th order just twenty six she talks about talking about their concerns with the pieces and they and they go through it the reasonable inference from this testimony is that whatever very tough stance for the defense to me and so all the offenses have to be in our favor and i think a reasonable jury could have said look the school had been attacked before she's obviously concerned about her safety your parents are not going to be around that's going to be something that's talked about in the conversation with them but he isn't your testimony that their concerns were being discussed so that had to be what they're talking about there's nothing else that they could be talking about other than my daughter see it in the conversation background checks were there were to ensure the proper operation of the building and to ensure that we get where the clients intend it's that would be able to pay their rent and do what we had hoped that they so that we can run an operation like this with the book but just let me follow up on that show one of the best points i think the other side makes is that when this was done the source security numbers didn't match and that should have been a red flag for that that ensign makes no sense against the backdrop of the fact that this guy's social security number didn't match with his name but you can do anything about it so if the purpose for the asking for the social security number is to ensure that the person is credit worthy in that they're telling you the truth and all of that how do you reconcile that with the fact that in this case this particular murderer turned out to have a social security number that wasn't his social style so we were to go poly through the twenty findings of the record and this issue what the record you're telling us what the record is going to say is that there was simply no matching number found as opposed to with that said the purpose of these internal procedures these applications and as i can see procedures are to ensure operational building there is no duty and in the trial record there was no assumed of the fact that and of most of the obvious things you know least time like day to day when your payments are going to be like just asking general best questions you would ask anybody to run an apartment and then of course what kind of application he did he filled out and you know how much that would cost and one of the least required and the background check period there is no evidence of criminal background there's no evidence of a criminal history b