has posed an explicit question or request a clarification on a point of law arising from facts about which there is doubt if you should this is true even though the jury was properly instructed original and will make no claim that they were see submitted in writing to the court was in answer to the question do these points all refer to the april fifteenth date was not the opinions rendered in court by expert witnesses the trustees issues the same non answer that was given in van winkle versus owns corn they've heard all the evidence including the opinion the experts they heard argument one point in argument i was saying she was a surgical candidate which came in on sunday caused or contributed to cause her physical condition therefore it was a row with a supplemental to thirteen disclosure the defense disclose that had kristen dozy admitting to  fact that disclosure  threw it out there to just let it in and then during the course of the trial i mean if you had a chance to look at him agree he did the you know defense counsel did what i thought was a very effective destructive cross on my client based more on the evidence that your client didn't consume any alcohol that night you had a witness to that effect is that correct yes and you are so on presented the report of dr malik that mentioned the beer consumption that put it so this this isn't a i've heard it said sometimes often in life we get more with less there's a lot of material here but i think i can probably give you more of my viewpoint if i use less of my time and just speak to a few of the points that are raised in the brief i'd like to  that forgive me don't involve me twenty minutes in doing this but let me address a few questions just as turner asked the first one and that is is there something in the record that deals with whether any g d's should be done if you suspect indicated the stomach has bacteria in it if you have a hole in the stomach the last thing the surgeon wants to do is fill that stomach with air which would then push through the hole and into the afternoon so no the short answer is it's not done less and i think it is on page thirty six that you'll see the two responses that was supposed to juggle trying to answer the jury's question in stakes thirty six twenty  six but judge o'brien was in a little bit of a pickle he had a question from the jury i think he handled it exactly appropriately he summoned the lawyers he asked them what they thought of it he let us discuss things back and forth and then he finally said court by the expert witnesses address these issues in other words the plaintiff's response said look at the expert test the defendant's response said to answer your question please refer to your collective memories of the opinion testimony qualified witnesses who spoke to these issues almost identical responses with just one difference and that is the plaintiff used the word no let's put a big hole is that i don't think so your hon because no or yes would have been inappropriate either way there were four allegations of negligence the jury was asking about they were asking do these all refer to the same date well the first and the third did the second and the fourth did it so if you answer no you get it wrong on the first and the third and if you answer yes you get it wrong on the second and fourth and that's why i suggested brian was really a pretty difficult situation who i think he he also recognizes which we argue to him that it was the plaintiff who offered this instruction we felt that there were no insufficient evidence to support the allegations two three and four negligence and it really should have just been one negligence and failing to find the whole answer that would build up the whole issue we didn't create the issue but i think we did give the judge good response that he didn't gave the jury when it was appropriate i mean it is not an incorrect statement to pinion witnesses provided that answer he was right about that it was not inappropriate to let everyone give us each party give him their their best effort in answering the question and it would have been  improper to say either yes or to or to say no to the question in its entirety so he did what he did and i appreciated very much that he didn't overemphasize one expert's testimony against the other he could have for example said we your college student coming from the party because part of the year at eastern illinois university and you're drinking alcohol when you feel problem in your belly searching nose to look at the stuff it's the presentation of the patient which dictates the tell a doctor that i have pain and he says where and i don't tell him he'll have to look over head to toe if i tell him it's my elbow that's what the look similarly surgeons and i don't know if it's profiling is that what we call it i don't know i'm my mind is fascinated by the case the summer thing done a ford on the profiling issue but i'm glad that the surgeons do what they do i have three daughters in college right now and if they come to the emergency room i want them to tell the doctor what's going on what they've been doing so he can focus his attention properly and when a college kid the surgeons know when a college kid comes after a party at two o'clock in the morning on a sunday saying as i was drinking beer i started feeling something i believe the surgeon knows maybe she took something maybe she was giving something when she wasn't looking maybe something happened but we're going to check the belly first we're going to check the stomach for a first stomach she says she was drinking water probably not water doesn't put a hole in our system her medical records eventually say otherwise she came from a party we are saying in response to the plaintiff's theory that the clinical picture dictates the surgeon's response was this the clinical picture or in other words she's saying that my surgeon should have inspected the stomach much more thoroughly ok what we would have if in fact you had told us his presentation from the get go and that's where it came from i hope i've satisfied your question i don't know if there's a perplexed look on your  were finally could i just point out one thing and that is with the manifest weight of the evidence question yes my client was a peach just as you pointed out as those he was impeached on a prior inconsistent statement but the remedy for an inconsistent statement is not want the judge oh you know it was an explicit question which manifests jerk confusion on a substantive issue and it was not addressed by the court gave them