of issues here i'm ready to address any of them but if there is one in particular your answer to most interested me starting with i'd be happy if you let let me let me start with what i think is sort of and of course we know that and it sounds like you're trying to make a profit one argument then yet we know that under prong why it is closely balanced and when you say is not so overwhelming you in one is only closely balance which is that the mid range of what you're trying to do is extended a little further to allow claim on one review and i just don't find anything he says for that ok i understand what you're saying there once again why is the absence of evidence why does that lead to a closely balanced suggestion is it reasonable doubt exists for everyone and then there's always going to be the absence of evidence because a you have to look at what is the state evidence that was introduced and what was introduced was a substantial amount of evidence linking him to this offense not by himself certainly not as the shooter right but with his brother reasonable argument that there was no proof on either one of those under the cases that we look to and i would agree with your honor well what what i mean i think you have some strong arguments there  definitely in response should not have come in and that was the only evidence whatsoever that there was any armed robbery that it wasn't that only he was going to take what he's saying that he actually committed to the teacher that he took three thousand dollars or so that the only evidence of an arm r brandon mcarthur went out and bought a car with cash that would seem to be circumstantially supporting a charge of robbery in the mean it was like that because he's already dead we all know how he died why couldn't that the setting a fire which is supported by the inspectors testimony of why isn't that sufficient to support a there are you saying that the taking cannot happen with a vehicle owner inside the vehicle sure and that takes us out of it no it doesn't just like in it's only a couple of cases out there and they say that the intent outside the presence of the big events what you're saying they are hijacking is in the presence of another so the victim has to be standing there and be forced away from the view that the victim cannot be taken away in his own vehicle according to the issues you said that if the aggravated kidnapping the added kidnapping based on armed robbery could not stand you did say that because you have an argument about the armed robbery but you did concede later and i'm not and under that statement there would have not have been a concealment because the the they shot and killed the defendant and the car took off because the car was already moving and they come from a moving car ok i don't i don't their sentences would fall with them because they were consecutively sentenced yes there's no reason to think that the murderer was sentenced extra or that the kidnapping was given an extra sentence because of that so i think that there would be a sen problems here's one of the problems when when he said when the trial judge sentenced the individual on air raid kidnapping based on armed robbery no sir i'm robbery seems like an aggravating situation much more so than if it's simply a simple arm or are a simple kidnapping with the use of a firearm making it extremely kinetic the one that he actually got ten years ago that was aggravated kidnapping based on armed robbery which makes it a far more serious