of the remaining issues i intended just the st concern in disability of certain facebook messages but i'm happy to answer any questions for addressing the concerns that yours may have regarding the other issues i might just make them open it will be around ten minutes and i would like to reserve a few somebody wall to figure out that account so that just the complaints history that she's that he's said these messages you know from this account in the past it doesn't take into consideration those concerns that were at president cares and that are very much president it can be used for both purposes is his right but it's worth the risk the crest of the character its position in that regard and here it has to be that the information being known by a lot of people i think that there's a reason to believe that we have that in this case to message you know where he said his making these threats this date is they're bad corroborating the complainants testimony and they're and they're for this turning her credibility in the eyes of the court i mean i think it's incredibly probative if if you know controlled by the defendant and under circumstances in which it's reasonable to believe that there he would have had access to the device at that time and the state to present any such evidence in this case in fact even if the messages were sent from a computer or cell phone which is may please the court then people are checked and perhaps the people of iraq also confine myself to the st issue however if your honour's have any questions concerning any of the other issues in the brief i would be happy to respond to those as well discussed before your honor's there was nothing brought up to this judge at the trial level about not signing in and saving the site in stuff so someone else could use a have to say that i'm not saying but that was insufficient order to satisfy the bare minimum of preserving that issue at the truck during the trial  the saying is that what you have here is a brand new argument being presented to the appellate court about surfer media evidence where that was just the victim's testimony about this was unreported and uncontested and there were and the argument regarding how that would not be harmless error and opposing counsel appears to rely entirely on a relatively brief reference to that nd message in the closing argument but it's important to keep in mind that during the judge's ruling finding the defendant guilty he never relies on that nd message for anything with regard to that was when patient domestic battery charges that snap reference at all  the st message that it was said five days after the defendant took the victim's vehicle and that message told the victim where to find her van so that was a message that corresponding to the addresses of the victims not the ones so what that amounts to is information that was known by a small group of people include the defendant there are a tremendous number of people for whom the addresses of the victims live ones are relevant information the defendant was certainly one of those people and the fact that he included that in this threat a message definitely raise in favor of satisfy the requirement evidence and the defendant were superficial similarities between the defendant's name and the name on the profile and the defendant's appearance and the picture of the profile that's not that you have down and that's that would having a case apart best cases you have the defendant the victim having personal knowledge of the defendants previous social media use up using a specific profile a specific platform it would not have been made it into evidence because it would because that that the circumstances would not have allowed it sufficient to be sufficiently authenticated to satisfy that required that because it was found on the internet by investigator instead of found out as a flyer on the street by the investigator it was allowed into evidence that's not what you have in down and that's not what you have in the case of fire because in both of us cases the trial for under stripped out the evidence was and  applied the same standard as it were to any other evidence and that that actually fits perfectly with the can't decision because we're out of prison consuls right that can't did expressed an echo the concerns of other courts across the country about the possibility of op unreliability and social media evidence it did it imperils higher standard at source media evidence then any other kind of documentation u later so he kept the victim's vehicle for five days and in the realm of possession of a store and motor vehicle that is a tremendous amount of time as he said by the defendant in his reply brief people versus  oh the defendant took the victim's vehicle and they had possession of it for fifteen minutes and the credit still found that intent to permanently deprive had been thrown out during that brief session so five days is tremendous amount of time obviously best as a sufficient motive for him to steal her car he took the keys from that habit that you st this way and to strangle her and drove off with her car and kept it for five days the washington also makes it indisputable that right the bat intense occur in private is not a requirement of conversion out when somebody temporarily converts another's vehicle to their own use they  lot and the defendant took the victim's vehicle on the defendant was only charged with possession of a converted motor vehicle and the jury was not instructed in that case the definition of theft was not instructed on  a person can absolutely be convicted of possession of a store in motor vehicle even if they're the ones who committed the original draft event vehicle as long as the jury gets instructed on the definitions of theft and stolen proper context from which to determine who is sending these messages and then you have information that is exclusively to the defendant and the and the and the victim in that case not just in the state's case about the superficial the state has to show that the messages were sent by barrett making that determination what can the case for it was saying is you have to consider the media you have to consider the particular characteristics of the medium so it's not a higher standard the standard is the same but you just