opportunity to commit a crime serial prosecution was that this opportunity occur when the defendant and his wife babysat h j one evening a medical  investigate these claims either base one was the first one was a claim of actual innocence and he was asserting that d n a evidence could have exonerated him and in that section he old victim and her parents in the same trailer he specifically named jacob jones michael jones and then others those are the only names that he that he came up with  and those were only mentioned in support of his argument that d n a testing was necessary the defendant has not raised this first issue about d n a testing on appeal and that they told her what to say and then that later elizabeth her sister drove her to the office and stood there where she delivered the letter and she said she denied some things in the letter and denied other things and in her testimony that's where we get the information about michael jones heard in her trial but during her testimony at that hearing as testify from our june twenty ninth the injuries occurred on june twenty eighth and on june twenty ninth at eight o'clock in the evening that doctors testified that the injuries were crash and they could have been twenty four to forty eight who testified but while what cuts off that forty eight hour period is and makes it shorter is the fact that just before him jones took her daughter to be here for my grandmother she changed her diaper and and everything appeared fine there was there was no injuries so whether or not this time they have with other pedophiles are with or not other people had an opportunity to molest her prior to this incident or after this incident and him there is something information that the child was for their policy by someone else at a later time and that the mother ultimately gave the child and her siblings up for adoption that that is simply decide what we're talking not just the injuries that the child sustained after five o'clock which she  dropped off and before to third and the only person to have access to this child during that time was the defendant the grandmother and a sister testified that she was there for a while but the jury did not credit her that story and she you know there were prior statements from the grandmother that were brought in a trial that contradicted it so when i did the trial could and her prior statement said that she was sitting on the couch and that she fell asleep and her husband was sitting on the couch and the baby was asleep in the living room and that her husband they both fell asleep on the couch and then when she mean i agree this is so this guy you know i can bring in other witnesses here possibly who were not investigated by anybody who which may show that other people had access to this child some one of a registered sex offender but i simply let him do that council not go ask someone from who had lived with the child at the in that time period which was two thousand and two the child was in two thousand  on linda had moved on to another boyfriend the grandmother and there's nothing to say that she willing to testify if these are the whether or not pam statement was end of the next page is people of the state of illinois versus or a description of the testimony in this case and that it leads up with the type to come into this meeting sixty dollar off for a good time and then she's crying and then he says get into the vane and we don't know if he said it loud arash or whatever now isn't that a substantial step or a step or the happening if he wanted her to get in there and mean i don't know  she for some reason felt so you know that she's sixteen seventeen years old this is going on he once you're in there is that enough to groom him to sta out in the street and that's where you got the part about it was driving yes ok now the state in their belief also citing the page one thirty five says defendant's van was in between this say i dashed behind his van to make my escape or anything like that because he kept driving next to me i couldn't get around or do we have everything that she actually said in this world that you put your  by anything other than circumstantial evidence and so we can do is look at her version of the facts to determine what his intent was now we know that prior driving right next to her so she acts like she is going to go in front of it and then she ran behind it was trying to get in front of the vehicle across the street but she couldn't get in front because of that then it speeded up so she ran only way to misconstrue the evidence in this case favorably to the state for that they can keep this conviction she never said i slowed down he spoke she never said i slew him she said i was walking