least three months prior to when this or when that hearing was held and when the order was ultimately entered but she obviously was a witness to those proceedings so i don't know chelsea have memories that she could testify to but i think the problem with that stipulation is that there are certain facts contained in the ultimate order that was in or via the trial court and so forth attraction that were not contain the record it was simply an accurate and that's why the  believe that the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence given that it was unreasonable considering some of the facts that were listed out as true in that order or findings the trial court entered that were simply in the record were not trial that was pretty long in this record there and lots of details and facts which this case turns on that were not there so there was no tree a script transcript is not yet prepared for any day of jury trial who to have the trial transcripts prepared or they would be prepared and they would be reviewed that was not done i don't know what party had that all become one was a day after the hearing on the forfeiture if i believe the forfeiture hearing was on now that judgment issued contains some of the details of this case so the trial court obviously has some recollection of some of billet he recalled some of those facts because it was fairly detailed on some issues but it certainly was not prepared which i think since august problem and we're not saying that it should have been stipulated to because obviously it was that it's clear that the record of the trial counsel intended to allow all that evidence and even though some of those contradictory to each other somewhat strange i think to take an entire all the way this is testimony w contradictory and stipulated that that was done nonetheless however those were not prepared and so i believe in october november when this brief became together so we believe based on that stipulation there was a couple of but he was not and with brenda the real piece of evidence was the fact that a shoe print of a shoe that she identified as being hers was found at the scene of the birth which to briefly go back to berkeley was at a gas station truck wasn't reliable enough and other red maza truck was plenty of evidence of that was at the scene there was an imprint of the safe that was stolen in that van boss the truck and it was it also contained the d v r from the airco that was stolen and a mask from the person blame on others in the house because this is the type of residence there were people in and out the door all day long standing family friends so while there's no direct evidence that somebody else is right that shoe that issue wasn't taken up the trial court or the jury trial  they asked her is this your shoe and she said yes well and here's the evidence showed this shoe was taken from her residence yes i believe so i believe was found actually in her bedroom you know where he yes you that was taken from her currently the public defender going to count and perhaps the final argument i personally believe the strongest is the fact with respect to the great ford f one fifty its lack of its connection to any type of crime found in that great ford f one fifty it was a charger actually ever in the truck just that the charger was there were a set of bump keys found in the truck i don't know if this horse really bucky and i know i wasn't when i'd actually read through this evidence but q s are sort of a set of keys that are used to pick locks and a person might ask why would the appellant is such a thing well there for a living they would go to foreclosed properties use these bomb pieces were picked a lot going change locks or banks and other entities that would be executed closures so those people have been there anyways and they had access to th took specific interest and how access was gained to the airco gas station burglarized there was sort of evidence that well it could have been bumpy because it seemed it was longer than key but there was no private i think that's pretty tenuous to assume it was that set of bump somewhat rather quickly without the video of course that leaves its course so wavering us of that issue and trial counsel also perhaps said that because the client son actually worked there and would have had a key to the property so with that ford truck there was also evidence or argument set forth by the say that it could be assumed that there should be this jump in logic that electronic had to be taken to the scene because the other truck which we know how to save it would have been able to sustain the weight of the safe that was taken and it would have been reasonable for that to happen even though there's no video that was ever there on the boat yes so there was certainly a problem with that truck i don't know whether tribute that much foresight obviously that's part of victory to the state's theory that you want to have another vehicle there yet live other lives for the transmission issue i mean if it started to rain well yes precisely you're i mean it was clear that that truck to transport the safe successfully but the gray ford thought that it would have been perhaps taken there's a back up and truck for some reason or another way to get out i think is quite a job especially those are the drastic  seizure itself which a lot of favors this isn't the civil seizure case where there's cash with drugs or a vehicle where they catch someone there's also the additional issue of the definition or in the commission of a crime that has been stretched out to include the the jaws of war the jaws of life were i think reported stolen in another incident there was a charge it wasn't part of the underlying criminal action they have to be found at the scene as well with the safe and that gray trailer that is part of this forfeiture but there was an expert testimony during the jury trial that the jaws of life were not used on the say where you say they were i believe the jaws of life are actually found with the safe in the truck was used in this burglary whatsoever there was still snow on it on cross examination the officer had to admit that it wasn't seen at the scene there weren't any burglary tools necessarily in there except for one home goes in those old well they're not clear it sounds like they're pretty i mean there's a big pile of snow on earth that probably wasn't moving by or i could definitely see how the core interest in seeing a comparison between the boss the truck and that to determine that but clearly it was there you know earlier perhaps i don't know what kind of accumulation we also didn't have a testimony maybe it was an in a different angle the wind blew it off i don't know there's lots of alternative reasons why that snow wasn't on there but due to that lens i counsel i don't know where to start first of all as i understand it this monster is not an issue there's a lot of discussion about it here but it's not at issue here the only things that issue are one stipulation order in the record i think it's c thirty for the convenience of you stand and it doesn't say anything about the judge waiting for the transcript to be prepared  consider those among the justices ok i'll consider the transcript i think that clarifies that issue but even if the court disagrees were where were they were they hard i didn't hear them explain how they're har haven't you can affirm for any reason to put it by the record your honor and the standard here is by a preponderance that to get to the chase on the ford here it was parked behind all the other cars ok an officer testified the snow was melted off now i was later called by defense counsel and shown some pictures and admitted that they still had some snow on now i don't know when those pictures were taken how many hours later whether it snowed again or not the clear evidence to stop snowing at eleven thirty burglary happened after that some time before four am and the officer did testify there was snow melted off or blown off of that ford by going to talk about the mosque because it's not an issue here there's no question that the bump keys were found inside the fore there's no question that mr and mrs callahan among their other jobs whereas securing these abandoned properties are foreclosed properties and they needed these bump keys to access the inside of those properties to secure those properties boil the water out of the pipelines and do whatever they asked else they had to do to make sure that they were secure and they both were adept at using these  did that as their occupation or their second occupation and when she testified she described in detail as she used which is consistent with the video of at least one of the burger but burgers i'm sorry  using some device which took a little manipulation to get in and there's no sign of forced to treat at the gas station additionally you have a lot of testimony by the defense had a trial about how this monstrous transmission doesn't work that there's a lot of parts in the back they don't want to kids to drive it they don't want to get stranded anywhere and then you have testimony about both  have some snow knocked off it would have bumped keys inside and miss callahan's biological son mr calhoun stepson will say jacob welse testified his parents came in  she could've said i was in the store somebody else for my shoes whatever and the left shoe was consistent with her shoe and she knew how to use the bump keys she said she drove the poor that night the four of us in the back our shop make all photographs i got a little box and i have photographs and i asked her to make only those which were admitted into evidence unfortunately the numbers appear to be off and then the other disk say i don't know if two vehicles were taken your honor and that had a lower bit if you look at the pictures it's a small truck before the picture so i had to lift the safe like that myself  so at ten o'clock at night or is it two o'clock in the morning i believe it's much earlier than two o'clock in the morning i think it was around that even when he was still away i think that that testimony was not crystal clear that there were ninety seven i was did testified that time i don't believe they were able to pin down what i saw so would it be accurate to say that the evidence against her is maryl status co ownership access to bump keys bucky's themselves don't necessarily lend suspicion but the ability to use them and have them available when they might have been used in a crime you could draw some inference from that and she was out sometime that evening a pair based on her son's testimony sometime that evening but without a definitive yes i do wish of the time that is very accurate and of course relevant to her position as