state's case against william sargent and this is particularly true with regard to the younger complainant sargent was convicted of five counts related to m g however m g offered no testimony related to any abuse against him and indeed no testimony was offered at trial related to any abuse against him gee all of the evidence related to energy came from sergeant statement and from m g s to out of court statements side of the story came only from hearsay and that was the only evidence that was used to corroborate sargent's confession the here's that was allowed in this case only under section one fifteen dash ten and that statute has certain certain requirements that allow that protective time in its rights for instance that that statute additionally requires that the jury be instructed to consider whether the statements were made at all the appellate court in the state both recognize that that mare was made here and failing to instruct the jury under the statute based on both the statute and this court's decision and m so there's no question that error occurred the question is was this airplane error infighter did occur in this case under both prongs a plane or a doctor involved that the evidence was closely balanced and this in the air was serious enough to violates the sergeant substantial test of consistent hearsay statements she made statements to a detective and to a state's attorney that she been sexually abused by the defendant however at trial her testimony was inconsistent she said both that she had been impeached and that she had been abused by the defendant the defendant reported that statement differently to different times but the gist of it was that and she indicated that there had been some abuse by sergeant stroll in there after the interview and i'm going videotape in that videotape and she made numerous nodded almost immediately thereafter rhonda turned off the videotape so here there was the inconsistent hearsay saying that it didn't it didn't happen plus this statement that rhonda reported that was apparently not reported verbatim reporting some sort of abuse decision as to what level of detail he had gone into and so it's unclear whether that's that's a major factor in terms of in terms of whether the amount of detail gone into the defendant's argument he wanted to leave the  make any sense and weight of the fact that he strongly disagree that he committed certain other illegal search or suggested by the office i think it's the defendant challenge his statement and he did he indicated that he was tired and that he was confused and he did push back with regard to certain with regard to certain charges the charges at that i think in the defendant's mind would have been even more serious and some of the fact that maybe that he didn't agree to all of the charges that that the officer was discussing with him doesn't necessarily indicate that he was telling the truth up until that point and then at that point he pushed back i think that the fact that he was able to go against the tact of with certainty regarding certain charges doesn't necessarily mean that everything he said up until then was actually regarding the regarding the complainants hearsay or whether it was also focusing on the detectives but in either case it's definitely true that that there was no reliability hearing there was a hearing to some degree regarding the detective however even if  ignores the sergeant's challenge to a statement and if and even if one ignores the hearsay testimony hearsay statements and mitchell the evidence here is still stronger so if one if one assumes that the mitchell court ignored the hearsay statements because of a lack of reliability hearing and if the court hearing nora's sergeants challenged his confession what we're left with is inconsistent testimony and mitchell resists inconsistent hearsay in this case and so the hearsay in this case was out of your shot of the of the jurors defense had no ability to cross examine and it was done under certain circumstances that one of the statements was reported differently at two different times and the other statement was made inconsistently and then once there one inculpatory statements made the videotape was turned off whereas the mitchell this was all done in front of the jury and this car noted in mitchell that the statement the testimony was inconsistent for whatever reason but determined that that inconsistency led to the evidence being closely balanced and here we have similar inconsistency on this well how the instructions for there was a pretrial hearing into the reliability of the instructions for the jurors in order for the jurors to consider what what a fact the lack of ability to cross examine at the time was what fact  that's also brought it was claiming to be repeating something that she told him but it's unclear whether it's verbatim and and ronna didn't really explain what exactly and she had said and the jurors were told to consider the fact that this was on video and that the video was cut off before  before i'm jus was able to say any more about the allegation so he's saying no no no and he said yes and then the videotape was cut off and so the jurors well there was a reliability hearing that none of that had anything to do with what the jurors were actually told to consider and again  one one six six and as a juror is even to consider whether the statement even been made which is relevant in terms of joseph or on the statement and so here the jurors were not given any instructions and in terms of how to consider the statements and the evidence  was even weaker than it was in mitchell because it's a matter of inconsistent testimony mitchell versus inconsistent hearsay in this case all with regard to g and so for these reasons the plane has been proved on the first problem now  it was of the convictions related and she that led to sergeants mandatory life sentence so here we have a mandatory life sentence that was premised on hearsay but the but the jurors want instructed in terms of considering the hearsay well the statue recognizes the dangers it was wide includes the safeguard including the reliability hearing and the instruction to the jurors and it obviously wasn't given here and so there is in this case there is no testimony from him she said there was also no testimony from anyone else about of us related to energy and j w who also testified at trial about his own abuse didn't offer any hearsay testimony hearsay statements or testimony regarding abuse of m g so the abuse of him she came only from me here is the evidence of the abuse came only from the hearsay and from sergeant statement testimony of a witness but there was nothing in terms of recognizing the hazards of hearsay and when the jurors to consider where the statement was made what might have been going on what led to this statement and that the fact that she wasn't cross examined at the time and so there was no so that the law that had to be applied was simply the law should tell the jurors that this is special evidence that you're hearing here and so this is how you have to consider it this is what you have to keep in mind when you're weighing it it's different from in court testimony it's different from when the when the person is under oath in front of you subject to cross examination this is this this evidence will have a different character and so to not be instructed to that but it's a certain weakness in the conviction because the jurors just this was the only evidence related m g that that are the only evidence related to energy side of the story and the only evidence that corroborated sargeant statement and so for those reasons it was it was plain to her and now the appellate court determine that it wasn't playing her because it looked at poker people the booker which was an appellate court decision statements determined that there was no play in error because it determined the jurors wouldn't distinguish between testimony and statements and that they would know that they would know to way that hearsay statements now mitchell determine otherwise and mitchell focused on the essentially they have to be told or given the way and credibility to be given the hearsay statement and not just the testimony and that they should be told in sort of the nature of the statement and the circumstances under which this tape was made and one point being only about in court testimony just simply doesn't address the hazards of hearsay it's just a different kind of instruction that's very vague and general and refers only to in court testimony and so it just simply doesn't instruct the jurors as the hearsay instruction does nor does it as one one six point six six instruct them to consider whether the statement was made at all and so the court in this case overlooked the term that mitchell actually didn't mind that that that that mitchell was focused only on the age that that that the instruction given in mitchell didn't include the age and one point zero one and one point zero two and whereas in this case it did include the agents had to consider the age of maturity of the witness however mitchell clearly was focused on all of these aspects the age was one it was only one of the things and that was sort of in the middle of the weight of credibility of the statement and the nature of the statement and the circumstances of the statement and so the apollo corps was incorrect in determining that this court actually felt that that one point zero two would be sufficient that's not what mitchell cited all moreover it's important to note that booker is a much stronger case than sargent is and booker perhaps that maybe wouldn't have been plain error because in booker there was so much evidence other than the hearsay that led to the conviction and book of the the complainant went on the stand and testified consistently as to  abuse so the jurors in order to find the book or defendant guilty didn't have to rely only on hearsay whereas with energy they could lie only on hearsay in a book or there was also an incriminating statement by the defendant and so in both cases there was a statement by the defendant to consider the complaint is allegations but invoker there was also in court testimony whereas in this case the jury could have only found sergeant guilty with regard to m g by looking at the hearsay so for all those reasons that explain her under the second prong it's important to stress that sargent is not asking for a person a role with regard to playing there under the second prong it's easy to imagine cases such as book or perhaps in which play an error wouldn't have occurred even if the court failed to comply with the statute and faile properly instruct the jury it is in this case with regard to energy in particular were all of the evidence to supply and you side of the story came from hearsay and that shows the true dangers of failing to instruct the jurors because they could not of found sargeant guilty had not been for the hearsay but they were given no troubles with which specifically consider that hearsay and for that for both of those reasons there is plain error under both the first prong and the second problem and for these reasons we asked this court to reverse and make to vacat broad asked him how many times he'd been digitally penetrated and she wrote on the board one and then veronica confirmed with him you mean one time and she indicated yes and that was the only evidence of any abuse coming from and he said it happened one in only one quote the not confession evidence did not on its own established two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of m g the state over maintains at best that this is not required and that one crime can be used t independent crime must be corroborated that evidence of one crime cannot be used to cry over it the others in balance the defendants the defendant was convicted of murder sexual assault and kidnapping now the murder was amply proved and the defendant on appeal argued that the corpus delicti for the sexual assault may kidnapping had not been proved now this court didn't say what the murder has been amply proved so therefore that the other two crimes it's not what happened at all rather this court said well the murder was proved and now let's look at the evidence of the sexual assault ok the sexual assault was proof now let's look at evidence of the kidnapping and there was no bootstrapping of saying well this one was proved that corroborate that in that crime rates that well that's exactly what happened in this case that there was evidence of one and only one instance of abuse coming from  and additionally videotapes that happened one only one times but the court use that to say it happened more than once and the court also used to report multiple crimes as proof that multiple harms occurred the very failure to report  simply no evidence to support these separate crimes there is just evidence to support the one four of the convictions related to m g should be should be vacated now the state argues that this court should not use corpus to like it all and should instead use the trustworthiness standard of the offense rather than tends to merely corroborate the general truth the defendant statement by having certain key assertions or something like that by the howard language says trust which says which is which is true of illinois law but that the not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that's well established but it does have to tend to show that that crime occurred that's the sort of crime occurred and going back to howard itself that looks to whether the murder corroborated that had a murder in an armed robbery and this court morning honors please the court my name is sherry long and i'm an assistant attorney general here on behalf of the people of the state of illinois your honor this case presents two issues and both of these issues are fairly narrow but before i get into the merits of those issues i just want to right off  against you now unless your own is have a preference i'd like to start with the corpus elect i issue and the reason for that is if this court agrees that the people presented sufficient independent evidence corroborating the defendant's confession either by applying the trustworthiness standard or by applying the rule as applied in illinois then this court can consider the defendant's confession as part of the people's proof and in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence and when this court does that the defendant's confession in addition to all the other evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all six offenses in addition this court can that consider the defendant's confession when it does the plain error analysis as to the defendant's instructional  if this court disagrees and finds that the people did not present sufficient independent evidence corroborating the defendant's confession then this court could vacate either of the four convictions that the defendant is challenging here it's back to the corpus delicti issue that would not change the defendant's life sentence as we argued on page eighteen of our brief under seven twenty i all c s five slash twelve dash fourteen point one the one point two a defendant who is convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault against two different child victims a criminal defendant received an automatic life sentence and the defendant here is not disputing that he was that the confession was sufficiently corroborated as to two separate counts of predatory criminal sexual assault that is the one count against j w and the one count against and so even if this court were to vacate any of the four challenge convictions those convictions would still stand and then the confession could still be considered as part of the people's proof when it conducts the plane or when this court does the plane air analysis as to the fentons instructional error claim now turning to the merits of the corpus delicti issue i'd like to emphasize that we're not asking for this court to hold that an unincorporated confession would be a valid piece of evidence we're still arguing that the corroboration rule will be in play we're simply asking for this court to modify that corroboration rule to use the standard that the federal courts have been using since one thousand fifty four and that an increasing number of state courts have started to use and the reason for that is the illinois version of the corpus electoral no longer serves its intended purpose common law and illinois case law the reason that the corpus selectee rule was developed was because this court was trying to protect against convictions based on unreliable confessions that is confessions that were coerced or confessions that were the result of people who suffered from mental illness they were confessing to crimes that they did not that did not happen or that they did not commit and defend it now wants to apply the corpus selectee rule to what would be an otherwise voluntary and valid confession and where it is not a vote and where it is a voluntary confession not the result of any coercion that is a material piece of evidence that the fact finder should at least be allowed to consider the fact trying to should be allowed to hear that the defendant confessed to these crimes and the defendant a trial which is what the defendant did here the defendant can recant that confession can disavow that confession and then the confession is before the jury that before the jury and then the jury can decide which version they find to be most credible and here there's no question that the defense confession was coerced in any way or was involuntary in any way the defendant found a motion to suppress  confession before trial and after suppression hearing the trial court specifically found that the defendants confession here was voluntary and not the product of any type of coercion or intimidation no feeling of the videotaped confession was important and the jury was able to view that videotape confession at trial was able to view the defendant's recantation of that videotaped confession at trial on the jury was able to charm and whether or not they thought the confession was reliable and here after viewing that confession they found that the confession was reliable on the recantation was not a strict application of the corpus selectee rule is no longer necessary because we have all of these united states supreme court cases that talk about how co is not allowed to be considered at a defendant's trial in addition suspects are required to be advised of their miranda rights and if they're not advised their miranda rights the results of the interrogation are not allowed to be admissible at trial and most importantly the jackson versus virginia constitutional proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard is more than sufficient acts up to protect against convictions that are based on these types of confessions that would not rise to the level of a due hear that confession and then determine for itself whether or not that confession is reliable and one of the reasons that there have been a number of criticisms leveled against the corpus like the roll is because the corpus like you rule can have harsh consequences the defendant argues that in this case we're not presented with a tax evasion case or we're not presented with new code offense or conduct oriented offenses which a number of legal commentators have talked about it is difficult to apply those types it is difficult to apply the corpus select doctrine to this case does present a similar type of case writ is difficult to strictly apply the corpus like the rule and that is child sexual abuse cases and the reason for that is child sexual abuse cases it may be difficult to provide substantial independent evidence that would tend to show the commission of every single crime and that is because child victims maybe find it difficult to testify at trial is that every single detail that happened to them these acts are normally private there may not be any physical evidence and where you only have a confession it may be difficult to prove a strict it may be difficult to strictly apply the corpus like the rule and that would then not allow what would otherwise be a valid involuntary confession to go before the jury now here applying the trustworthiness standard that people presented substantial independent evidence that shows that the defendants confession here was reliable the defendant confessed to you no penetration j w in his testimony testified as to a no penetration j w and m g in there out of court statements talked about how the defendant either inserted his finger into m g s anus or how the defendant inserted his into j w's in his so the main piece of evidence concerning a no penetration that was corroborated and addition other details regarding defendant's confession were corroborate as well the time period was corroborated the location and also the act of fondling j w in his out of court statement talked about how the death defended masturbated him and then would also have him masturbate the defendant and talked about that in his out of court statement as well valid piece and indeed a powerful piece of evidence and that's why the jury should be allowed to hear it the fed also argued that this court has not had occasion to address the validity of the corpus like the rule since this court decided lambert in  four and that is correct but this court in one nine hundred ninety and people vs furby noted that in that case the state did not argue to relax the corpus like the rule or to dispense with the rule entirely so this court did not applies a two part test with respect to the corpus like the rule the people have to introduce substantial independent evidence that would one tend to show the commission of the charged offense and would also corroborate facts that were in the defendant's statement this court could allow defendants confession to be considered as part of the proof if this court adopts the closely related exception which is what the appellate court did in this case and by doing that this court can look to evidence of a closely related crime other it would go to show whether the defendant perpetrated the other crimes i think the fed is not arguing here that his confession was sufficiently corroborated under that second prong of the corpus selectee ruling for the reasons that we talked about there was a substantial amount of evidence showing that the defendant's confession was corroborated think the main dispute here is whether or not we presented sufficient independent evidence that would tend to show the commission of the two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault and the two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and here that this court can look to the offenses that were committed against j w in deciding whether or not the people presented independent evidence tending to show the commission of two counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and then this court can look to the fact that the defendant inserted his finger into n p s anus at least one time to show that he to show that the two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault also occurred there was an amount there was a significant amount of evidence that would tend to show the commission of these four counts with respect to the two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault this court can look to the fact that m g in his out of court statement to d c a fast investigative rhonda said that the defendant quote unquote puts his finger in m g s anus which implies more than one time this court can also look to m g s out of court videotape statement and look that would tend to imply at least that it would least constitute circumstantial evidence that would tend to show that predatory criminal sexual assault happened more than one time and there is also the fact in the van it is not contest that is the defendant inserted his important to remember that the corpus selectee prong one analysis only we only have to present sufficient evidence that would tend to show the commission of an offense this is an extremely low standard and here where there is an g s out of court statement you've got the videotaped interview there's also the defendant's confession and energies out of court statement admitting to at least one count of predatory criminal sexual assault that's certainly enough to tend to show the commission of other counts of predatory criminal sexual assault now with respect to the aggravated criminal sexual abuse charges this court would look to the fact that j w talked about how the defendant fondled him and this court can look to the fact that that is a closely related  fense that could tend to show the commission that the defendant similarly fondled m j and when determining whether an offense is closely related this court can just look to whether or not adopting that standard would serve the purposes of the to elect a rule which is simply to ensure that the confession itself is reliable and here we have child victims who are both brothers they lived in the same house we're talking about you know penetration we're talking about the fact that the defendant had the opportunity to commit these offenses while he was living with these boys there are m g was four or five time in jail w was ten at the time so these offenses are sufficiently closely related between j w statements and the defend his confession and j w statements and m g s statements those those are relevant considerations but the main point is even though there are inconsistencies in the independent evidence this court has held that he had a pen in evidence need not correspond to the confession and every single detail the independent evidence need only strengthen a bolster confirm the confession and when determining whether the confession is sufficiently reliable this court can consider the inconsistency is it can consider the similarities and determine whether or not the inconsistency is so outweigh the similarities such that the confession has been rendered completely unreliable we were addressed that particular question but other states have used this exception with respect to the corpus like the rule arizona and state versus morgan indiana and will be versus state commonwealth versus taylor pennsylvania has adopted this testimony from jack on weber who was a child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome expert and she talked about how children will sometimes not disclose all of the abuse right away it could be an incremental type of abuse especially with respect boys who may be ashamed of the condo to maybe thinking that they were the cause of the conduct so the fact that there was that expert testimony would not necessarily if m g b disavowed the fact that the defendant had fondled him that would not not necessarily ren the confession so on trustworthy as to have exception apply here now turning quickly to the plane air issue by failing to object to the trial court's failure to issue or issue i p i eleven point six six a trial and by failing to raise that issue in a post from motion the defendant has failed to preserve that issue for review and he has failed to demonstrate that the evidence was closely balanced or that his trial was fundamentally unfair now the defendant with respect to the closely balanced prong argues that this case is similar to mitchell but the evidence in this case was much stronger than the evidence and mitchell and first we're not arguing that the fact that the confession here was videotaped makes it more compelling than the confession that mitchell were arguing that when this court views the videotaped statement and then looks at the fact that the defendant disavowed that saved it but that was an incredible disavowal of that statement that is complete that is a compelling piece of evidence defendant argued that he was pressured into giving the statement that he was the team in the interview there is no indication that he was fatigued in any way to tired participate in the interview and he was adamantly denied engaging in certain conduct so that quickly refutes any argument that he was so intimidated by the detective that he told him whatever he wanted to hear and hear the fine and again is not challenging the reliability finding that the trial court made with respect to the child victims out of court statements so with respect to the evidence in this case compared to the evidence and mitchell the evidence was much stronger than it was a mitchell now with respect to the prong to analysis the jury here was not left without any guidance whatsoever on how to consider the hearsay evidence it is true that the jury was not instructed to consider the witnesses age at the time that they made their statements they were not instructed to consider the nature and circumstances surrounding how the statement was made but they were instructed p i one point zero two that they were to consider the witness's testimony and both of the child victims testified in this case they were to consider that testimony in the reasonableness of that testimony in light of all the evidence in the case and here the jury was able to view the most important out of court statements and those are the child victims videotape statements they were also able to view the defendant's confession and because they were able to view all these things the jury was not left without any guidance on how to consider the evidence and they're also not improperly instructed on how to consider the evidence this court has held that an improper or incorrect instruction is much more prejudicial than the failure to issue an instruction so we don't have an issue that we had inherent o koski where the trial court incorrectly issued an instruction and so the jury was confused as to how to apply the put the law here they were simply not given an instruction but this court can look to the fact that the jury was also given i cry one point zero two and the fact that they mitchell the confession was not disavowed at all so this would simply just about due to ignore that disavowed simply place this case with regard to the confession on equal ground with mitchell and then this court is still left with mitchell's consistent hearsay inconsistent testimony and the fact that in this case there was inconsistent hearsay and no testimony now so for this reason that the evidence of mitchell really was stronger than this evidence even if the score ignores sargent's disavowal and moving  r the state says that and he testified to trial this is true m g did testify at trial he was asked whether sergeant had ever sexually abused him and she responded i don't remember that was that was all that was all and she testified to with regard to any abuse related to the new abuse by sergeant and so the fact that the jury was instructed into how to consider the statement i don't remember they were told how she weigh the evidence presented to them at trial and how to weigh witness testimony that was their testimony that they got with regard energy and then along with that they got this videotaped statement that was conducted by d c s investigator who turned it off immediately after he got a one single incriminating answer and then there was also the statements by joseph rhonda that she was making these statements on videotape in the videotape was turned off immediately after he said no no no then he said yes and then it was turned off so for these reasons the second prong of clean air is still applies because all of the evidence related to m g came from the hearsay and the has warrant told how to consider that hearsay and this card mitchell stressed that the that this instruction must be given this is very special evidence this kind of evidence this kind of hearsay evidence is not allowed and in most cases it's only under this very specific statute that it's allowed in and there are certain protections that are required and this these protections warrant observed here and this is a case unlike any other case that's been decided no annoy related to this jury instruction issue because in this case the with sergeant in strikes for these convictions he will nevertheless be subject to a mandatory life sentence however that is no reason not to consider this case and shoe and to not consider the fact that there was no crime bring evidence further it's in central distress that nowhere has sergeant ever said that his confession should not have been admitted that is not an argument raised in the appellate court that is not an argument raised in this court sergeant has never once said that his confession should not have been admitted and so that has nothing to do with the corpus to leave the argument whether the issue is why was the state charging him with all of these with all of these additional charges it's true that this confession crabber that there was cooperation for certain elements of his confession related to j w and related to one of the charges against him she there is no argument that the confession should not have been admitted and the state goes on to argue that the corpus delicti rule isn't necessary because there are all these constitutional protections but as discussed before always constitutional protections existed before lambert which is the last time this court c that have moved to the trustworthiness standard the overwhelming majority of states still use the corpus delicti rule so the move to the court to move to trustworthiness would place illinois in the vanguard of states that have moved to the standard which is the state acknowledge provides less protection for defendants and it was problems with false confessions are serious and they're well known and so the question is whether now is the time for illinois to decide to take away protections for defendants who have made confessions and the trustworthiness simply does not provide the same the same amount of protections that a state argues that the that his confession was sufficiently crab rated and this in the things that the state points to for the cooperation sort of point to the problems with the trustworthiness and of the states as of the time period corroborate that time period was two and a half years and so say that sergeant made a confession and with and all of these all these activities are meant to be occurring within two point five years this isn't like it happened on wednesday september fifteenth this is a two point five year period and they will corroborate it in terms of the location they lived in a very small apartment and she said abuse had been a living room sergeant said it happened in the living room bedroom and kitchen these are very these are very minor things across brayed additionally and she said it happened when his mother wasn't home start and said these things happened when the mother was home that the state says that that because this is a child sexual abuse case it should be treated differently because this is a child sexual abuse case that is treated differently that's why the hearsay was allowed in the state says that that should the should be treated differently because children may be reluctant to choose to testify at trial i'm she was reluctant to testify at trial that that's why it's hearsay state was let in so there's this child sexual abuse cases are already treated differently and treated very differently from other cases in terms of allowing the hearsay and so the idea that child sex abuse cases need not be corroborated sufficiently it goes against it goes against illinois state laws well when for instance a case of people v richmond which is the appellate court case that looks to sure whether both of these crimes occurred even though it's a child complainant and that's what should be done in this case the fact that m g said one crime occurred doesn't mean that all these other crimes occurred and to use jerry w statements of other crimes against him to crop or all these crimes against and also there's nothing in illinois law to support that this is going far beyond the use of propensity evidence this is you this is this is sort of double bootstrapping to say he did this to j w so he might do this to someone else and that'll prove that that crime even existed against the other person it's just it's many steps away from the kind of evidence that is normally allowed in illinois and additionally if the the state points to jacqueline roberts testimony about that that somehow corroborated the evidence jack oliver never even spoke to these boys she could have spoken to these boys and provided some kind of cooperate in testimony perhaps however she didn't this is this was just an expert who said this is kind of what happens this is the way children might testify but she never even spoke to these boys and so while the state might have had an opportunity for corroboration there the state for want that and so i was just left with that with an expert who didn't actually provide any testimony whatsoever about the children at issue so for all of these reasons this court should continue to use a corpus delicti i rule and under the corpus delict i rule this court should vacate four of the convictions related to m g and additionally under the with regard to the hearsay issue this court should reverse and remand for a new trial so unless this court has any further questions thank you very much