that all of the witnesses with the exception of the testifying prosecutor were unreliable on a regular consistent basis morels conviction was based upon prior inconsistent statements that the court found were simultaneously cold worse and the linchpin of the state's case and there was no physical evidence connecting morel to the crime because the trial court stated that as of the witnesses with the exception of the prosecutor run reliably on a regular consistent basis if they smiles conviction  demonstrated by the video recording in the sufficiency of the evidence challenge the standard to review it is typically ran after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecutor any rational trying or a fan could have found th defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt however that the trial through its conclusions regarding the video recording are not entitled to the soon rather of deference as its findings regarding the credibility of the wife witness testimony entitled to any deference and that's because the trial court actually has the opportunity to see the witnesses testify live and person which is a benefit that we don't count here however when viewing the video recording that we're in the exact same position that the tr based on what he saw a five and what he sighed in the video we can't we can't do that on it's an album review and me that is true we can't do the live testimony of the witness  the video recording of the interrogation that gives us a lot of information about the circumstances under which her pretrial statements were obtained and that information is very important in terms of coloring the way in which her that it did not find it found that the witnesses were unreliable on a regular consistent basis and a conviction can only be sustained upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt which requires a buyable evidence so  exactly in that situation you mention that we are in a situation where the file could simply define the live testimony quite a bit and because the conviction must be sustained only upon credible evidence then out where it's kind of a heightened on to clarify that the standard of review for the video recording was manifest made of the evidence a road is a grid of gray it a little bit more key as to exactly how we were viewed the video but it is clear that the conclusions based on the that moves hands prior statements words lynch and the case and the prior statements included the video of the written statement in the grand jury testimony but the video isn't thirteenth because it shows us the circumstances under which recording it was completed most likely within a couple hours and the grand jury testimony was only two days later and really take a look at that video that shows this is for the first fifty five minutes of the video recording giving them the same story and rushes repeating the story she's repeatedly threatened by detective porter he tells her that she is digging her own grave she six through this story he tells her that she's going to be embalmed quit the next morning and she keeps getting more oil an alibi the detectives i have to stop her and ask for another question where they have her stop and start her story back over at the beginning so for example about fifty seven minutes and forty eight seconds into the first d room we don't know at the sources but after she says that five people in the car the detective asked her how many people were in the car and she says that the this point the video recording cuts off it looks like the back to the end of the tape or something it starts up again  statement by stopping her every time she gives a detail that doesn't match quarters statements that say the track or its conclusion that the video does not share the detective coaching her on what to say it is against the manifest weight of the evidence even though he's not is for the shooting was that they were fighting over his presence in the car and his fitness to make it is a bit odd he basically said that he was extremely upset that hans was present in the car because she was nosy resulted in the victim being shot when haynes gave her statement she said that she didn't even remember what they were arguing about and that it was just silly things said a seaman's don't gel on this because she most likely would have statement to me now as there was not a transcript made and there was no transcript in the and what any of those statements ever produced in discovery by the state not to my knowledge to my knowledge the only written statements that were produced were his written statement and there was also the statement and eye witness transaction and then picked him up again before they went to the liquor store with the victim so the time went on their statements is not matching up the state's body is a little bit misleading as  friend who was driving the car was hit were the police approached the car with the guns drawn i handcuffed her and took her into custody and this was on march thirtieth and this  yes so that was from her trial testimony so that she was taken into custody on march thirtieth she makes these statements the video recording was taken around thirty five pm on the thirty first so she's been in custody overnight at this point and  so there was still that officer presence and that the police picked her up and drove her to the grand jury for her to testify there and this was all in a very short time frame regardless of the issues about whether she was taken into custody or whether she spent the night of the thirtieth at the police station this all took place in a very short timeframe just a couple of days so when she testified at the grand jury it's very reasonable that she's still under the course of influence of the p in addition justice had you made a point earlier about we don't know about the trial court judge making some assumptions about miss hans memory on the other indications and about the he did not really have a favorable coerced to ride but she insisted she step at her first statement that she was not present during the murder it appears that she likely had several conversations with the police before the serious question as to whether do it was any credible evidence at all upon which to sustain this conviction when at one point we've said that this person has a day at one point or said that this version was around the trial chris said at some point i have to believe she was lying when