the direction of the investigation which was the the after the trial for its inquiry into the conversations of this round at that point i think i'll toss the ball back to you to correct what if anything that i said and  and the court and you've got a good case out there if you for the position of hearsay and iranians ruling on hearsay can form the basis that say that instructions are not hearsay my nature of an instruction it is neither true nor my boy is a policy appellate lawyer looking at this call record tease out a good enough to make a credible argument on appeal because the defendant's right to are assuming that the round table actually went in that direction as opposed to simply speculating particularly dim the lights of strong raise nobody raised the issue that you're now now presumably if mr smith were a good jailhouse lawyer he would have seen the argument because presumably he didn't file a supplemental brief until after offer of proof is made normally the good trial judge will say i'll give you an opportunity to make your attorney representing the defendant approached the whole issue of opening up areas of evidence proffered and if he's cutting him off all the trial attorney has to do is to ask for an opportunity to make and pro know but the one of the questions raised with regard to those photographs was whether they were interior exteriors and the other questions raised are first of all what would they have shown here with they have shown culpability or with since all of these effects placed on michigan avenue as you point out rather than at in those directions that the that the camera and those of it in the  successful in presenting the gist of a claim the defendant would have to at least present one of the three and in this case the defendant hasn't presented anough information in his petition to satisfy any of the  thousand and four so certainly the fact that there's a newspaper article which explains that there are a video that there were video cameras president two thousand and three would not show that in two thousand and four when this case went to trial that the people would have been aware of shooting took place and also doesn't show that the cameras would be positioned in such a way that it would show any evidence of this shooting or actions by this defendant it doesn't demonstrate that anything for trade on that video tape would be  defendant and it certainly absolutely doesn't show that the people were either aware of the cameras outside of the nightclub or that they willfully withheld those videotapes or but there is no doubt asse statement if he made and this is the definition of a in you know in i just that they talked about a fanciful factual allegation this is the definition of this the defendant has speculated that these cameras if they even existed in two thousand and three would demonstrate something which would prove contrary to the testimony that was given by officer webber and he offers absolutely nothing to show that these videotapes existed that they would in fact portray what he claims that they would portray and that they were ever in the possession of the people or that the people were aware of th i'm being more abbreviated however certainly in the during the questioning process and done again i'm just defense counsel was allowed to set forth his questions and the trial court  in gauge defense counsel i listen to his his proffered reasons for tresa question and in this particular case did you discuss the results of the roundtable with officer webber did you discuss the results with whether simple question state objection sustained why well it's it's it was set forth to the court that whites but you really have to go back to the some of the exact questions that were asked by defense counsel may not have been hearsay what we're looking at here is whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising an issue of  the trial court airing and not allowing this testimony so while in fact some of these statements and exact the exact questions that were asked may have been proper we're looking at this under a larger framework which is the honor including other confrontational issues and he did not racist so certainly that's something that should be taken into consideration so once given the opportunity to file the supplemental brief he was relatively bizarre in that it jarred one's intuitive sense of what takes place at a round table that it's not a place a roundtable is routine procedure that i believe that that fact is also testified to by either detective from across the donegan who when asked about a round table mentioned during their testimony that it's a procedure which takes place but it could be something that would certainly we have absolutely no indication that anything like that happened and officer webber in this case to give sworn testimony that in fact that he saw this defendant with a gun in his hand shooting out at at least two people with the only one who could say that my client shot the gun so yes this was an issue worth raising especially considering the fact that the only other issues he raised were missing his correction no substantive relief was with even in the mix with those issues so no is not like post conviction petition that is not supported this is the instance where you have the defendant doing what he believes he needs to do to satisfy the post condition x in the taxing affidavit he's finding evidence that would support his claims newspaper articles and things of that nature and i argue that this enough to pass the first stage under just the claim is all claims are arguable neither are fantastic more delusional all have a basis in the law and a basis in the