of objects places and even of persons so beyond that point we don't know the context of what is being depicted and that is where diaw curacy is the key question now the reliability identify herself from still images when she was shown the images of our korean war and badly to wider person shorn individual she said she couldn't remember if anyone that night was wearing these articles of course fund the scene itself because the event occurred in the scene and the critical issue is steve bent and we want to be accurate and and we want to know that these events were without mr quiting we don't know anything we don't know yet the video recording was made  phone we don't know if you took it from a third party we don't even know if this was actually stage because the alleged victim doesn't remember and eight are if the courts don't have any more question or if it was  and the victim was unconscious isn't aging indicating that it occurred to me and maybe i was a poor choice of words on your part or maybe i'm misunderstanding beyond our own level of understanding my mom my question is though and this relates to maybe the testimony of the one officer or maybe the things outside the record but  foundation why i have been in this case wrong and this this is not a situation where carter actually use the state to simply chose not to bring him on the state what the state said is he's not reliable and he's not is it possible that this could have charged him on accountability given that he's in the room he doesn't have a maybe a legal obligation to stop what's going on but isn't he heat in the activity by filming it and having the alleged perpetrator turn and smile on him while he's taking a video at a time that because he was the first person who produces video deep point of origin of the video and therefore the reliability and accuracy of whites being depicted depended on his testimony and without it we don't know much about  sufficient adequate foundation for admitting these videos tailored itself states the fact that the tape exists at all as evidence that the tape recorder was functional and that the operator knew how to operate it that knocks out the first three of the  taylor factors right there more importantly the most similar case of this would be d q the first district case there a person receives a video message on his phone of a mother striking your child doesn't know who it's from then testifies that trial that same video he received on his phone was the one that was indeed played in court the appellate court held that that was sufficient to demonstrate the authenticity of the recording the main point they made similarity between this case and the q is the fact that the film or did not testify of either one in fact they didn't even know who the person in film was in d q the point being that the video was clearly operational at the time and was able to record sufficiently clearly so the individuals in the video were identifiable as where their actions are supreme court found that's referring to taylor but such evidence is sufficient to adequately demonstrate the camera was able to record and was generally operating properly there's nothing in this case that indicates there was some faulty thing in in cotton smartphone that somehow inserted defended into a sexual abuse video i mean that would be ludicrous and this is nothing but pure speculation as this court stated in l which just this connection concurred with the mere possibility of tampering unsupported by any evidence of tampering does not render video inadmissible in other words we can speculate all we want to as a counsel stage apparently video editing goes beyond our level of understanding then i guess we can never have any reliable video evidence ever again that that would be of an absurd result and clearly here there is nothing to indicate that this video was tampered with or even how i thought this victim ls which was instructive responded presented no evidence of tampering nor did she even posit power or why anyone would have been going hollywood style video made manipulation skills and advance computer hacking to create and stream a fictitious webcast there it was bypassed ah so in that case there was of course no testimony by who actually filmed the video that went out on the webcast so ls and d q as they sat was a point as  taylor itself that the person that recorded the video doesn't necessarily testify to establish an adequate foundation for the silent witness theory this case is a perfect example all the testimony all the circumstantial evidence points to this recording these two recordings being exactly what they purport to be talking shows his phone to an officer on the afternoon of february third two thousand and sixteen shows from the multiple officers those officers state that this bedroom the exact same condition as it was that day as it as in the video miss flower's testifies that yes she went over to cottons house on that afternoon drank enough to pass out and was indeed wearing the same clothes which included a distinctive parachute she bought borrowed from a friend as well as a distinctive pair pants that's what she was wearing that day also the defendant was present at the apartment before she did before she did pass out narration of the video by anybody who doesn't personally observe the events so the jury alone is left to look at the picture and compare that to the person depicted in the video and make the decision whether that is the same person that beamed the jury on the perpetrator the jury alone also had another great benefit they've served the defendant throughout the whole proceedings sitting at counsel table not so and there's nothing beforehand in the motion in limine a they're well aware that under the silent witness theory the video speaks for itself that's why defendant wells on in many of his arguments on the fact that if it was never positively identified by the video that is a defendant and that was of course sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but as for the admissibility of the video again this had this is an abuse of discretion standard all six taylor factors when support to the state's position that this was an adequate foundation for admitting this video i would like to point out one thing and council's reply brief on page two states that the state offers no arguments regarding the relevance of the cottons competency in recording the video on page ten eleven of my and therefore i have somehow forfeited presumably under supreme court will reach forty  one pages ten and eleven in my brief i go into the fact that taylor states the cutoff fact that the tape exists at all is evidence that the paper quarter was functional and that the operator knew how to operate it in other words the competency of the recorder the competency of cotton is a sad was by the fact the video exists at all and i start that paragraph by saying as for the device capability and operation of the device by the operator so i would refute there is no argument by the state on this factor and also after discussion with my director and other attorneys in my office this seems to be an increasing point in brief bio sad that somehow because the state frames an argument differently that is somehow forfeited and i would state that just because those said not agree with how we put an argument down or how we respond or they would respond a different differently clearly does not mean that that issue is forfeited but if the court has is in your view counsel why not talk about it well as i think justice connect nailed it i'm sure he wised up after initially showing the police i mean this was in the moments directly after the assault or directly after flower's was in the hospital he showed two police officers i think to the video and then they take as they took his phone after that presumably after that he probably thinks hey i can probably be charged as an accomplice unless i expect to see there are no more questions  responding and furthermore the responding even suggested that she knew who the person was who recorded the respondents said and i quote that peter was produced by someone i believe was a friend so in some ways webcam and andy had a police officer testified that he had to leave you the webcam when he was alive and that the still images depicted exactly what he saw in the live feed so there was considered a fact and if i could i see that might an example if i could just answer your question i if you take one step back first of all the six factors entail are not exhausted so we don't know there may be multiple factors that should be considered yes how the reliability because the entire thing is we need to know that this video is accurate and reliable and we only know gap from the production process without testimony from the production process without mr carter and we have absolutely