if i could use the term invited error here relied on that statement to to pump up the theory of his case that she did that statement was never made he just wanted him to stay out of the courtroom was cross examination by defense there was a call to cross examination by defense counsel which the trial court sustained because he was trying to get into the argument argued the same thing so how is it now will they come in and say you know that the privilege was never weighed when he's the one who brought it now well is specifically is in his closing argument mr murphy said i called him he said he was just in the parking lot or something like that then he made some other comments and then he said the communication here just doesn't exist he's saying that mr weigel defense attorney is saying that murphy will lou lie and his purpose was as justice shuster has suggested in the failed cross examination was to get whatever my money he could and get out of dodge would mean i understand it and i certainly did read the record to reflect  explanation what's the legal advice that was given i don't believe that he is required to give the specific piece of legal advice i mean this case will have gone so far from the illinois supreme court as to say that there  been twenty five years since i looked a defense attorney ready for trial said where she quietly and says i don't know counsel go out and call your client and find out where he has i need and come back in here and tell me what happened in this particular case when he makes the statement what is the charge that is the for the court the drugs or the drug charge and in that the lawyer asks where are you i'm in the garage you're going forward to a b violation charge and saying well that was a violation attorney client privilege because it went to the charge it went to the charge afterwards that was not the charge at the time when the lawyer asked the client where are you respectfully submit that there are a lot of violations of the law that occur every day and i would suspect that all of us at one time or another have been guilty of some regardless of distain and isn't there sufficient evidence to show that he didn't appear you post a vine and get a peer you have the testimony of all of the investigators talking about how they tried to get a hold of him and he hung up on them and people were hiding him so even if you don't have this so called privilege statement isn't the evidence sufficient for a conviction on the street no there's no there's no evidence for chilean regarding this element of been talking about so far and the nd wave was the testimony of one investigator investigator paul we had nothing whatsoever to do with m without any type of a proper foundation whatsoever their self worth and the king documents but how ever they were totally given those receipts and received a copy of those receipts well does he have to know what the consequences are does he just have to know what the date is the date that he's to appear in court well because if it's the date i think he was in court knowledge that he has to be proven and we are maintaining that there was no contradiction of the act and there were that you have a right as a prejudice from the violation of the attorney client privilege that there was insufficient evidence and the element of knowledge here right well he wasn't living with his grandmother anymore cording to the evidence and that's the address that he reported to as he is correct in all of and all of those inferences might have been proper if he had had the documents been properly introduced into evidence so that there would have been some showing beyond reasonable doubt that t had not left the address the court and he would have received that no and he certainly wasn't going around in circles for the record he certainly wasn't after the address wasn't where he should have bet that's it that's it appropriate inferences that well it's an appropriate inference probably if you assume that those exhibits were properly introduced into mr holloway knowingly to believe he might be in the purview might still what about that part that's that's a little that's a little different than he was in the parking lot i'm sorry and he's even commenting on why he's not there it's not and that the defendant's what we know to be his grandmother from the testimony gave investigator hall of phone number that she would use to get in touch with