council it's well settled that the illinois legislature has the authority to prescribe rules of evidence and to alter rules of evidence evidence in this the illinois legislature has done so in section one fifteen that ten point one and it has made certain statements prior inconsistent statements admissible overrule or at least limit parker to its facts for the following reason why this evidence is admissible certainly the illinois legislature had the authority to make it when it gets there before the jury it is the jury's role to decide which time the witness was telling the truth that's an issue of credibility and it's also the but in this case there were two statements that were admitted that needed substantively both are met the criteria for admission under one fifteen  the people's exhibit one which was the statement that the victim signed met that criteria because the statement the prior inconsistent statement has to be made under oath at trial or hearing or other proceeding or mirroring to describe or explain in advance or condition of with which the witness had personal knowledge and the state and his crew to be written or signed by the one was proof to been signed by the witness it was admissible therefore under this statute and was the jury jury's role at that point in time to decide because they have this witness in front of a court that demands is the former statement now as far as people's exhibit two that was the the the victim's my state's she it was it describe events or was she had personal knowledge and it was proven to have been written by the victim she knowledge many of the statements on people's inconsistent with what she's testifying to a trial i don't remember making them but there's no there's the people proved that this is my space page the printout of it was written by  victim therefore it is admissible under one fifteen how did you prove it was written by her when she couldn't remember some most of the she did not she wrote and she acknowledged it was her my space page but the rest some other we think not to you know her descriptions of actual sexual activity she said i can't remember them but she didn't did not she made them she does and i can't remember now that is what if that is a basis for inconsistency a lot of times over witness will get out and be confronted with something a statement that is signed by them and they will say i don't recall she doesn't remember it what would you know what is being consistent with when she says she doesn't remember she's inconsistent with her other well it's inconsistent with statements that she made well ok let's let's look at what she what she remembered and what she didn't remember denying that she could have been the one who wrote them she's not saying someone else wrote them so in that sense you know the my space page the vast majority of the she's acknowledged only some things that she say i can't remember so it is a writing in its in its entirety which is acknowledged to have been written by the victors so in that sense it was probably it was proven that it was written by her she just would say i can't recall at writing she didn't did not she she just said i can recall it's a little different because the foundation that we're looking at now is did she write  her my space page and she acknowledged making most of the entries she just couldn't remember all of them so it's not we're not talking about having to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt here we're talking about a foundation and to prove that it is a right made by the victim so we have the two statements and they were proven are under the statute and admitted substantively besides that we have multiple witnesses that were with the victim me and with the defendant over the course of an afternoon  evening and into the night the victim herself testified that the defendant terk her in the car to buy by car along with some other children and that she drank the by other people  witnessed her being very drunk and then knew and she doesn't deny that she the defendant who is twenty twenty one or twenty two at this point in time she's twelve he reasonable inference from that circumstances that he