was there were two separate aggravated battery counts he had challenges count one which was the class acts i debated doing and then he does not challenge count two which the aggravated battery premised on causing only bodily harm but he does again challenge the aggravated domestic battery charge in count three now the issue presented for this jury is that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr belmont knowingly cause great bodily harm to l b great bodily harm or is it necessary elements of both of the convictions which he challenges today but these require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that mr belmont knowingly cause great bodily harm to l b and each one of these is important and the state relied on th lp and its arguments to the jury that great bodily harm was evidence in this case that was not inappropriate in terms of that was their choice their strategy that evidence that they had and could not narrow down the time of the injury lower than forty eight out of forty eight hour window and said it would the difficult to say whether this was one head injury or multiple head injuries and  complicated background about l b parentage and custody which i will set aside unless the court has last chance and is e p was interviewed twice by different parties and provided some testimony which the sta relied on as cooper causation and yet it was inconsistent contradictory equivocal and clearly did not support any injuries beyond those to the did once my dad did once out later that morphs into that his father had done so twice during that day and this is very inconsistent conflicting there's no explanation or support only on bodily harm what it does not support the other two convictions that require great bodily harm to help the cause by mr belmont himself again there's no no was in that because he wasn't feeling well and we know that some of this injury he presented to the doctor with some degree of injury to his face which would be classified essentially as a head injury  did testify at trial all of these wouldn't have been enough to explain all of these injuries so based on the questions asked by both the prosecution in the defense in this case there's no separation  mr belmont struck this child in any way at all except this possible spankings we have affirmative testimony from c b that would have been present through almost the entire period that he never saw anyone  present except when running over to her mother's house across the street has no trust or money that mr ballmer did anything to l b and says that she was responsible for the disciplining of the children that that would have been the period of time we kept it a guesstimate of what the injury what occurred we have no timing of any of the bruises and we know that the expert says things like well that looks like possibles thing which would be critical talking about the various head injuries that lucas had leading up to the time when he was taken to the hospital so there was the expert testified that dr shah opined a reasonable degree of medical certainty that although she can't pinpoint the exact time that the head trauma occurred that it had to have happened within forty eight hours leading up to when lucas was taken to the hospital so and she also testified that there was no incident were car accident anything like that that was explained that could have pointed to any other reason why i would guess was subjected to this beating other than it being a direct result of the child is when you're talking about that we're not talking about being in the motor boat you're talking about  yes your honor there was testimony about maybe being i tried to go on a little to a car i ran into a tree however the expert also testified that that would not result in the severe head injury that this was subjected to and actually the police officers when they went over to interview michael and casey they actually take took a look at the children's toys and saw that there there were minor scratches on these toys that would not be consistent with the type of injury that this was what  have led to this type of injury moreover lucas when on that whole entire night just fine after he fell trick or treating came home was fine and then there is actual testimony that we just did not leave the beaumont household for those  siblings zane and mckayla and his parents but there was also testimony that the defendant was the only person that was left alone with lucas during those periods of time and that was twice on the day so you can say his parents i am sorry with the biological grandfather is married to his daughter so that makes them step siblings and so they would be and the defendant would be i suppose by marriage to step in pull i apologize some credibility issues i'm sure and that was before the jury in the jury concluded that she was not a credible but she also gave testimony about her having some kind of brain injury yes perhaps he had memory issues and for that reason she did not like to leave the children home alone with the defendant however she chose to do so on the day that this incident tragically and so when you say memory issues i thought she said it was dangerous to leave  alone with him for fear that he might discipline them too much i believe that there was just money that led the jury believe that the defendant might have planted taken a step too far in disciplining zain before and so for those reasons she claims that he six at the time i believe your book this was three and he was in the process of being potty trained and there was evidence that that may or may not have led to the aggression that the defendant exerted upon him because he was angry at the child for terribly neglected by his own parents and then by screen parents and then ultimately that don't mind so i'm not entirely sure and i don't believe the record made any any of that any clearer but knowing his circumstances in his home i know i was bounced around and didn't it came out at trial or leading up to trial on the record that the reason why he started spending so much more time over at the belmont was not only so he could play with saying he was a little older than him but also because he was being trained and they didn't want to deal with it either so it was just a tragic situation where no one really wanted to take care of this child and unfortunately took it took a step too far and as the illinois supreme court has ten people versus jackson a criminal conviction should not be overturned unless the evidence presented was be true and if that was the case in the jury did believe him then he would have been convicted all over the jury's job and we trust juries every day and this jury was competent we know from the record that there was a jury selected so many hours went into making this jury buy a book the better it is in this case so many hours went into preparing for this trial that was heard before a very competent judge all of the inferences are in the state's favor in this case and absent any sort of reasonable doubt still remaining in your honour's minds this case should not be overturned the jury did its job here and we should trust that that is what exactly what they did i'd like to pick up on a point that your honor mentioned about the severity difference between these these charges that mr belmont was sentenced on the greatest charge to did not thirty years in prison we're not asking that th court release him we're asking that it uphold its judy not to rubber stamp a conviction by a jury and require that proof beyond a reasonable doubt beyond a reasonable doubt be m causation of great bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt in this case you have to speculate there is cause for concern there's a reason for suspicion probably there would be reason to remove the child from the home do further investigation but what there is not is beyond a reasonable doubt as the state mentions this was a child who was who was tossed around he himself preferred to be at the belmont's and there weren't  and there was no disturbance observed on the way back the pageant's testimony of the husband and wife grandparents their testimony about the timing of that day was inconsistent and contradictory beach either and certainly they would have been other potential suspects as we have casey and she was the one responsible for the primary care and neither she nor anyone else testified that they were concerned about him being dangerous or violent that mr bell might that there were concerns about violence or anything like that he was simply disabled and she was taking care of the more significant details of the care the discipline and wasn't leaving him without the resources care for the children running across the street is a different thing than saying you know why you're dangerous with our children which was not the case so again there's cause for concern here there's reason to be suspicious but those issues of suspicion and disbelief that casey don't make the state's evidence different than it is they don't make it more convincing or clear which is the standard we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of these issues the kinds ation knowing causation the great bodily harm and who are counts one in three we don't have that here and for those reasons we