it please the court counsel and here today seeking justice that mary received was denied even before this lawsuit was filed when the north chicago police department to engaged in and as a result the trial court power their use during the trial in your favor in my favor however since the trial court refused to permit me and destroyed and i was also given a choice but from the trial court between either not using the take or get the final one instruction and in my opinion i should've been allowed  to be able to bar the tapes and to get a five hundred one instruction that there should be a negative inference as a result of the non production of the tapes in addition despite being timely asked to preserve the originals and the chicago police department destroyed them without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to hear them while serving time stamps whether this conduct was will one that should have been properly left to the jury but the partial summary judgment took that away from the jury's consideration similar to the case that because i simply had a case the officer claiming to be assisting another officer who was in the hudson case actually in pursuit of a court found that it was a jury question whether the officers conduct was willful and also found they asked if it was appropriate for the court to consider whether the officer had shop plus assuming for the sake of argument that parents testimony is true that he was assisting at the time of the accident he i don't think that there  was no evidence that the driver was driving recklessly that the police officer was driving recklessly and so while it's true you can't use a violation of the rules as the only out what i like think that it's it's clear that we have at the very least met the requirements for the granting of a new trial i think there are failing presents to us the court should reinstate the jury's verdict now in the event the court chooses to uphold the summary judgment order then the only issue according to the other order was weather here and was responding to an emergency at the time  wellman well that's a very good question which i really can't answer exactly why he was in such a hurry however the hudson corps has said that the a case that is factually distinguishable you attempt to establish an exception to the conclusion that you reached previously and i don't have a problem with what the other said because what you just said about what course of conduct and to determine these situations on a case by case basis and that's the swiss patrick case and if you look at what the jury heard in this case they heard that officer  in north chicago and on this particular evening he was on duty and found himself a couple of last minute chicago why is that the jury was the evidence showed him this what the jury heard is that he found last location was of that fellow officer but to assume arm in a circle or try to get to where he thought they were going next and officer parents testified as well he didn't he was not  sufficiently with this particular area he was trying to cut through to where he thought his fellow officer greyer was going he never exceeded the speed limit the testimony to his before he entered into the intersection where this unfortunate accident that more chicago automatically kept these tapes dispatched if there is a situation or incident that they think might be of issue and they did that in this case they cannot be the tape but then we came to learn that when you copy it and you're not sitting directly at the terminal where the dispatch team plays there are no timestamps on that crappy and unfortunate for us because we certainly believe that had we had wish that we with hope that they would i think part of the problem here too is that we have disclosed the deputy chief for in our chicago who had this information and could explain exactly how the and not maybe realizing that that's not going to preserve the timestamp that's the part of the case we don't have a full understanding of and there was never a line of discovery on this issue the issue really didn't arise until the friday before the we would have been prejudiced had that had dead spoliation count been allowed and i believe that judge shipper ruled out very appropriately on that issue would you prefer to use well we did there were fortunes that didn't seem complete but the other point here is that the way dispatch comes in then whoever is on duty that night types the information into the system and our position was that only way i can answer that your honor is that the tape was produced to play into if we listen to the tape and the only thing on that a is the communication between dispatch and these officers involved in this particular scenario and and there were actual reports the written reports as well was printed out is what relates to this particular scenario now or does it mean that nothing else may have been going on at the exact same time and i can't answer exactly how that works but that is the conclusion we came to here because the take that we had only recorded this particular event events thank you which you don't really know because no one was sitting here when it was recorded is that your position that i the only person that was there was the dispatcher and the officers who were on we produce i don't recall i know that when it was barred it became a national because we had the records the written words that identified the sequence of events which was what was so important to us and let me just raise that if i can for a minute because the actual written reports clearly show that all of this started at seven twenty three and that mr appearance accident occurred on or about seven twenty eight so there was a floor and then it gets there and it's entirely consistent with the testimony and the evidence of in this case that the call came in for assistance from officer gray or office execution and enforcement was officer appear and doing so negligence was still before the jury they found that he was negligent but they also found that he was on route to assist a fellow officer and he was an execution in the fo whether it would have been prejudiced the question parent testifying he heard the call it seven twenty three but when he heard it he decided the other point that he was not going to go in assist school officer gray or because there were his lights and his sirens so peering testified about the student that he happened at seven twenty seven so three minutes and thirteen seconds after gregory first radioed first distance is the precise moment when the accident and what undermines officer appearance testimony the most is that first according to the king report well let me let me go back a moment parent testified that he never formed the intention to assist officer gray or until the vehicle taken without permission reached a was still in nor should call it off and he was found at fourteenth street and he was following the vehicle taken without permission around various streets and officer car most importantly they would have heard that the call was terminated before are the car reached able point shop here and take my two file had they heard the tape they might have because i had been misled to believe all the way up until april twenty nine twenty fourteen then can we hear the original tapes