and looking at it if you take away the issues that make in the prior convictions the drug use to take that away and look at that testimony would you agree that the testimony is sufficient or insufficient for a jury and like most favorable to the state to have convicted your client i think you can view things in such a very few i think you have to look at who's saying what they're saying if we have a what they testified to and what the jury heard is contrary to the wasn't nature or human experience and so incredible and beyond the limits of human belief then the testimony to what is known as opinion with respect to smith she says that the defendant was that she saw the defendant wearing camouflage shorts that night with the volume and so forth she did hear metal falling over in the basement and in the basement there is a middle bookshelf in his fall over a year or so there are some things about your testimony that were corroborated right c apparently i either misread it or did something i don't have i didn't have a record and when i went back to look at my grief i was looking also at the stipulation as to where the start short term fun i  recognizing the jury heard these people speak it knew that none of them was the teacher of the year yet they convicted they found enough there to convict and willing defendant says that they were  you're allowed to extract then the jury is allowed to extrapolate from that if this is the defendant's blood the rest of it could very probably be the defendant's blood and yes there was a lot of blood but when we know that someone uses had killed mr jacobson while he was on the walk of salem june twenty second and this occurred between june twentieth and june twenty first so he was arrested almost immediately it's not like weeks past the patricia smith the other thing that i think really speaks speaks to me about this case is something that happened when i read the transcript when i was reading the transcript hasn't it had nothing to do with this case and i keep saying why am i record one hundred percent because we have the entire transcript of that other trial of the head home invasion that took place right along the same time or immediately prior to this incident in this case and fa this transcript in this case i was reading the transcripts what does this have to do with the price of fish why am i reading a transcript from something else that is not unlike this case yet when you get to prin from the state's attorney's office on this case i went to trial where i pleaded i can remember what my other cases i was sentenced before i ever came here and nobody offered me any consideration of those other sentences and he also said the sentencing for which he was going to get for forty with the federal government he said there was no remote whatsoever to the chinese office in that case for his testimony in this case now let's talk about  patricia smith the lady with the big history of all types of felonies and crimes an inability to remember i thought her testimony even when read as we see in the black and in the basement you heard horses therefore you heard there too and she said no when i heard voices i heard people calling my name they were calling what i was hearing my my my bipolar disorder homeless and nations and then spoke to me as being a very true statement and it's not that she just said oh you know i heard the victim calling out that she went on to say in the tunnel she distinguish the tone of voice that was being used ed was doing something irrational towards the victim and that he was like enough trying to set you off or stop him from doing it there was very credible testimony  particular incident he said repeatedly look it took place four years ago i'm trying to remember what the defendant told me he said that he hit the victim in the head and we know that  she said the review was done maybe she turned it off we don't know maybe she could hear on the radio just because the police and then there was another policeman who came in and the real wasn't on so look it was either on or wasn't on whether they could hear over the noise or couldn't is not relevant to whether patricia smith could hear it but she did say i heard them i heard that song and she repeated that and lonely hole in the basement you have  that she had changed her testimony and she says you keep asking me this question as if you're trying to prove that i'm a lie i'm not lying to you here she said this is what i saw and she also said a car to the  to the blinds which everybody has their own standards of how they believe things are our viewers in different ways and that was who stand in line is going to give it to me anyhow so i took it five of them a gotten something that we do however this history and yes all these people have all of the people the defense has helped none of this occurred or if you're going to look at their background their way then you can't convict every any but when you're talking about we don't have the teacher of the year i believe if you're going to look at the trauma of their own are you going to look at exactly what they said and how it hung together and taken off and then count the discrepancies and the lapses of memory and the jury was absolutely entitled to find this man because you're not allowed to give an instruction saying anything about the inherent credibility of somebody because they're a drug addict in the past or this is not up to the jury maybe with me to wear out now in this case when they're going after about patricia smith because she has bipolar disorder and she can't remember things the defendant had every opportunity to file a motion unlimited to come in a tampon credibility based on her mental capacity to get he did not do because of the tone of voice also she heard the middle shelf only now we don't know but we were able to extrapolate i mean we can't say we can pinpoint because nobody saw out but in less somebody glasses were off excuse me maybe for resident they can't sing this happened at that exact time nevertheless the blood spatter was there and it wasn't