even deeper flaws and so our position here is that the state's evidence at the end of the day was not just troubling it was inadequate under jackson and the way we know that since you nick luis st degree murder the jury had to find two separate and forty nine which is that under jackson the court has to ask about the actual quantum or all of the proof necessary to prove a liability in a particular case and in this case what we've teed up for the court on direct review in state gave statements and then recanted them if each of them had testified at the trial and not recanted his or her statement with that evidence have been sufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt i don't think so you and i think what the court would have to do is take a look at the last statements each of them gave to the police and if you assume that those were given on the witness stand and those are the only statements given i mean take your statement for example his account of the events is statement of the police was that the whole thing started that night when he got a call or a midnight from luis and we know that that is just false because we have we have dead those phone records which show that he never received the credit crap aerated by what the other said alibi based on his girlfriend in the girlfriend doesn't support the alibi it's not the it's not an unmet transcript by any means and i can easily imagine how the jury might have ruled the other way but it was it's so far out of bounds to creditor they credited to discredit they must have discredited that we've met the jackson versus virginia stand i think so your honor if i could just give you two responses to that i mean i think one is if you look at pages rendered unreliable because of the many statements that the person giving that testimony is given in the past that those are often cases where a conviction should be vacated but that may be on trial brecht appeal those but again we're here on gapping hole at the evidence you don't have a gapping holes here of you you have credibility issues and it is judge wood indicated that yuri could have gone either way but it seems that you're just asking us ensure how rational trier could say oh we know from those statements that he intentionally aimed at her mondo and so if you think if you agree with me at least that far with those two statements then all you have is josefina who's given motive some jealousy between luis and armando you know which is a jury might say something like that led to the encounter what why aim it  armando where to post anybody else in the world well if you know offers a reason i think that's that's perfectly fine your honor in a case where the standard the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence i think you could absolutely ask is it more likely than not that he may have inferred a gun in armando but of course this is not the burden that the state had a trial in this case and when jackson says that the trial a fact had to reach a state of near certitude that we sententiously aimed only two bullets that hit armando there's no evidence in the record what if anything happened to the other three bullets i mean i would agree if you know one hundred shots were fired and one hundred all landed in the victim's body that's that's definitely a strong case  here you could easily say that if you just super the sick are you missing that luis recklessly tried to scare him onto an accidentally you know i mean that's there's nothing in the record that disproves that hypothetical and i think that explains why just assuming that luis was angry about a phone call from leave earlier is not sufficient to prove see entering this case and i see my time's almost inspired i could reserve the remainder for sure that would be fine m to start with illinois law it was not necessary for the seat to prove that this year intended to kill where it was only necessary that the jury find it he knew his actions created a strong probability of great bodily harm evidence that that cueto was hit twice and so just from that it's fair was to infer that she was aiming at where his direction and that certainly would have created a strong probability of that he would shoot where so the jury could infer that he was all in through on that threat and then just on the nd point is on the the reliability of the videotape statements generally  could certainly have rationally credited the statements that were given to police short time after the shooting for a number of reasons st that there are three statements and so that they corroborate each other and they agree on the fundamental facts even though i must concede there were inconsistency is none of those inconsistency for material to the elements of the crime was drunk at the time and they were standing sort of behind parked cars so they don't he only saw the car pass by quickly and presumably the side of the car three witnesses came to the station voluntarily there was no coercion no promises no threats the jury was entitled to believe that testimony and i think it's judge will point it out rogers  alibi just fell apart completely and the other two had no alibi at all so it was fair for the jury to credit those original statements over their trial testimony and be happy to answer any other are just one very brief point rebuttal my firm on the other side after referred to the court josephine a statement to the police that she pointed out where to encourage the courts to look at that video if it hasn't already because i think that's a great example of she doesn't answer and who established says you remember now did you say anything when you pointed him out to movies and i think that's a great example of the leading questions that gave rise to all of these statements in the police interrogations and i just lay out in our opening brief taken under advisement