both here this morning on the night of october th of two thousand and sixteen matthew left the residence of the family without the know of his parents he walked out nearby route fifty in marion county illinois and entered the roadway at the same time the defendant moral meyer was driving her vehicle east panel on route fifty traveling approximately sixty miles an hour she struck matthew lindsay and she struck him with the passenger side of her vehicle and as a result of the accident matthew lindsay died from his injuries other than being the deceased  that the st being as i stated before ms miers is the only living our witness to this accident there were a number of things that she testified about that i think should perhaps i should have but but that was not raised mister i'm sorry the minor was is as we have talked about is deceased at this point in time there were other witnesses two  applicable here she is biased and she's interested around the outcome of the case she may lead that she is being objective but i think that the court is allowed to question whether the jury would question whether not want to admit that she might have actually been speeding up seems like a minor thing but it goes to the point that i'm trying to raise which is she seemed to be trying to help herself and to indicate that maybe she wasn't actually speeding on that goes to the issue the expert and i don't think that issue has been that specific point as i think if he determines that there's a difference of between one hundred and seventy two point two seconds depending on how fast she was going at the time and also  pursuit percent based off a perception of when she should have seen him according to the beams that she was using that's the difference between the one dollar to two dollars if it was high beams i believe that was to point to a low beams will point seven was he was i suppose if he were opposed to some point in the future or given a trial or excuse to testify at trial i would expect fully that he would get into all of those and explain fully h calculated that beyond what's in his affidavit i don't think there was any question in the trial court didn't seem to question for the defendant's counsel that he is well qualified in the field to provide these types of opinion you're when i try to push back on that and explain the some of the things we've been discussing that i believe are beyond the company knowledge of the jury such as this perception time in the high low beam and what how far that would give case anybody could become an expert on anything but the internet in today's day and age so i think that is not the proper standard and i think that mr palliser's did distinguish himself as an expert it does provide  testimony that goes beyond and opinions i should say that go beyond the common knowledge of what a juror would have a great specter to know that those  offhand be exact number but but i think he testifies it provides opinions you know has for many years in this district and others in the state and that gives many depositions and testimony or trials  set out in his affidavit it's just how extensive that experience is and i think he's been recognized by an expert in many situations before something wrong and that again that's the she testified that it was just her emotional state that caused her to not do that but she would by our own admission did not go back to check with him in any point in time but the reason why i say that that goes to her the description of him is is the correct description from what the police report indicates with what he was wearing his visit with description and she says she sees this image of him going over the front of her and i was initially she indicated that and that's actually something she reported the police to at the time but in her deposition i was trying to find out what exactly she was saying and she said she didn't see his physical body she's seen his body essentially ascended having her spirit of him to have been in front of her and i think a reasonable jury could question you know is that credible is it true that she didn't actually see him like she claimed his physical body whenever she provides an accurate description of him and she says though that she never saw before the impact she never saw him after the impact she never want to see him period but yet she provides this accurate description of him through this image or vision that she sees going up in front of her now she may be a one hundred percent sincere that's what she believes happened but i do think that it calls into question whether a jury might find that credible or not under it is a genuine issue the true fact as to whether she in fact did see him beforehand and that's what she actually and she's just not remembering correctly st of all but i also think that it goes to credibility also is to believing that what she's saying actor that she did not in fact see him so i think it's a combination of the two but when i say credibility i mean again it's it is a question of it creates a genuine issue true fact because a jury might believe that she's either not remembering correctly based on what she's saying or he's intentionally trying to begin paying herself in a more positive light by changing things a little bit from what actually happened i will say this is a traumatic experience other medications afterwards she didn't believe those impacted her memory but there's and her medical records after around the end we don't have her medical records though but as i know that she was taking to the claim county hospital for  know i mean her she admitted in her testimony that her mind was a blur based off of what happened at the time of the emotional nature of realizing that she had essentially hit a little boy ultimately the bottom line of all these things are that we think there are a number of different issues of genuine issues of true fact in credibility questions that would have to be made to take everything she's saying especially when are reviewing she was not doing anything that was distracting she was not texting she wasn't talking on the phone she was not doing the things for the miss with the radio time she was a very her last was at the time she said her eyes were trained on the road going if there's any factors that the expert could use to plug into their formula for the good educated jury that would be one thing but in this case there is no factors that the expert could plug into his form there are no evidence here effects in the case that would be used to expand or explain the knowledge of the jury so i just i don't know how but it just can't be done here we just can't be done and there unfortunately you know the points that he raised in his brief in response i mean the augustine case is one i cited regard to this expert issue the reason i cited it was because it's a th district opinion it goes through great detail  the history of the you know when you can provide expert testimony when it comes into play and you know they cite a few cases that that even indicate when there's a back to this you know precisely addressed by eyewitness testimony it can be brought  provide information be on the ordinary knowledge of your becomes your for that reason for the other reasons i cited about the issues with the credibility of his mars testimony