followed in so that we cannot be assured that the wrongfully accused was in fact not guilty there are several instances several ways in which this she didn't is to look at their arms right well oh my contention would be the fact that she had to have them come closer makes a suggestiveness of the armbands even more relevant because she couldn't just look at them look at them and say  reliable just we do and if she so i think this person that she's identified as one of the persons involved at a reasonably close close perspective why easy it's so unusual that she would want them to step forward so that she could see what she might have seen on the street that day wanted to see their bodies there she wanted to see their faces which is what she claimed or in testimony that she saw if they were taking as it were leaving the work really a chair or whatever what was going on when he she looked at these people in there was nothing out of the ordinary according to her about these two people but now there is something out of the ordinary guy she now are you saying that we can't take into account or that the jury can't take into account that she has a memory and she can put two and two together and go oh we don't meet i'm not saying this you have to discount that someone has a memory i'm saying that you have to take into account new nature if you're walking by somebody in a parking lot and we have no reason to make an encounter with it look like there's nothing traumatic going on what happens after the event doesn't make the initial identification any more reliable that's what i'm you cannot introduce prior statements just because they are contradictory and i agree that they are inserted into the common law doctrine that's the case but i'm not that we would be introducing it soley because they're contradictory  and the question then becomes what is the distinction that supposedly makes this individual you know work and unless you can establish there it relates to the idea that this person could not have committed the crime or was the only one who could have committed the crime because everybody else had arm or wristbands and therefore they were all in jail at the time of the alleged events but i don't know th to testify that the defendant smiled at her that is part of the record that is something that caught our attention not just the garbage can that they were hearing between them but the defendant made a point and smiled at her and she smiled back so this they ma  you know he had been in custody for a while and had been question several times judge perry did allow and he mentioned this in his ruling he did allow the defense to bring up the fact that he had been interviewed a certain number of time of the interview said mr jones left the police department from the time he was picked up until the time he was charged has never really did in the record because it is over a two day period give or take judge it is it is not really in the record  doesn't i don't believe it appears in the motion in limine a i'm already thinking that so the first three interviews have been on the same evening and then the second one was the next day nineteen hours after the first three i think it would be fair to infer that he that the group is under represented our under represented and is not fear respect and the with respect to the number of people in the community and that group of people have been systematically excluded from the jury selection process and that is the defendant's bur while at the time the actual complaint as it were with made this was not a representative jury it is when the available jurors came into the court room and it appeared that there were no persons in dad group that were would be considered a racial peer to the defendant correct yes you're still in the know whether potential jurors came in and so that was the only time we heard the objection facts in the case about the composition of the you know population of the peach county versus this jury was anything ever represented to the court of the house you know the racial composition of the county  age well that everybody walked in and they appear to be  there nothing single african american in the whole you know and normally i would say that that's the end of the discussion but you could take judicial notice of the obvious and  anything in this record that specifically says you gauge county did not look at south voting records did not look at driver's licenses did not look at things that are otherwise commonly used to try to