well let me just ask one question before you identify your facts i do want of them but as he's going someplace maybe i thought it was inspired curry so i just was looking for a christmas present couple of different conversations and i believe that needs to vote for him since the car and again the police station where mr chamberlain indicates that he was going to coles to presents now if we look at some of the circumstantial evidence here and so we have the fact that he did not have any money on him when he went into the store supposedly if he wanted to buy a the credit card or over means with which to pay his own person at the time question however his wife appeared as a witness at trial and testified they had she had her debit card that her bank account was funded and that she was for a period and intending to pay for any purchases that her husband made well but there was also evidence was there not that there had been a conversation going on with her husband while he was in jail in which she appeared to prompt her as to what to say and she expressed or certainly some confusion if one reads them well conversation well if there's considerable dispute between the state and the defense regarding the construction of their conversation and it's discussed open the opening brief and in my reply  answer as well so there's quite a bit of discussion regarding yet conversation what is extruded least interesting about that jail conversation and we would assert that it is told me about the watchers so that there is certainly very use that statement provides a very strong indication that intent to steal wood's not formed until this woman's tome i mean her confusion is obvious but her confusion seems to be according to my listening to take her confusion seems to be in response to in what we were alone you know so i mean you have to listen to the power station and i think some inferences are possible but the inference that she was confused or denying that she had the money i don't think that there is a fair conclusion from their conversation so somewhere maybe in someone's mind even if his wife has the money because she just been paid that they are believe in the bank account was was ok and it was the day before christmas and they were getting gives is your wife  influences and when inferences are possible and there just are not enough basic there in this case regarding the entry into the premises that will not meet the reasonable doubt standard where the officer testified to the state that he couldn't remember the words that mr chamberlain uttered for the state will i mean this is we not prove there would need a reasonable doubt standard and there is really a paucity of proof in this case that bears and man's ray out in it is basically these two and in the meantime we found out afterwards he had taken other items so i think you argue that the fact that he maybe wasn't seeing immediately would mean that perhaps he didn't formulate the intent at the time he crossed the entry or didn't have the intent to steal when he entered the store but but there were other things that happened there will judge the victim the matter is that we don't know exactly how long he huge him on the video noticed him on the video in then followed him on you know the earliest video shot in and there were time so we know that there is at least a five minute period between the time that is approximately five minutes from the time the video st picked him up or the office to the store security and st noticed it and the case from the supreme court which is an example of a case where there was adequate proof of intent at injury and in their case they took back another county hand they disperse from a common vehicle and go loot and come back to the common vehicle and i go back to the county from whence they came with which would i think kind of imply that they intended to steal something when they came out here corrected and there are there when you ma husband or boyfriend and he leaves the store and for about five minutes she remains in the store without following him and leaving the do nothing together then when she leaves the store she sees that he's under arrest and she makes no remembering exactly the words that were used that was used by the defendant when he was you know three mirandized you know those are issues of credibility for the court that heard the evidence and the week that place and the court forth then probably go read a half page ruling on the court went through all of the facts that it relied on from the different fields on the state didn't rely on mention some of the fact about getting rid of or angry your own examples are they brought backpacks and that's where they put things or you know when they left the building she touched things in different places but car from they're not really connected to my client but i mean they have really i'm i cannot see what their relevance would be to the earlier point in time at the entry of the store and once again i would stress that that is just you know and that's from the language of the people versus just an opinion from the doesn't this fair that they left the store separately suggested the idea that she has the means to pay what he supposedly left without her tends to be