furthermore that mr my scene was the night a fair and impartial tr the facts in this case are quite specific and i understand that you are well versed in the facts let's pacifically to jump to january battery and the victims involved specifically were judith burke who was the defendant's wife and aaron burke which was the defendant's steps that that was just facts that actually led to his him being killed now one of the things that i'd like to start right off the bat in is to say that in this case the at one point as i said through the facts of the case you have the victims not witnesses but the victims and it's very early keep in mind that we're talking about victims of victims in this case went to the prosecutor and said at least i want to say weeks before the actual trial date which would have been on august eighteenth of twenty one so weeks before so i suspect that august fifteenth of twenty t we have affidavits sworn here that we'd like to give to you to explain to you that there was an accuracies in the statement which was a written statement and a video statement that we gave right and of course the  defendant that's charged with this crime is not guilty of this crime and we're asking for your help and the prosecutor sickly i guess if you go takes it into his individual who hypothetically speaking if he is a is a victim that says i was shot and then this victim goes through a enforcement officials but that's who took shots at me and the defendant ends up being convicted anyway because of the surrounding evidence and or there certain arguments that we would make to say rather than allowing those statements that came in such as the written statement in the video statement did jury in this situation you have the difference between how many prejudicial and inflammatory pieces of evidence that come into the rocker and f be is to say that maybe the trial put could properly have explained in a way the evidence in i guess if you would specifically in this situation to explain to them that the process which is you have  comes they came in to work were possibly have enough reasonable power within the past the morning itself that he had heard the say wait a minute i have the actual victims coming to or testify that we're not saying that we didn't say that prior written in videotaped statement or saying that it was inaccurate as to what we said before under the stress of the police investigation that was occurring which was brief course but  more importantly that they were under this stress that at the time they gave statements and then later on if the video statement were the students are appropriate for you that is what our argument would be that maybe in this situation if we would've had the written in video tape statements come into evidence the jury could have actually just listened to the lie passed through any of the victims it could be a reason why but i submit to you this what's interesting about that that you just brought up is that when i told you that the prosecutor went into the if you would with the victims and they brought in their affidavits and stated to the prosecutor this did not happen the way we we specifically said the way things happened we were here to correct the record if you would an at that point on come on let's go because they're running late and basically there's between that being that shot of verses moving along and with that said i guess at that point whatever was said to the jury in the help her along if you would as they left to go to work and my you again was the very point you brought october which is there was no there was no pictures of any damage any harm nothing there was actually nothing to the officers were there right at the scene spur wasn't heard no ambulance was called nothing from the source so he basically was to victims who describe the story the way they did and then later wanted to specifically make the record straight with the prosecutor and here as for the credibility the jury is obviously in the best spot to judge the credibility of the witnesses but there are a few things that are in the record that indicate the trial testimony was not credible  because it didn't come up i mean that they did this did not come up with the record we had to ask for that separately so it didn't come from the defense i was part of the state's ev that again if in the record the videos were played for the jury but we were there for we're supposed to look at that right as part of our review is not part of our mandate about how they have to take care to preserve protect they have a space on a trial so that if they're using video of this or whatever they might be presenting to the jury it's capable of being considered by this court poet review with an issue arise or it isn't the defendant's burden to you know he this wasn't his this very recently multiple times about the incident definit also had two different stories about white youth stumbled out the door when he told police at the scene that he was actually reaching for keys as she was leaving and this why the trial testimony should be considered incredible these days at least in relation to the prior inconsistent statements also prior to statements were properly admitted section one fifteen vashon point one does not require inconsistency a direct contradiction can also include a base of answer silence or changes of vision although i would argue that this was a direct contradiction at least to the major allegations of the case it was directly opposite the trial they said that judyth was a show in the air and was not it shows whereas the prior inconsistent statements said the exact opposite rejected the argument that corroborating evidence must be presented when a conviction is predicated upon a prior statement there is one standard of review that applies to all the evidence and the first fix her sister case the person around the crime at the latest three days after i think was the last video statement whereas their statement was within hours of the ins so again there there is no special standard of review for or substantive evidence and finally the purpose of inconsistent statements didn't bolster the state's case section one fifteen bashan point one only deals with inconsistency with the trial testimony most recently in two thousand and eleven an area held all three times at the introduction of more than one statement that's inconsistent with the witnesses trial testimony is proper whether or not such statements are consistent with each other  ok it means it doesn't mean that is your implication is that somehow they proved our decision just means as they've explained for a reason was good and sufficient to themselves they've decided at this point in time  discussed the video footage that unfortunately we also did not get  the evidence being a written statement in the video statements being that they are inconsistent with the trial testimony that was given by the victim's house or both point out that it's not to say that it was inconsistent with the actual allegations at issue which deal with the domestic battery alleged to have occurred from the fa can actually come in versus how inconsistent and to what effect does it have to be said to be insistent that we're going to allow that and i guess at this point what w short is that to the nuts in the balls and the guts of the inconsistency in the current situation they were consistent in the fact that something specifically happened where where i believe the trial attorney if you would for the first piece of evidence which would have been first written statement basically said that he objected to it as not being consistent which was good but then later i believe stipulated to the fact that the video comes in i stipulate course and then thereafter you have arab herbs written statement and i think the video statement while was also allowed in as i i'm the stateside meetings stayed with the case and he got to hear that and that's the difference that we have here the difference is that we have the victims once again coming into court in testifying as to what happened in this situation with the fact that the