and they stipulate to the findings of psychiatry's the record what show that the judge an independent be determined that that the defendant was fit rather than simply accepting the stipulation to the two saw the defendant in may have seen some conduct do we have that contact anywhere reflected in the record while we are in the record of the issues raised by defense counsel initially and there what defense coun the council's information was he had the mental age of a six or seven year old he could not live on his own and and he was working through a an organization for mentally disabled people so that is the initial concern and when right now when the case gets to judge ackerman who apparently takes this stipulation or whatever we're going to call it is there anything that during that period and then thirteen months later after the after the initial reporter and the fine and do with the do is actually in writing the file the stipulation on the pros order and judge ackerman signs the  mr cook was taking any medication or was that part of this document or don't we know what this document set but for the fact that it's in the record we do know we have a doctor in the record right  that judge to look at it and give an indication that the judge did i think the case never given the ok i'm not up in the loop or this way i didn't that aspect of thompson did not jump out at me what i am familiar with though is issues but the reason for the court to ask questions would be whether or not the report for the court answers what might be wrong questions about fitness in the first place so if the court has their own core and is familiar with that i would say you know based on nothing there's no reason for the want to say i don't want to say bad faith but i mean it also looks like bad faith if we say a mustard and says on the record oh yeah i remember this report i definitely read it for us to presume that he did not or was not familiar with it but isn't isn't  very narrow distinction but i think it's one who makes all the difference in the world here but doesn't it wasn't the stipulation  the proposed order said the court finds the defendant patrick cook is fit to stand trial based upon the opinions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that dr timothy brown is outlined in the fitness evaluation dated september twenty second  this regard in his examination of the defendant's fitness so to say that we're already outside the bounds of those opinions i respectfully disagree with that i've pointed out that maybe this will help if this requires something more is it correct now but it it's out there we if we want to apply it twenty four hours i don't see that that's a huge stretch and but in essence it says you work to do more i didn't say we accept you are stupid elation we want to know what you are securely absolutely absolutely i mean the defendant and his attorney are power to accept the state's stipulation and as long as that stipulation was to you what dr brown would testify to and that's as expert testimony you're actually going to have an opinion on the ultimate a determination that there is it going to find out that needs to be examined remains with the case here we have an observation by judge gallagher we don't know what if anything joe jackson saw we don't know what if anything judge both so we're we're creating sort of a different situation than any of the cases that we've been talking about i would agree with all that and i think that beth that all all comes toward verse with her because all that show