and peered to strike and then it is that you see like a flash this was the shooter was very close proximity to the sea shows a flash go  knowledge of the shooting who witnessed the shooting testified that that recording accurately represents what they saw that's that's that's how it will be that's how the h stills taken from the videotapes were admitted under the silent witness theory and they were admitted substantively this is not demonstrative evidence could we say otherwise if you invest  evidence alone and so that is how it was accepted it was received as substantive evidence and yes the people have the burden to meet the foundational reclined and did so just as an order here i want to give you people's exhibit to this and a camera that was inside and it shows from the inside out of people's exhibit seven and eight are slowed down versions of one  that the video material must be shown to be reliable and accurate and in some cases like the composition c of the operator in this particular case would not be  no the overarching and dispositive issue is the state as a foundation must show that the video is reliable and accurate and some of the factors the court may consider are set out and that recording and in that case a justice she'll o'brian indicated that a sufficient foundation had been laboring motion picture when the witness testifies looking at is reliability and accuracy and what we have here is is the system d v r system that records on their own on an instrument that's similar to a computer hard drive it had seven cameras seven inputs it was kept in a watch closet to which only and ricky area had the key and on the night of the murder there were several officers that are right and that all these are all of these persons testified that what was shown on people's exhibit one and two and seventy eight is identical to what they viewed on the hard drive and on d eight millimeter cassettes and that it was that people's exhibit one two were downloaded on a portable recorder that night in the past and that these things were on altered and was asserted certified by the sure the national association of technical investigators and he explained that the the system was operating correctly and that it person's locale and subjects and objects that are shown on the video and they're there with the garrets andrea in madison they knew the defendant had known him for twenty years lived across the street from him then they've known him and from the child they knew with his gait and his appearance and his mannerisms and andrea and seen him earlier that night and then and saw how he was dressed and how   he testified that he had seen the videotape and i'm assuming he meant people's exhibit one because he said it in this approach he just replayed it all over a nd he he he testified that it was an accurate representation of what he saw that night did he did i give you that particular videotape in court no know videotape that all the other witnesses involved in the chain in custody in the production of that videotape testified was the sakhalin identical to the one that they viewed that night in the closet with the state proved against it is the burden of proof of this the state has to prove that what the police officers fired you was accurate and not modified to do beg the state has to establish that the system was working properly before the police officers