evidence failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr giles was the person who committed the offense in this case so i would like to address that issue first and then i also hope to address the issue about the prosecutor's misrepresentation of the past because in light of the we opened her patio door on reach then eric entered her home and moved a bag to she knew she had on the dining room chair to the dining room table the primary evidence the state was a reason why he's lying history where he was there with it but there is other evidence that also presented a result as to why he may be lying too as to where he was because he at the time mom was having a he had a romantic relationship that a month earlier so that he was meeting up with paula find his son the so there is a reasonable inference i mean the his explanation for being in the area is actually somewhat corroborated by these other in that period of time the actual perpetrator could have been long gone he was it and i'm much further away this detail was in the area around nine practices not the middle of the night and there was was never proven to even be connected to the defense to the scene where it was the crimes committed and it certainly was not connected to mr giles and finally as we've been discussed with  let the dog out there was no dog here far as i'm any of his clothing or his shoes i'm assuming ok in the overall weakness of the evidence was highlighted by the fact that two judges supreme court rule forty one b was violated when the trial judge failed to question the jurors and to the serious principals and those were whether they understood and accepted the principles of the state has the burden of proof  officer which was instructed to take the defendant to the station that would be a point at which the defendant appeared to be the only suspect in the case at the time and that they were going to further proceed with arrest measures going on to further detention  attracts a third district case russell nash was recently delivered in november of two thousand and nine and the lack of reasoning plas it was only required if the defendant requested this their principals and in the case of glass fire the defendant requests ted i believe at least one of the questions there any reason you cannot be fair and impartial there were two jurors i believe one that writes that yes and i believe was kind of hesitated on the issue both of those excused the people submit that in the asking that question and i asked the carrying member what other questions were asked at this point in time that the goal of people also carry over into the reasonable doubt argument the fact that there was no physical evidence either includes an r x clue and the defendant as the offender the jury was able to make a reasonable inference from the fact that she was that there is no logical reason that he shouldn't say he was actually dropped off further away from where he would have been meeting a potential a more so the people  statements the defendant was making throughout and i believe it was thirty forty five minutes from the time he was first approached to the time they drove him to the station and he was constantly making statements most of which were the same throughout the however even without the error the jury was still free to make the end friends on their own base and may have been seduced to trial also the record because it appears that journals asked which meant if the police were investigating something that had been taking and closing argument and and that officer when two men responded back to giles i'm i told him i just wasn't really sure what was being investigated and in closing argument this prosecutor called this another piece of evidence this is another piece of evidence showing  so the prosecutor knew the child didn't just volunteer this information at the police station i'm dead the police were investigating something that was taken and he or she has never been told that the prosecutor at trial set off this fa