where we believe that we have proven the standard that there are disputed issues of material fact that this claim should have went to try to trial the jury first on the issue of mr television decision mr harrington also writes the same observation that there is no suggestion that the evidence was was fabricated and your reporting the point that you're making that there was cygnus to say pierre turning off the tape recorder and asking an important witness that's not what i'm looking for now first why would you turn off a tape recorder that would be a question if a witness was going the wrong way you would want that on the record which turned off is an inference that that was to say pierre was attempting to get not just bad or truthful yet do not have a smoking gun as i said in my briefing i don't have mr harrington writing to mr st pierre just i don't care what you do get rid of cars but i think if you look at how the interest is was conducted by mr s because you asked what evidence is there that harrington was complicit in the destruction of the tapes the answer that question is none none in this record that mr harrington urged that this takes be destroyed that he knew at the st peter was going to destroy those tapes there's nothing in this record to suggest that you know harrington was complicit in the destruction of the interview tapes second there was some  question in true about officer corps a unit waiting certain of his interviews which is again mr geno's indicated to about a year after the investigation of mr thomas again nothing if there is evidence that harrington and st peter knew each other so what and the answers to that is so what they had known each other for twenty five or thirty years i think it actually helps and then mr harrington went to someone he knew a former chief of police someone experienced in conducting internal affairs investigations and then finally the notion that mr harrington controlled this investigation of either less korans or mr thomas that that's just apocryphal i mean i'm not going to repeat everything that's in our purpose and to go back to the starters i'm sorry think your opponent makes the point thomas i think the answer to that your honor is simply the length of the investigation when you look at the vast majority of the e mail exchanges between parents and st pierre there along the lines of you know i hope to wrap this up in a few more months i know it's taken a fair amount of time it's basically updates on the status of the investigation i don't recall any e mail exchange along the lines of neil harrington saying to the bob state beer hey there's these three other people you really should interview them because they have a lot of dirt on mr thomas there is no discovery in this case was apple if not extraordinary there were ten or twelve depositions taking mr g you know listen i really i think did all we could to narrow the record presented to judge dean and then to this court in the vast such an inference could be drawn from some of the testimony and asking some investigator to dig deep i would say i'm not aware of any claims that suit would support certainly a medical claim against harrington on that basis and it strikes me as rather odd that when you hear things like a faulty investigation or an investigation that was rushed to her that wouldn't be actionable under the massachusetts tort claims act which allows claims of negligence at least against the employer yet somehow it's sufficient just to establish a civil rights claim or intentional wrongdoing is required that just strikes me is that the legislature the  decision but when one looks at it as the totality of the circumstances i think that's probably an apt praise here of how on it involved neil harrington was in the actual investigation investigation was taken down by mary butler mr harrington didn't do anything differently with respect to mr thomas than he did with respect to those other two investigate he hired someone from outside the town of solsbury outside the police department it was an allegation never substantiated that the investigations themselves required the approval of the board of select respectively st pierre and lieutenant butler conduct their investigations as they deemed the culprit to she said retired so no disciplinary actions were taken mr and the current she says this is a policy of ma in there id implemented when i was in chief in connecticut even came to salzburg that i will allow people to practice law but mr thomas provided they sign a conflict of interest waiver and don't take certain types of cases like criminal law cases that might involve the town of salisbury that's what the record shows are on i see my my time is almost