really a total lack of the evidence that there was any intimidation on behalf of the appellant i think that the state has conceded in their grief that we're talking about going for intent type of conversation that occurred supposedly although there's no evidence of that no phone records there's absolutely no evidence that from harbor station never occurred and it would be seeing a half particular position on the lack of phone records as opposed to any te himself had a reason to talk to carrick and that was because he didn't want to carry to prevent the further drug activities by not repaying mr coo sheryl and setting up a world would better be regulated would it be someone you know would we have a child and wait measurements or someone that works really scary i think compounding that problem is there's no evidence not a single person ever saw mr lamb return to the store had the specific intent to threaten so how do we as a court look at this evidence if i may respond because it think that's an excellent question if we look at it from the point of view of brian carrick simply look at a four pm that day this is magic man that shows up on the scene this is someone that he's apparently accountable with there's evidence in the record that brian carey apparently is arguing with the two of them he's described that relationship before he made his immunity deal with the state but they got along quite well he felt protective towards him and there was never a harsh word much less violent action towards him and s statute then you get into an inferno with intent situation where if you simply can ask someone to go talk to someone about money need to be in a golf game and has somebody to come and talk to someone about money you would have i think and i'm workab g about the money all right i don't think that you can infer from that talking to someone means that you're going to go over and hit them over shield them i just do not felony murder case in illinois if well let let's look at maybe something a little bit more specific and is the aspect of speech as being a part of six forty five and seven o'clock and this twenty three thousand square foot store he's on the north end of the store with five witnesses that's another problem i think with the case but there isn't anything at this scene that you can draw from instructed him to do that but again there is now we have events that the defendant is in the cooler at that time because he's eating a pizza with his coworkers in the break room which is another huge problem  again i would certainly be ever and so and i think anybody would never pick a person and i think anyone who has two people talking about a death who pushes them in the face in a cooler out of the public view would certainly feel intimidated spoken it's physical action to both well it's the words that have to be spoken or if you do do this i'm going to break your legs yes now we have both yes go ahead go ahead ted as a matter of law don't we have an intimidation statute that says one thing and we're talking about the the practical seem that maybe someone was frightened by someone else but were they intimidated and some manner of  evidence you look at the reasonable inferences in the surrounding circumstances there certainly we can see that there is intent there no some sort of speech today and yes i think so so would you think it's primarily a speech crime that there has to be some speech along with it in order for us to communication could be done it should read or it could be pulling your coat back to show your weapon right but there has to be some communication right where do we know what the communication was here wasn't working there the time there was something brian you know been dealing for a while with the family you know i mean we have to use their common sense here you have to look at the here's a big person by informing the same persons like mr lamb with immunity but why would the prosecution then bring out from this attorney who's listening and he actually was overhearing some of it some of these directly with d m and somebody correct but after he got immunity and that's when he told the story that we're talking about now that came out in the second trial it's rare to be here to remember w conversation between the lamb and mario that there would have to be a specific request to intimidate which there wasn't and then i agree with just suspense that at the same someone could display a gun you there was a pizza order there is a pizza receipt can share goes to pick the pizza of and returns to the break room and six forty and all of those who truly independent wait put themselves in the break room testifying that rob reiner told him when he got in his car how he spilled a mop bucket on his pants which had blood from the meat department in it and surrender it not wish to have blood on his and so the idea that just his physical presence of someone to be an instrument in timid nation maybe if you were a mob hit man you know with a movie out something where people would recognize you but i do not see how that could become the standard in illinois i'm going to leave it as we all know is never found intimidation as a predicate felony for felony murder nor has any other state in the country thank you if you think you counsel