expertise and the identification of tool marks can enable an expert by microscopic examination to identify particular tool marks as having been made by a particular tool that's not called for has followed up on that problem and had resolved the question posed by that because in fact there was no indication that the government had thought up on that finding and d government the da calling to ask about his observations on the videotape although i mentioned it in passing when he was on the stand to make sure it was acknowledged to the court and to the jury and to the defense lawyer the reason was the trough the jones had no expertise that no qualifications quite frankly he was just giving suspicions on an audiotape that was amateurish best for children recognized that when he saw this he a tape of the evident truth hearing and on page four twenty five examined mr jones i asked two questions first of all he's never testified regarding two marks on a door as an expert he's never testified as an arson expert or fire cost expert even the defendant's own expert that he called  your crime are those but i don't even think that there was even evidence to refine mark's part of the proof talk about the door which never really became a fact a trial you have to understand th well this issue and the reason why didn't come of the trial is because defense attorney mr frank with his experience recognizes a red herring and he testified it wouldn't help the defense case go ahead and put on the stand incredible testimony then comes the fact that he was told that mr fox reportedly had a key to enter the restaurant and then a statement under oath that he gives in july is first interviewed in february all of a sudden he doesn't have any of these he notes of issues interviewed and in my cross examination of the officer steyn couldn't of prior marks that you thought were fresh and by the way on page four twenty he even admits he couldn't say whether the mark was made that night or the night before or within twenty four hours  police officers or private investigators working for them but this was a red herring this was not something that was going to be convincing to the jury and as mr trent pointed out how many times do you want to hear a box  your correctly set as i may have blown it about the audiotape he remembers he looked at it he remembers thinking about it any members that there was no way he would have used it if he thought he could have helped impeach woks he made a decision he said t key that was given to me and i got rid of a key after the the officers the same officer by the way who says fine here let me go when i was caught with my back up against the wall as i was leaving the scene of the arson at the same time through a course the propane far from the deadbolt so the question of the left is in a judge holding points out the deadbolt even mr jones admits at the time was a lot from the inside which is how he's trying to suggest someone went through this door that has a crash bar no door knob had to pry open the dead bolt and then re lock it afterwards and if you look at the photograph which is part of my accepted record that's simply not credible which could factor initial point here was mr tranq unreasonable in his tactical decision not to use this windows there's all sorts of ways to get into this place had something like six or seven doors all of which by the way you're photographed so it was a credible explanation for why you would go through that door and that's the question gets back then was mr frank unreasonable in deciding tactically not to try to use this to impeach mr fox we say that a decision a trial was reasonable not to and it goes a step further jones's opinion was inadmissible hearsay on the a there's there's access for a person outside that door with a screwdriver for having his chance take its chance of getting that crash bar to open not so it's actually a perfectly reasonable door for a well then there's a serious problem for his story if it can be shown that he's not telling the truth about having used a key that in fact he had to break into the restaurant correct and at least not able to tell the story correctly about something as basic about whether or not i got in using it here and this is certainly something that was not actually mentioned by him but repeated over and over i use the gave me if that's not right then and the government's theory of an inside job has a fatal di