little is that the state keeps trying to focus its argument on this idea that my client the stock worth i did a five herself in these photographs yawners i submit to you as a red herring it sitting on a rainbow is still her she's still there that's still her that she's identifying but that doesn't mean she ever actually sat on the green and that's that's the issue in this case the issue in this case is the foundation for these what they have called photographs but are what are actually screen shots of what is purported to have been a life feed the problem the problem with that is there was no one with personal knowledge in this case to testify regarding how that video system actually worked so the issue is that mr bright comes and testifies well this is a life you because i have a life you can it's all the same website so therefore everything must be a life the detective when it comes to testify let's talk to some grand ireland he said that they give the screenshots every five minutes the problem is we don't know if this was a lie feet or not because nobody with personal knowledge nobody from the company also chain of custody context where you have arguments that just we don't know who could have done maybe this if it was supposedly sitting in this locker forward before the next cry picked it up  issue that we don't know how the video worked we have no idea how that system worked and because we have no idea how that system works we don't know we don't know if it was a life did we don't know  between a cell phone and what we're talking about now if i have a cell phone and i took a video with my cell phone you can call me and put me on the stand and i can say yes that was my cell phone and i took a video and that's the video i took we don't have anybody here who can testify that there's nobody here who can testify to that we mr long they were living in kansas mr long had purportedly had the the video system that mr bryant testified mr bright was never met mr long testified well that's definitely lifea because that's what i have it's a life he didn't it's the same website  website somebody who made that camera who could testify the in this website only supports a life the video or this website can support these can support improve recorded video we don't know that we don't know that and that was the problem with the foundation in this case from the beginning i think that it's wrong the argument is and with respect to mr bryant's testimony my argument is not that it was wrong for him to testify about what he saw in the life i agree if he saw it on a life scene he could testify to it the problem is we don't know that it was a lie feel so how can he how could the state have ever in any circumstance claim the proper foundation for him to be able to testify to what you saw that maybe it was a life in you wasn't maybe it was some video to somebody made we don't which strongly supports the inference it was like because your point that we live in a new age of social media is exactly right because people have access to these things you can make videos on your your i pad your i phone that you can just creat cut paste stream people into a video and make your own video that's not life but you could make it look very life and you could stream that online and then how do i know that that's real how do i know that that's actually happening in the  technology there are lots of things we don't know but that's part of the problem here people have so much access to so many different types of technologies so easy to learn how to use but even though as the court says there's no screen that he's able to pick up on like his own home i don't think that's fair and that's why i got why isn't the person you don't know what kinds of streams this website supports this may not have been a life stream there's no there's it would be incredibly easy to upload something and say that it would be incredibly easy to apply it in prerecorded video that had been doctored or altered and put it on this website and say this is a live stream when it's actually not and without knowing whether or not that website would support that you can't foreclose the possibility that this was this was a altered video what if it worked or why feed was just recording just  him if it's if it's true recorded we have no idea that those events actually happened we have no idea that somebody is in an altered tamper with this video and create so it's the speculation of altering or tampering which is judge because we don't know where it came from we don't know where it's not a situation like this in order to address that speculation with choices speculation we have no hint of this record in every single mom and i i think maybe most often they're ok he says involving child pornography on somebody's computer and i didn't i i think the difference with child pornography charge is that at that point it doesn't matter we don't care because these are horrible pictures taken of children doing things that children should never be exposed to in life stream say as to say it was reported ok who are right there question the question is can a digital image be altered yes absolutely and the next question is is there any suggestion that this image or series of images have been altered well that's a question but when you have the three parties identified and you also have the same because i have that set up to watch my animals and i receive what i believe to be another life and i saw these things happen so i know people are or later discover who they are and their location and the time period and i'm able to accurately i'm evil to save those images represent what i see  i think you're talking about what we can prove at trial and that maybe i misunderstand your question my point here is that for the video for him to testify about what he saw on this video there has to be foundation for how the video works in the child pornography case we've already got the images we already know that the images come from wherever they come from and we're not sure but we're not trying to prove that what happened in those images actually happen because we don't care that  but that's not what we're talking about here because they're you're talking about actually possessing the photos we're not talking about that here care we're talking about what actually happened on december fifth did that actually happen or was this  viewing child pornography and masturbating and there was a sexual situation between ls and walk ok that's their witness talking about why i responded and told her then we go  is how do we know that mr mom's is a life and in fact in my client's testimony she even that i don't know how his i don't know how his his camera equipment works he does that i have no idea i can't tell you how it works because i don't know so altered counsel pointed out that my client in her testimony says that mr long illegally downloaded videos we don't know what kind of videos those were but his his equipment was at least set up to be able to download videos and we don't know if it was set up to alter those videos to spice videos to to recreate things that didn't happen that's a problem that's what matters if it's a life and i don't think there needs to be a suggestion of fact that this is a life that we're talking about that we we can all agree yeah i'm pretty sure ninety nine percent that's a life you don't we don't have a good prosecutor in this case what whose testimony would you try to  stated that you're no secure slick should be but i think it would be easy enough there are two people all over everywhere i have to do is contact one of them saying this is the video stream i have this is the website it comes from i'm not sure if you say what you mean when you say there are eighty people were you mean there is some person in springfield illinois who would be able to testify that this is a life that mr bryant saw perhaps you know with this type of camera i know that this was the type of function this was the algorithm i was looking at absolutely i think absolutely that's that's true well of course we