question is is there any evidence in this record from which it could be said see there's evidence of the conspiracy in sixty seven sixty nine different for groups are now well the the evidence years if there was supreme court's decision in the clerks and they're one of the things that struck me about that was they cited the burnside case which complained there was no permanence of meetings conferences shown here of any competitive fact so i don't that was not the evidence in this case there's a reference in greece you know and again i can see a few companies are could have found that any number of actions by her constitute torture so not every act the saranac cerner evidence is evidence to show it wasn't when students that they knew and did not tell to show that they had other companies were concerned more about their own skin than the scientific integrity i gree with that and i also say that's direct evidence that we're supreme court says you need an additional you know conduct to show that the parallel it isn't two companies going like this or the company is going like this when a bex and john's mental both know it don't tell it's not of incidents that they're not telling and in fact if you take what the majority said here in regard that they did it for the wrong reason exhibits during the period sixty seven sixty nine are probably the same as in regard to some seventy two is new but that's from the seventies same as in the dharma but the significance of some of the bits differs estban axis during that period sixty seven sixty out actions of others why should they have been permitted to support bring out actions of others including the government this to what they said or didn't say well actually they did bring out both sides brought out the government didn't say what the court permitted to bring that up to rebut the notion that this was some sort of conspiracy and you objected to the court carried out the idea that what did you have to go through each entity including the government as to what they knew why they didn't tell if in fact why should we wait for the decision in this case is that we have won before that till we see what the supreme court has said and if they grant it frankly wait until they resolve this case is there any reason why this problem is they don't understand him the tortoise very to tell and certain after is just over at that shows some of the direct evidence that shows that it wasn't the incidence when the when the dharma court says that paragraph one twenty nine degree meant to suppress the tumors mice really doesn't match up with the conspiracy allegations are right it doesn't it's a conspiracy allegations and he didn't tell to those people though the agreement to suppress the tumour is mice just shows it was to hold out with the researcher tells tells us should hold out well first of all if you hold up the wrong reason i say that's or for the conspiracy if that's if you're holding it up because of trying to is regardless of save skin that's really what burgess found too thirty eight says is gardner says here's the outline to the company forty three of what i'm going to publish his outline his inner about the mice getting cancer hey jay that's exhibit a that's at six thirty eight six thirty nine once a cover letter on cancer research group as it will take two or three years ago please such a study i believe it would be better omitted from the present report now you can interpret that to mean the study that's going to take in two or three years should be omitted from the report because he was already years so it's best a jury question as to whether he means you will many the findings that he puts writing his outline or does he mean we're not going to wait two or three years we're going to come up with a president for throughout the exhibits in the forty's and during that period they talk evidence reflecting the parallel conduct that results from the conspiracy was not an accident but if you look at a book six fifty one in c i a transcript it's true that they didn't give him the fun and if you read the entirety of that and did it even though the medical director said he saw nothing nothing bad basically in the report he thought the attorney was concerned about legal repercussions repercussions from a legal point of view that's strong evidence that it's not an accident that's just the kind wrong reason in which case it's evidence and again it's back to cern ak i think cerner was good science but but even if it was bad science if they did it for the wrong reason that's evidence direct but to the arguments that david has were assessed that the significant amount because the jury took into consideration these defendants had conspired over the many years contributed all that away and yet they were still part of this group to contribute another part of the same group and we tried to get them out from mr passman the attorney slash president and actually when we broke for lunch i think mr simpson and i told thank you very much  civil conspiracy to exist and the argument that case i cite for several diggle propositions i've not realized one hundred thirty tributes to the mayor of chicago with spears he lit the city to benefit machine they got a judgment for two billion dollars he gets the mayor the supreme court