are right this is the first good so i am happy to answer those questions my assessment here if you just referred to exhibit number she can put it up on the monitors and we can discuss them while you buy the most what are you ok the only question that this court needs resolve in this case is whether the government sufficiently proved that an individual familiar with the area intimately familiar with the area knew or should have known they were in a school  because on health for him that's more hey it was so familiar with this area he felt confident he could escape from a shoot out in broad daylight quickly enough to avoid detection so familiar he had in fact discovered a nearly perfect escape route so familiar that he could then be trusted under intense pressure time pressure to locate a below ground tunnel shielded from view and run into it without hesitation it was a couple  know there's no evidence that there he was in front there's no evidence that he was behind anyone either well how could the jury then conclude he was in front of the jury could reasonably conclude that there was a risk that not all of them would make it out that some of them would be caught first that no person first one out the first one firing you don't know who might be high or slow and so in order to maximize his chances of escape it was reasonable for the jury to assume that he knew exactly where he was going that he wasn't depending on someone where the tunnel was and in order to be sure that that was the best escape route it's reasonable to conclude that he carefully studied all of the surrounding area for other possible escape routes as well the way the district court put it is that the evidence at trial basketball court and this is the school this is the old courthouse he was asked during his testimony to circle the old courthouse and then this is the remainder of the tunnel that runs up to dr paul out housing project  circumstantial evidence or not i thought it was excuse me i have the circumstantial evidence that the whole operation was carefully planned which then allowed the jury to draw the inference that the area had been carefully studied for the best he was part of that yes your honor because he was willing to participate in this highly dangerous highly illegal shoot out in broad daylight so he as an individual had to be confident that he knew where he was going and that that escape route was the best honor the jury was entitled to believe that no rational person would show up having just charged that there's a good escape route but not knowing that it was the best one and not knowing how they were going to get there just might you know there's a group of people who live right near that area right there how to get out of their housing project hardin's ok but i had thought the district were also was of the view that it mattered that those people lived in the rough neighborhood lived in the neighborhood would have been involved in the planning to get out of her teens there and no and when i don't quite follow is even if that's true so there's no involvement with the area and activities that a reasonable jury could have inferred require familiarity with the area intimate familiarity with the area above that we don't have people who demonstrated that same familiarity because of their actions who also live there so the government's position is that if you draw the line of what sufficient evidence of knowledge it should include both of those it should include fernandez for hay as well as his compatriots  so it's a set of factors related to his actions on that day so the activity itself had significant circumstantial evidence of careful cord nation the fact that they were all wearing dark colors the fact that they were all carrying black guns that could be camouflage the fact they all showed up your honor at the same place at the same time to fire according made it hill of bullets from two separate positions and you know including the fact that they had to bring someone in fr fernandez jorge's there is evidence of what group of them did that imply careful ordination and we believe that it is reasonable for the jury to have inferred that he would not have participated in this i too believe that risk both life and freedom if he personally was not entirely confident of exactly what that best escape route was just my view what is the relationship between that and i one and his knowledge of there being pull out which case they would have passed the front of the school or been on school grounds that the government's position basically is that in order to be sure that they had located the best possible escape route they had to consider all the escape routes which meant familiarity with everything in the during the shooting was excluded and therefore three i can assure you doesn't leave it's common sense at home so they could rationally have concluded that there are children present during the school day and that at some point during the  actually on the day but it certainly during the planning phases that the defendants including fernandez jorge should have become aware that there were children at that school additionally the secretary of the school testified that there the  population attending that school was drawn largely from hardiness and from paula so people traveling between paul and heartiness on a regular fashion would likely become aware that there were school children going to and passing cars on the highway and from the fact that they chose not to go out the entrance of heart yes we can imagine they maybe didn't want to be viewed by many people but in any case this would not be the typical way back and forth and you know think that the average person entering a church is chicken would know anything about the hidden alley behind the restaurant but if you had some wine in the hidden alley behind the restaurant obviously knew that it was there that would be good reason to think that they knew the church's chicken was there your honor it is correct that there are no signs or markings however and the jury saw the photos of what was visible from the tunnel and it is possible that they would have been entitled to believe that someone seeing that basketball court should have known  actually jumping the fence that goes to your question regarding the order in which they don't the evidence states that the policeman who sold this soul some people jumping the fence but they never were able to identify these particular cannot see that from the rear which is where the where the ditch or tonal area actually is ok but going back to your question what happened was that doc according to testimony is nothing the crossed over the familiarity with the area and they knew that on the other side of this stream we tall cement wall why is there a steep roof and also we can see that if you from here of the basketball court is mostly the roof and a little bit of underneath that you can see there in the other photo so it is the same wall and evidence at trial established that the other thing i want to point out is that while we don't have any evidence anywhere in the record that the tunnel was well known by any means what we do have is evidence that some are not from the area would have a lot of difficulty locating that tunnel because it wasn't obvious and that was officer had all came in to do measurements was not from the area and he got lost trying to locate that tunnel so