on august th two thousand and twelve megan boken was murdered in the central west and three blocks from where jane doe was robbed the night i was attempting to rob a bank in polk and take her cell phone he killed her with a small silver homicide detectives who was investigating them are going to make an ok and called detective boating climber and detectives were rudolph and said you need to come to the police station right now because there's a person here who knows information about the as if the person who rob someone knows the person rob she immediately reported fairly immediately reported the robbery to the st louis metropolitan police sergeant patrol officer two detectives an evidence tech appeared at the scene and investigated james jane doe described her robber  gone to retrieve the cell phone from the gas station where with it we had been told they retrieve the southbound the person who had bought the cell phone identify esther's as i want to own terms of the prosecution was was was mckay judge would not let in the alternative suspect theory and i believe that's one of the reasons that the criminal case was was reversed but perry testified at the criminal trial for mckay and she wasn't allowed to say the name of esther's her boyfriend but she was there testifying at the criminal trial so everybody knew everything perry was there the defense counsel at the criminal trial had videotape esther's and perry statements eight months before the trial they had the actual phone records from sprint that's another reason that the criminal case got reversed because the judge would not allow n the records of the from sprint of the actual telephone calls not some spreadsheet the actual calls because she said that there needed to be expert testimony on that well that was one of the reasons it was reversed but defense counsel had all of that information at least eight months before trial and like i said was involved at least as early as the point where they identified identified and then interviewed the alibi witnesses that mckay had given them which when they interviewed those alibi witnesses none of whom testified at the criminal trial by the way the one of the the night of the robbery she said that she knew mckay he'd been coming in our store for for a long time he hadn't been in months and she didn't she had work that night of the robbery and she didn't see him in the store and there was no video surveillance one way or the other so that was all part of this investigation that originally led to identification of mckay the the victim who had plenty of time to observe the person robbing her or if this wasn't a quick thing she observed him coming the car  opportunity to observe him and was just dead certain every time she identified mckay as her property and she never waver that she didn't know mckay she didn't know immediately you know she didn't know who that was but to the extent that that everyone seems to just assume that esther's also committed this robbery that's also never been establ attention and she'd been through so much and you can't prosecute without the witness so so to the extent that there's been an allegations of an unreasonable investigation it just doesn't meet the criteria of shock jock in the conscience the three things that do shocks the conscience disorders found are things like police attempting to threaten of course the defendant investigators purposefully ignoring evidence suggesting defend what happened then and what they knew then and that timeline as soon as voting hour and rudolph were assigned to the case they took the spreadsheet provided by jane doe to the extent there were calls that were left off of that spreadsheet that the specialist provided by joe investigating and running those numbers and whatever they do to see who's used the phone that led voting or to make a and at that point there was a photo line up the victim identifies mckay clearly mckay is then turns himself in and is interviewed at some point that interview ended there's there's a and in person line at a range mckay or i'm sorry doe again comes and identifies mackay as the person who robbed her and they went from there they'd they didn't have all of this evidence there's no evidence in the record that establishes that they knew that anybody else committed this crime they knew they had a crime they knew it led to the suspect they put him in a photo lineup victim identified them they put him in an impression that victim identifies them she's strong about that at some point when they learn a bastard they put him in a photo lineup victim comes in so isn't this kind of looks like him but here's why it's not you know the guy identified before there was no fabrication of evidence there was no you know suppressing any evidence there's simply no what heard of that no evidence of that in the record and the district court i found that in a very i thought thoughtful opinion some thirty six dollars pages where he went through each and every allegation and there's simply no evidence for that and was and we asked a quarter from that for four basic reasons or principal reasons number one in absence of evidence of any official policy of the city of st louis number two an absence of any evidence of a widespread or persistent custom  s the summary judgment on behalf of the police defendants the city cannot be held liable if there is no constitutional violation this case is a little bit unique as it relates to the municipal liability come relationship between the the governor this governmental entity to city of st louis and the actors that are named as defendants in that the majority of the activity of the actions of the police that are complained of by the plaintiff happened in the city of st louis controlled police department so sort of a wrinkle in this is that it was a not until september st of two thousand and thirteen did the city of st louis get control of the police department before that it was an entity of the state the state of missouri that i of the issues related to the ordinance and the transfer of control between the city and the police department and all that is say that the investigative activity that occurred before september st of two thousand and thirteen all of which was the investigation in this particular case custom by the municipality so the supreme court has told us that that policy has to be the moving force behind any constitutional violation and moving course means deliberate action so jumping into policy honour's there's just no evidence in the summary judgment record of any policy whatsoever of the city of st louis not one shred of evidence not one policy document nothing so absent any evidence on that issue we have of course that case of other examples of constitutional violations and this court found that that was insufficient to prove the type of widespread or persistent custom necessary to trigger menow liability in this case we don't have any evidence of any other activities or any other  any other evidence whatsoever of of people other than mr mckay allegedly being subjected to some sort of constitutional deprivation as a result of a custom this court has held of course in  and here the only evidence before the court on that issue is is the one is this one instance and that is the investigation of mr mckay and again there was no absence no evidence of any related to any training or supervision issues in this case nothing in the record whatsoever to you for the plaintiff to proceed on on a theory of failure to train or failure to supervise that of course would require some deliberate indifference on behalf of policymaking officials of the city and and for that reason we ask the court to a fund the district court's opinion granting summary judgment in favor of all the police defendants and if the court is so inclined then it follows that the city can't be liable under under any municipal liability theory if there was