critical for an appellate court we've been told to walk a fine line on the one hand there has to be deference to the trial of facts reasonable resolutions and reasonable inferences about whether the evidence comes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt but just as fundamentally courts have been told by the u s supreme court and by the illinois supreme court by this court then app that those doubts can be dismissed as far fetched around reasonable if your client is not guilty why did well your honor my client confessed under circumstances assuming again as we have to defer to the state's evidence about the confession for the same reason that hundreds and hundreds are a very into the reason that hundreds and hundreds of people across this country have been shown to have confessed only to have d emerge that shows that it was a false confession what we understand through the gift of d n a is that when there's evidence that someone confessed there are two tasks that the jury or trial  must assess number one did in fact the person confess you have police officers here who says he did it that's a credibility determination that i am not asking this court to second guess nor could i then had taken away from him a month before the confession when he was put into custody why do people with mental illness do things that are indicative of mental illness i can't fully explain mental illness is way more than thing is that the police did not know that if you look at the statements that mr a very good each and every time each and every time that he goes beyond that which the police already knew he is proven wrong or in some corroborate so for example when he says that i walked through town that whole day and went home based i bought some cocaine from someone who never corroborated i no evidence whatsoever that he wrote about the killings in his bible as part of the confession absolutely not being moved in the bible there's nothing written he has attached to one design memory this grandmother his grandmother's  g in memory of his twin brother he never had a twin brother all of the things that he said the police don't already know are either completely wrong and proven such or they go on cooperating so we don't believe that that's exactly would be again shows it's true for sure that mr merrick comes in with a story about having been at a party at the wrong house in which somebody without doing suspicious way and coming in  again is a second mentally ill person comes out with this story to begin with and as we've seen in several of the wrongful conviction cases we saw this clearly in the run to cruise case with a fellow with a history of mental all the experts including the state's expert said they saw no evidence whatsoever of contamination putting people in the way state crime lab they duplicate in the testing the excluded vera and there's a reason for that this time different locales and there are trillions of different of different possibilities so based on that here's what we now know and this is not debated we know now who won then at the time of the original  elements of a sexual assault would be there with or without facts so i don't think that's a fall in the felony murder argument that i can't i can't make the argument in good faith but what i can say is there is is indicative of the fact that she was sexually active eleven year old even if you believe that you believe that's invisible you were left with rose conjecture about the idea that she was having sex evidence again police say he told them that were in those news people articles but more than that iran or there are in news there were very persuasive facts that were not no one ever  don't know that there was a culture right in front of the door and that the television was not as most people put the television across from the college or was it the end of the college he knew that there was a rocking chair to the right of the couch he knew that there was a told the last two officers so let's go over those things this is a little unusual procedure isn't it and specially to say to to keep throwing in different officers in our officer i can't remember all of their names because in fact there w in the house and this is what happened and when the police don't accept that which is good investigation procedure of course we know things are not true he changes again and he changes again and it's important to remember also that is not the duration but the experts said that it's very unlikely he'll never see anything like it the other experts completely refuted it let's assume the jury acquitting be the expert who said it was remotely possible but don't like contamination theory which is critical because what it says is the first trial the jury came in did this court it's playing in its opinion that because there was actually evidence of possible contamination o of contamination and the first trial but that was completely blown out of the water with the subsequent d n a testing so we get them into the idea do you do when you have a compelling d n a exclusion  can only be saved by evidence or less speculation and well it's always humanly possible even though we have no evidence but again at the prosecution's adds there is a confession what do you do cases and back to doesn't question this that when mental illness is involved there is a right to have an expert explain how that's going to manifest the court said that in first appeal relying on the fact that the jury heard back so the on and down the line but going back for a moment to the reasonable doubt you want to throw four numbers ignores fifty two or twenty five fifteen and thirty fifty four is the number of facts in the statement then mr a very good of the statements twenty five of those fifty four of the ones that actually end up being true fifteen of them end up being demonstrably false thirteen of them end up being such that one rather and there's no question that particularly around some of the layout of the house some of those many of those are accurate not all of them but some of the key issues for example the description of the sta fashion by the forensic evidence to the contrary the forensic evidence issues also strangled to please be absent completely absent from the statement the police did they when they didn't might get the answer they translate the correction they shooting didn't see a pizza on the couch they asked him when we look at his description of the do or the good mom he stands in the statement i just ran out of the house i didn't do anything they didn't come back and all of a sudden he happened but you have to look at the circumstances of it even it's absolutely astonishing that every person in the jail every medical professional said mr rivera was psychotic like this picture of a dead eleven year old girl can blind juries and that's why you see it in so review this isn't a fool's exercise this is a meaningful assessment of the evidence