before we begin i would just like to point out that these microphones for the attorneys do not recall amplify they only record so the people in the back of the room want to hear what you're saying we want to hear what you're saying so if you please speak up also  our apologies to the members of the press who are here you know you're not allowed price supreme court rule to bring cameras or courters use them in the courtroom and so for those of you who had them and had to leave them outside the door we believe that they'll be safe out there we know that you've done this before and she testified to expert opinion that julian had been killed thirty six to seventy two hours earlier seventy two hours course three days october twenty eighth three days earlier the mets october twenty fifth and this is significant because william was on october twenty fourth and again it's significant because the state state charges in this case that william balfour personally shot and killed all three victims he was not charged in an accountability theory it's not sufficient for the state to prove that he was somehow join king in particular right and he was charged with shooting and killing julian k so the state's evidence proves that he was in custody early think a better alibi then i'm in custody at the area in handcuffs when the victim was killed so i does that mean that you can't even consider just because she states an opinion that may prove to be wrong i mean i would suggest you should consider the medical examiner's opinion i don't want you to discount that at all notes the state's witness we agree with that in your says the jury considered it want to like it right of the body was recovered at seven thirty in the morning in october twenty seventh but the result a lot of processing involved the evidence technicians actually the body was discovered inside of an issue yesterday was loaded onto a flatbed truck driven blueprint they had their expert testified they tried to match it to mr belforest boot and it didn't match again i think it's a given you made no statements indicating that he killed julian so we should take that into account but don't believe the statements that he did make where he said he killed the other two well i want i will get to that a moment but certainly with first guesses and shoot it seems a little kids inconsistent you're asking us to be inconsistent i would ask you not to consider that at all in light of the circumstances under which the statement was made but certainly if you're inclined to consider it in light of the specific issue of whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he personally shot and killed julian king i think you have to answer that he did not well when he he was saying to his girlfriend cafe that he killed the the brother and the mom then he said julian was outside already never he never said his girlfriend's testimony was not that he said he killed julian that's correct and there's and you have to and it wasn't there in the twenty fourth he's not the one who put it there he's not the one who shot joining the states because no substantive response to my argument is perfectly respect the medical examiner's testimony that say it's consistent i'm no math major if i was really good at light of the fact that somebody else killed julian king this court should not hold that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed the other two victims somebody else simply hated in this case and again the state charge him specifically that he shot and killed all three victims that have to do that they could charge money and accountability theory it's not necessary under precedent to identify with the other people or if they did know who they were they could hedge their bets and said one for whom he's responsible shot and killed but they didn't do that it was their choice in this case they and then make a reference now when you probably thought somebody else was involved you know there's two cards in this case i thought the reference was in the first argument by the prosecutor because when this time so they got the first thing she said is on now they've got evidence to support bad but if you can take a face value and say somebody else was involved i mean i think it's pretty clear that even if you assume that mr bell force involved in some way somebody else must have been involved he certainly was trying to get some help he was i think the records really clear that he was trying to get help to fix the power steering and scar there's lots of evidence from a number of different sources were to get the car moved away from the saw side to the west side the evidence is that received around the  him fix his power steering and again this is bolster significantly through the record as a whole because this starts the day before when mr balfour gets a call from a gentleman named duke which car broke down on the southeast side he drives out as a samaritan helps do he wants to stop the morning talking about brown in the afternoon and that the record indicated that when he talked to brown and a couple conversations one while he put on hold and his wife then is talking to him saying that you know he was involved in the murders he's asking around for help to bring his car out to the west side that's of the red i respect your honor that's not my reading of the record i went back and we read mr brow contact him the night before said don't go into night i want to see you come to my house it's my birthday i'm not with richard i'm just with my girlfriends i'm with julian i want to see you tonight and he couldn't make it his car broke down but he got out there at seven thirty in the morning and again we have a witness one of the state's first witnesses testified that he met mr balfour in inglewood at seven thirty in the morning and that the very first thing he said was out can you help me fix my car the power steering is out of my car and the gentleman was with another friend who could help  at that time this right before he met juliet about eight o'clock on the same day ten o'clock there's evidence you want to do sousing and do shows it was my favorite this want to help you out the day before and help me out now and there's another witness who was present who testified to that conversation that he said you help me with my car my car is broken down the witness also testified that he drove his green chrysler there and he was moving it himself the first witness testified he drove with the inglewood at seven thirty in the morning the next witness testified he drove it to do supposed minute ten o'clock in the morning and then he drove away in his green chrysler and we have surveillance video showing the green place we're being parked at twelve thirty by ropes and high school who was we don't know who who is in the car move it but if you know this is a mid sized chrysler it's not a giant behemoths from like the nineteen seventies or something but mr balfour is not a big guys maybe my size or smaller be a hassle to drive a car or a power steering issues so you want to get it fixed desperately and there's multiple witnesses testified that he had this problem we also have a one of the two sickos vegas video shows that immediately after julio went to work with him went back to citgo and bought a bottle steering fluid why his people are case if there are more theory of motive as it makes no sense the timing of this is really suspicious i mean to put out a lot of evidence that there's kind of an open marriage relationship here they remain married they were seeing each other they were seeing other people they were size that's for sure it did prevent knevitt she was jealous of richard she was jealous of his girlfriends it was a back and forth mutual thing but the time news is very interesting because she had just called him the night before and said well it's my birthday i'm not with richard i'm with my girlfriend's i'm with my son i want to see you tonight she's inviting rules of the house he was celebrating somebody else's birthday at that time right yes kathy's daughter birthday was also i believe the twenty there's no question right he's playing the field but that's not a motive to murder three people in cold blood in particular with respect to the timing of the case she just invited him over you know they are going to the jury that he's stalking her that she didn't want him there she was just trying to rid of him that's completely undermined by her testimony jewish testimony testified very frankly and truthfully as to what happened that day what happened the previous day and the text messages themselves she's texting him he's texting her she's calling him they're making plans just a week before they went to a motel together so richard's pretty much other fish are at this point they're still married they're still in a relationship it's complicated it's unconventional it's true but you know i mean that everything's i really feel need to get into the dynamics of why a woman might remain with a person like this but he had several women that he was stringing along right that's true he did and he didn't really have a home in any particular place where he hung his hat seven days a week he'd go from place to place she would be it kathy's he'd his mom's house he did it's true it's all very true but it doesn't none of that creates an incentive for him to kill three people in cold blood just it just simply doesn't make sense in the states bishop we work in the record to say she doesn't want him around he's morning for not loaded up the truck with a treadmill they're not taking things that are really identifiable like a check this is jennifer hudson in the upper corner they're taking with they came there to get the drugs and the money that's all gone and ideas about it how to how do we know that there were drugs  fraught why that was there i cross examination the defense team routinely said he had drugs there to bid yes you had money there too yes every day twelve hours a day cash business everything was done in cash a number of his associates said he would pay for everything cash his jerseys and all these are the things you couldn't guess from jennifer jennifer given nine hundred ninety four ship the jerseys the t v is the speakers all these things were paid with his own money and he was on disability you know buying all the stuff with a disability check he's doing it as his own friends testified because he's selling drugs out of the house well i recall an opening statement if it was by defense counsel going to be evidence then he wasn't just a dime bag seller of this drug he was in the wait right he's moving ways out of the house and that's certainly what defendant offered up in his statement with police he was rather willing to talk to police to let him know  ain't me this is somebody going after jason because he's juvenile weight yes and he said that's why he moved out of the house right yes you're a drug dealer moved out of a drug dealers house because he was a drug house while they were together you know they weren't dealing drugs williams custodial statement where he says if you watch that he's moving weight out of the house you know but where is where is the evidence of that's that's the evidence no no i'm explaining to you that that's the context of the opening statement now it's pretty str say it wasn't weight it was only dimebag for twelve hours a day every day i mean i mean you're talking about splitting hairs you represent somebody who was a drug dealer himself some of the same stuff and he himself say no but i'm not was selling a small amount of drugs on the side that's clear this is a new job all i was on a disability check with what his friends described on the record as a fairly lavish lifestyle well he was spending money on his friends you display an entourage of people i don't know if the state called  maybe seven or eight people were all testifying i'm jesus best friend i saw him every day i would do things for again he's overweight is disabled he can't do things for himself he's paying his people and drugs money to do things for him he's buying jerseys for himself he's throwing these barbecue very meters are right that's true because i mean i would submit this is a nine bedroom house in inglewood seen better days but the reason he's still there is because he's independent of jennifer he's a crime individual the community case that just met enemies then just because he was a drug dealer because he had drugs because he had money and he was shot twice before the evidence was he needed a handgun for protection his father said to his half brother whiny hey he's been shot you need to get him a god and then subsequent to that he got shot again five times in all the reason is disabled is because somebody broke into his house in michigan and shot him five times in the way that's his disability so clearly having been shot twice before involve him at all it's understandable i believe based on this record that the motive in this case was jason's drug dealing that certainly was what the defense tried to do a trial i mean yes it was very very well and vigorously defended that that's what happened here that this all had some to do with jason and nothing to do with william who's just you know the victim of circumstances here i guess you're right and i think the problem with the defense case is th statement after having his rights read on he tried to give them you know if you want to talk about this being a rush to judgment he's trying to help rush to a different judgment right he's trying to get him to say no this ain't about me they're protecting jennifer's name and and database it wasn't yours that it was an expired cd about us and he lied about the fact that he was at campus apartment all afternoon right now he didn't live out that well i mean he was in there from twelve to a one but from one until the time he was arrested at six o five it was that in context so again six or five wins arrested cathy's taken away as well she's not a suspect in this case but they want to question her they take or they trigger essentially the same as they treat him that locker and interview room she's left in a left there she doesn't know where they are taken to the area west area overnight the next day finally she says the statement that your honour's referencing about jason came at me the mother came downstairs the next day and then they immediately let her go and she did find her so do you think you know maybe he might decide if he's going to tell her what happened tell it in a way that's a little more palatable you know i mean it instead i mean the state proved that it was a grandmother shot in the back carrying a broom sleeping man killed and a seven year old kid two bullets in the back of the head in a car i believe he did maybe didn't want to give those kind of details i would say he's going to tell her and then he's going to tell her what he told everybody else this is bigger than me she told when she brought i believe on the phone trying to get back on the phone with brown he said that he was that was his wife on the other line and in sum and substance that he was being blamed and brown said well why would she blame you of all the people in the world and he said because i got terrify fifteen case it for forty five minutes six o five they break in the next one question remember julie's on the phone with him he calls her at the location she has on the phone the officer with her says just play it cool don't ask him any questions and she's conveniently going to say whatever she needs to say to keep herself out of trouble and certainly out of custody right she's locked in an interrogation room there were literally if they're not happy with her interest they make that clear that's in the record she testified three frankly at least on this point  hours and hours and hours and given different versions until they finally gave the version that satisfied the police we had a confession and we also had two other statements to witnesses incriminating statements were admitted at his trial but significantly we also had a there is d n a from an unidentified male subjects fingerprints on identified never explained by the state i am to try to explain it away they came up with a theory that frankly didn't make any sense that i believe the court said  by the physical evidence we know from the citgo surveillance video he didn't stay there he went to sit go we know from a medical examiner steps the mony sicko's like two blocks away that's true but he didn't as they say drop weight in the door we know he certainly there is no evidence alien apart from aside from the confession that tied rivera to the crime in effect it was a rape case and a murder case and they found the d n a in that yes the seats you know  parents that was somebody else's not his guess are you in that case they said there was no evidence alien are you saying that the same just true here i was in reverse there were as i mentioned earlier the two other statements i think the c of the defense here that it's the same situation and there's no evidence here alien that apart from the confession the statements that this defendant made that would tie him to the crime i mean event analysis testimony an everything else you know you can raise all these questions but here is somebody who he it mid to least two of them or so that had to have a tremendous impact on the jury so she lies at the trial absolutely continues it's like even though you know what happened to her and she setting up this guy who was her former boyfriend i mean you wouldn't win a billet the trial but by the way they investigated the case i think he was the he was clearly an official suspect he was the only suspect had any of his d n a hit somebody suspicious they were very thorough from two thousand agent two thousand and eleven they're putting it on him because they have nobody else and it brings you back to a point i made earlier which is a problem with a defense you have this horrible crime you have this one suspect and you don't have anybody else not a situation where the defense team can say he didn't do it that's the guy who did it blame him it's generally a dearth of evidence that everybody cleaned up this way to people and people are given cathy didn't talk right somebody knows what happened in this case so we know what's going on or this is the gang culture drug culture and they're not talking well there were people who  talking and according to the defense they were lying like that the neighbor of kathy's graham he made it up the police officer put the keys in inventory the keys he's framing the defendant so i mean there's other evidence out there you don't want to believe the witnesses and you didn't want to you want to persuade the jury that they were lying that mr graham he doesn't know what he's talking about he didn't see the defendant parking their car walking down the block with a bottle of liquor in his hand no he didn't see that he's making it up to help the police frame to find and i don't i think the markets back to the repair case where you have physical evidence and you have testimony and people make mistakes all the time no doubt but the physical evidence tells the truth and if you have a witness takes the stand and says the sun rises in the before but somehow you could positively identify him and also research the scouting that there's no physical evidence that william did this right that's remarkable you're right roger i mean you know we have this tremendous investigation yes going on months and now one piece of evidence and match him up well there was evidence that he was a possession of a gun as recently as a couple days before the murders yeah a number of people said that they i guess that comes down to the real issue that you're talking about here and sufficiency of evidence all of this evidence was in there from the for the jury to consider there was nothing that the defense wanted to explore in greater detail that it was deprived of by any ruling of the court so that as a court of review we have to look at that in the light that's most favorable to the state whether we have to and we have to say in order to overturn the verdict that is so on satisfactory or improbable as to  instill reasonable doubt that's the standard we're dealing with tell us how we get there the reasonable doubt standard is very difficult it's true but it's not this court or some cases i cite can act as a rubber stamp should discount ridiculous theories that the stork the evidence there sending notes counsel going back and forth i would say you know at the very least you have to refer some joy jevons to simply isn't there but you know even if you go fake out again i would suggest that what the president you have to take a look at this case you can't just perfect case there was evidence that you know you would think would be there that wasn't there but everything was considered and how are we to say that the state's theory is so improbable that this guy is just a ver victim of circumstance because the theory itself is undermined by its own evidence so the theory that he shot join in in the driveway in the morning of the twenty fourth we know that it happened that's the theory that's the irgun of the evidence and they're supported because there wasn't a bullet or shell casing or and because gunshot residue in the car of julian was shot in the car and we and we believe that that's probably true because the bullet yeah the other thing that bothered me was the defendant had access to this and we don't know whether he ever shot or not we don't know how the gunshot residue from share a significant issue with the keys the timeline and the state references as your honor pointed out detective card inventory the keys take of car was not even through up on october twenty fourth is no personally testified no personal knowledge of where these keys came from he comes back to the area and they have a box of all the drawer whatever everything's thrown in there and he gets the job of having to throw out the inventory sheet so he does on november twenty second and if in threes on there  match it up to the s u v but they say the square he doesn't do anything the rounds he fits in the doors that's in the ignition the car didn't turn over like i had a general motors car years ago was one of the as justice levin mentioned earlier and that's whether any trier of fact taking the light in the most taking the evidence in the light most favorable the prosecution could find the defendant guilty under these facts and under that standard this evidence is and numerous other people testified that that was jason's gun defendant was seen in possession of that gun numerous times the defendant admitted stealing that gun and then giving it back but then the gun disappears again after he stays over on that july thirty first and august first night so bad is the gun that kills darnell dunn donner's and jason hudson and defendant is tied to that gun so there's physical evidence now these are shootings these are shootings at more than close range firing you know nobody was shot at close range so within eighteen to twenty four inches as with most shootings there is no d n a evidence and we have all sorts of residual and everything else and nothing ties that to that car was a mess that car head and the defense talks about the fact there was days and days of negative evidence and the reason there were days and days of negative  no there was something that tied that was william graham or them game say look but but he looks through from the second floor he can see through the roof of the car but he sees him get out of the car he doesn't know that he never does he knows him enough to recognize me knows enough to know what kind of car he drives he can describe that carney later identifies that car he's seen the man before this isn't the first time you've seen the guy he describes him as wearing a light blue which is similar to a right put me on a great day the same he's he's wearing when he comes in that door at noon he describes him as carrying a bottle of alcohol which is what shonda says he was carrying when he comes in the bottle you know at noon so he's wearing the same clothes and again taken in the light most  prosecution the jury knew where his vantage point was the jury knew how well he knew him the jury knew all those things and yet taken in the light most favorable prosecution i think you have to say that william graham saw what he said he saw and therefore the defendant was tied to that car which was the car that the big time julian king was found in there's a whole bunch of irrelevant evidence in that car there's pop bottles and you know pepsi cans and three of them in that hard to use that health side of the car that graham looking through his second floor and seeing all this at the right moment and there's no reason that if there's no there's nothing that explains defend it from the car either this isn't like rivera where you have seen them in a young girl that excludes ribeiro as the defendant that's an exclusion there's no physical evidence here that excludes the defendant from doing this which to raise a lot of reasonable doubt if you if you have very little evidence and everything is circumstantial to the hilt and it's all  first first role he's the first logical suspect because you know as we point out he has a motive and again he said again again and i don't like them they don't like me i don't like the family i'm going to kill the family i mean he's not only had a motive he said he was going to do it he said numerous times that he was going to do it he had access to the gun and people saw him with the gun numerous times and he told kathy that he was out doing something this car right exactly and his car was actually back over on the south side his car was still was over near ropes in high school at that time and this whole thing about whether or not you know his car i certainly was able to take a long trip to the south far south side come back with the car he was driving the car that even after he leaves duke's house he's in the car nobody says the the only one is that with the night before and say there's anything with the car doesn't say there's anything wrong with the car and it's very clear that he lies about that car i mean he said when you say that what he referring well he says i parked the car when he's when he's arrested he says i parked the car at robeson high school and eight thirty in the morning then i took did well he didn't park the car at eight thirty we know that the car was parked at twelve thirty and it wasn't part by the defendant was parked by somebody else because the defendant was in the right car driving julian to the place where he dumped the car and left the body and then walked away and dumped the gun there's no reason in the world that his d n a would necessarily or fingerprints would necessarily be in the in the right car and that doesn't mean that he didn't do this crime  know he's the last person driving that car with julian on that day and then the car is found i mean that obviously in context of all the other evidence he's the killer now this thing about the medical examiners interesting because if you actually look at what the medical examiner says one of the things that she says she agreed that she was unable to forensically term the date and hour when the victim died now this is something that you see on t v shows all the time she stated the lack of rigor mortis and decomposition were consistent with a person who had been dead for more than thirty six and close closer to seventy two hours she didn't say seventy two hours boom it's over that you know games over jurors body was found on the morning of the twenty seventh and take to the refrigerated morgue the purpose of refrigerating bodies is to stop the composition that's why you refrigerate bodies so that period is still within the seventy two hour period when he gets to the mor from the twenty four so it does not exclude it and as i said she could not put an exact time of death in the seventy two hour thing it's not a hard and fast boom something happens at seventy two hours and after that you know where we're  t in terms of the d n a on the gun this was a literal level of d n a and it's wasn't like that you get thirteen low siren a thing like that jason hudson's was was not excluded so which makes sense it was his gun so that he would still have some some d n a and then there was a and it bishan all mixture profile that was never i definitely think you could there wasn't even enough to determine the gender on that one so we don't know who that that was but that certainly this isn't something the lack of d n a does not exclude the defendant none of this physical evidence excludes the defendant this is not like rivera whe there was an exclusion or potential exclusion so the fact that there's there's no d n a or fingerprints of the defendant in the car doesn't mean he was never in the area that the defense states the states to fingerprint experts testified that they examined negative every off you mean you can't i mean with there's no evidence so you can't you can't exclude it you can't and again the stuff that was tested in the car had no relation i mean what does this pepsi can have to do with pepsi bottle had to do with the murder ok with help of the state's t forensic biology experts testified that they examined scores of items which is quite a few connected to him including his ten leather jacket his boots in the entire interior of the green chrysler every one of these items tested negative for blood why would a person have blood on them if they shoot somebody at a distance this isn't the movies the blood doesn't shoot across the room or that there's no reason the world why he would have blood he didn't stab anybody he didn't rape anybody he didn't beat anybody up he shot them at a distance clothing at a distance of at least when when when a when a medical examiner testifies that there's no evidence that the person was shot within close range firing means there's no evidence they were shot closer than eighteen to twenty four inches that doesn't mean that the defender was within eighteen to twenty four and there's just no evidence that he was closer than that so he could have been and most likely was farther away from these people this isn't contact ones or anything like that there's no reason and the other thing is the things that were tested are things that he was no longer wearing when he was arrested and the things that he the police recovered this right put me and the black pants and the shoes that he's wearing they disappear they're gone brought on something it would have been on the things that he was wearing when he committed the murder right those things are have disappeared those things were never tested because he got rid of them he's not have any evidence that wells didn't think wait i think we do we go on or he goes back home he's wearing a certain set of things he leaves the house with it with a different set of boots certainly he's seen by shontelle and then he comes back and he's wearing something later in the day that he wasn't wearing and the things that he was wearing that several people talked about him wearing well a normal person innocent of a crime would say why but this guy says i didn't bring these all the way that is such an exceedingly bizarre something the statement for somebody was innocent a crime to say only a person who knows that they were wearing other clothes and they get gets them because they had something on them or may have had something on them and that something was most likely gunshot residue or the person who knows that would make that statement to the police in that context now that's don't was a lie whether or not you know the jury gets to decide whether to accept this inference or another inference and both sides were arguing inferences like crazy because it wasn't a perfect c s i case was no it's a circumstantial case and it but not completely circumstantial and we do have some direct evidence in the direct evidence as his statement to sean and again getting into that again taking the right most favorable prosecution we have to believe the facts what that she was telling the truth because the jury heard all the other explanations for why she might not be telling the truth and clearly didn't believe those and if you're going to take it in like it was terrible prosecution that means to the police take a picture if they did they take kathy took her it seems like the police may have put up too much pressure as well how can she change her story well because she was telling a lie to begin with and she was telling the lie that the defendant told her to say you know the defendant told her and he also told britney you know you  cover for me basically i was on the west side to britney and then to to shonda you know i've been here since ten o'clock in the morning and you know ten o'clock and you know that the exact time of death in this then there's a cartridge case in the playroom but if a bullet had been fired in the play room say hypothetically that it hit the child was in there there would have been a bullet and blood or a bullet and a dead body or a wounded body and blood context of multiple shots were fired in the house this specifically how the bullet hole came to be in the door no i mean we don't have an exact explanation for the bullet on the door i don't know that it's crucial the case but we don't know before the crime he said he was going to do it he said to numerous people he was going to do it people are going to do it because at this the murder scene the very morning of the murders he was still in that area in that general area when the murders were committed he was tied directly to the murder weapon and he was seen driving jason's s u v after the murders and was arrested with the keys to the car again that that the whole question of the of the chain rodriguez said he recovered the keys from the defendant he had done if i had the keys and in  question of whether or not g m swear he would be required to open that that was not part of the evidence in this trial that was something added in the reply brief and the state never produced any evidence that and yet you're in that model general motors around he still did not open one car one hundred cars a thousand cars a million cars we just don't know well we don't know but presumably keys are made for the purpose of opening your car and getting other people from moving your car this key did fit that car so certainly that was probative evidence that the jury was aware of that and the fact that the fed it was arrested with that key and that with the keys to the green car he's arrested with keys to the white car  would have been right away but in the battery was dead well what does it take to jump a car and try it well i don't know but they didn't do that but the bottom line was that the officer said that the key fit ignition if you ever owned a g m curre be ridiculous then this court is bound to take that as evidence of taking you know as evidence that it actually happened just like when shot the cat they says the defendant confessed to me  jury was for the aware of it a second stance is that she made that statement and this court is bound to accept that statement it taken in the light most favorable prosecution the your colleagues in the reply brief i think it was argue that all of the evidence as to what he was up to during that day and his whereabouts or no information i was were also asking for help asking for somebody to meet him somewhere was consistent with an innocent man who  just trying to find somebody to help him fix his car well what you say about what he was up to during those hours where he's talking to people in the afternoon looking for help i would say he was up to trying to get somebody to move his car from either away from the area that it was at which was not you know ribs i suppose a little removed from the same bus that tomorrow you walk so that's not too far away and so that that's what he was trying to do is trying to get somebody to move his car and  bigger than me again it's not a normal innocent person would say i didn't do this you know i had nothing to do with it when saying that some cryptic statement about it's bigger than me and then in the same conversation he said he got into it with jason if he did he did he say when he didn't he didn't ride in the context of that conversation when he's asking why would you be saying that i had something to do with the murders of his responses i got into it with jason the normal logical putting that into context is that that was the response that it was something recent that's the way again a person would normally look at it and again taken lightly several prosecution i think that's the way you drugs he didn't deal wait as the defense claim but he did deal drugs the other people also just testified you know i didn't see the stuff in the house julia said i never saw the stuff but they said he sold it from the car but that's not inconsistent with taking it in the house at night and the hudson family have allowed william into the fed into the house you know it cuts both ways because you know why did they let the rival drug dealers that supposedly came into the house to do the murder and you know there was no forced entry either way so and there were other fungible easily moved valuable items in the house there was that it was done as purse and there was money in the purse and there were checks and there were small items that could have been taken if this was just a robbery it wasn't just dime bag there was a stash kept you know by the banister and other people said that the stuff was not kept in the house and there was no large amounts of stuff and again this wasn't a show like out of the house he said he sold they didn't say that they saw anything in the house  dealer counsel today said you know there's no evidence that he was that the defendant was selling weight well they have to remember the context of this case the only reason we were able to get into the fact the defendant was a drug dealer is because they were talking about jason being a drug dealer but it was limited evidence we only put it well you know the judge could tell of the amount of evidence that we were able to put in about defendant being a drug dealer because that would have been prove other crimes than ancillary issues so for us it's kind of disingenuous to say there's no evidence the defendant was selling w well there is no evidence in this record but the part of the reason there is never as in the records because they kept it out one thing we know that the only drug deal that happened that day was one that the defendant was involved yes when they go over to the so i guess he's up all night he's over somebody else's house and is selling crack at seven o'clock in the morning right exactly so between the time the defendant was in the hudson house in the morning and time was arrested he certainly had time to change and ditches was talked about he certainly told his girlfriend that he did it and he tried to get her in another person to lie about where he had been during the day he made statements to friends and the police numerous statements that were lies about where he was little little things about you know what he was doing to his parole officer he said he was one place to another person he said it was another place he can't tell the truth to anybody that day and of course when he gets to the police station he makes that bizarre statement about i've been wearing these clothes all day and things like that so in the face of all this evidence there was the defense basically put on the case and they caught on to to a slight impeachment people but their case was solely piggybacking off the state's case and that's the reason that there was this so called days and days of negative evidence because the defense all wrong was claiming this was a robbery all along they were claiming it was significant that there was other people's d n a and fingerprints in that car and it was the state had to show that they investigated all those things and they did and they were exhaustively they looked at the amount of phone records that they went through the number of d n a and fingerprint tests that they took it was exhaustive but it was it was to combat this defense notion that there had been a robbery of a drug dealer or that somehow it was significant that there was other people's d n a in and fingerprints in the car it could be a throws items were tied specifically to the murder if there was items had something you know somebody said i saw a guy you know in the car drinking a pepsi and then there were gunshots rob the fact that there's d n a or fingerprints on that pepsi bottle might be might be important but in the context of this case where there's all sorts of junk in the car and we put on a dozen people who said they were in the car and each of those dozen people mention another dozen people that was in the car in this people would take much more care or defend it wasn't hiding the fact that he was a drug dealer jason wasn't hiding the fact that he was a drug dealer that that that's not what people are hiding the fact they do hide the fact that they're murderers though that they'll take steps to to to hide and here the defendant relevant how is that life and death well she wasn't called as a life and death witness around she was called because she had numerous other things to still say as well and numerous is witnesses were asked if he had any enemies and this is that related to the ways that she knew about obviously she couldn't testify that she had lived in the house for now six years she hadn't but she was unaware of it you know this is a common question is asked of lots of the witnesses did he have any enemies some people said he had enemies some people said he didn't have enemies but she testified to several other things other than she did testify to life and death but she also testified to the fact making texts and phone calls to her mother which she normally did at that time and that those were not returned and that concerned her and she made repeated efforts  and that was relevant because it placed the time of the murders into context you know putting it between the nine and ten o'clock time she was in florida you know discounting hour and stuff like that she also testified that she gave checks to the family  and the family did not like the defendant that went directly to the motive the motive in this crime most was because the defendant didn't like the family and he knew the family didn't like him anyway he resented that if you look really tough with robin myers he went this person we barely knew he went at length into the fact that they don't like me they think they're better than me i don't like them about it kill them he has a gun when he's saying this which you know he's several times he's got a gun and he's saying i don't like these people i'm going to kill so i mean these are all relevant things for her to be talking about certainly went to the motive in the case and in terms of whether or not any of the defense raises that  could come as no shock to the jury that she wouldn't like this person and the fact that you know that she didn't like him the family didn't like him also goes to her bias the defense before the trial said she's nothing more than a biased witness she shouldn't be whether he had car trouble it's clear from numerous independent witnesses that he had car trouble from the previous day diana grant the woman he was with the previous state testified that he was having car trouble he was supposed to drive back away in the green chrysler if if the defendant needs to get his part of the west side to explain how he got there without tying him to the jason's vehicle he needs help to get that car over the westside and the evidence is consistent with a man who knows he's got to get the f car away from the scene of the murder and he's trying to get help have me pretty over there she's got the keys one over there get my car out to the west side and right now right and meet me right now right now meet her right now with this is not an innocent doesn't it's not entirely consistent i should say with an innocent man who was just trying to find help fixing the power steering in his t a using his c t a pass and we know that both of those statements are lives that's true you know that's not what happened but we know he did go to the west side and we know that he went there at about one of our and that's not just taking it in the light most favor state it's just simply not true so this is an innocent man according to the defense who is giving information to the police about an investigation in which three members of his wife's family are dead of which they know at that point in time and he's giving them bad information he's lying to them and you say that we should take that as proof of an innocent man he's giving them  that's true that doesn't mean that he personally shot or killed for people for that happened it would have that the motive was deficient talked a lot about the motive and that he wanted to kill his family he said i'm relationship like that yes but this is a man who repeatedly to various people threaten to do exactly what was done kill your family first this is exactly what he pre sale these events with out of his own mouth and the events out of his own richard she sensually broke it off with richard wright the only reason by which it was a week before any of this happened was about the same time she was meeting william at a motel you know there's a little more evidence about richard because the defendant himself said that she was he was over there that morning he thought he was going to find her with her boyfriend he said that to the police and he did and she called the day before and said i'm not with it and i want you to come over he thought you're right he thought that she was with richard it was her birthday she's going to celebrate with richard they're going to go back to her place and that was upsetting to him the counsel the bottom line is this is a court of review we have to think that the state's case is so improbable just so on satisfactory as to be riddled with reasonable doubt in order to undo what this jury has none and the story that sounds improbable and riddled with doubt is the defense in this case the specific question you need to look at is did they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot and killed three people i understand your issues with this whole and say did they prove that beyond a reasonable doubt though that with regard to that shooting the one the argument of mr fisher was that the body was placed in the freezer and so if you start at that time you get within close some of the record that's not what the medical examiner testified to certainly things continue to deteriorate but more the point her opinion was based on the assumption that the body was west in a car that was on he did in late october and she early figured into th you say that that means that there's not enough evidence i'm the child's killer right yes i would say it's math it's like what i said before about the sun rising in the west if it's closer to seventy two or the less than seventy two and she says you should give your range but the range is in the opposite direction the rate is in the direction of the time that he's in custody thirty six to closer to seven to get the quote west bed seventy two that's not even close it's off by at least twelve hours is using custody at six o five on october twenty fourth and for that reason alone this court has to conclude that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he personally shot and killed julian king and in the light of that and light of everything else that we talk about today you should also reverse the other two convictions for