the issue of whether or not there was ever proof of course this sort of order has the support of a course county which the statute defines as two or more acts by the same person and the only evidence that had any reference to derek was the incident on the last event that was the incident where he claims on november twenty sixth that he saw there he the car if you look at all of so many discrepancies in the testimony given and the testimony was basically peach by various officers who investigated this particular case you have here in in here father there was a missing wind shield wiper and there superglue on his valves once again the officer matthew bikini who actually investigated this testifies at trial that he saw the no missing wife or that he with respect to which issue judge couldn't explain the route he was thinking yeah i mean that that i think is addressed by what she says is basically he wasn't a straight route he lived only four blocks from this he was he at the trial just made a big deal about what was that why was in the trial judge panel to do that well let's assume she was ok that would be evidence in support of that one back and she could claim that that evidence was in support of credibility issues and and certainly the trucker can do that but the two other things that the trial court used in terms of trying to prove credibility with respect to derek is that she she and her rulings testify well there knew that respondents your clients in the building that answer i'm honestly answer questions were striking throughout the proceedings why isn't that where the respect difference perhaps it is but i think if you break it down and look at what three factors she specifically uses then i think that that really well that those this was how long was this hearing but i think the hearing itself went from started in november and actually wound up being  july fifteenth of two thousand and fourteen well this is several hours worth of first of all he said yes right over over only ok the point being the trial judge is going to draw the inference that your client wasn't being truthful ye and when you say the three examples you don't have to provide this might be sussed some things that come to mind but it but a trial judge says i don't believe but what this is being truthful without providing examples at all unequivocally those facts or facts are supporting the record i think that's different i think you're right it just doesn't say exactly why he doesn't believe in it if he simply says i listen to all the evidence and i don't find you credible i don't correlate that proposition but i think that if there's a different issue when the truck or specifically lists those factors and says this is why i don't find it credible and true the three are clearly unequivocably wrong and the third one is certainly susceptible to interpretation but if you look at office my client found not guilty the jury trial several days thereafter now we have a new photos being presented before pictures one of the arguments that my my my colleague made in the jury trial was that there was no before pictures you don't have any before pictures so all the sudden out of the blue we have the bottle for new pictures that sort of taken two days earlier to show that evidence out of the blue and says tells the court yeah i share all this with these people and then you bring in the three individuals who would have been directly involved would have received this and they all say no that never happened because the of course is with respect to the pictures pictures are not credible because the picture partly taken two days before so is the license plate which had been stolen according to testimony aaron and october twenty the new license plate so now you know if you're in a position here where hot dogs are credibility what possible credibility to their approval have there's absolutely no explanation for that the other thing is the other photos the other cars in the photos all have work and you find that she was certainly at liberty to find that my client was not credible and there was sufficient evidence you still have the issue of whether or not there was sufficient evidence to infect find a course of conduct and you look through that transcript there differences here to be drawn as to any of these other purported acts there was not there was no testimony he was present that he did anything there's no testimony that any relationship with this arena girl there's no testimony he knew attempted to try to resolve this that's all but obviously this is news out so i mean asking that you look at the total of this picture and i think that if you even if you give credibility to the truckers view of this you have has your plate your plate usis gone in october you're saying now oh yeah none of them are twenty fourth that was the depiction of this car right before this happened so you can't have it both ways and this seems to me clearly in the court probably asked him well is that the province of the trial court to determine issues of credibility and on this record there's additional things that the trial judge noted that this court doesn't have the benefit of knowing simply by looking at the  transcript in this case and specifically as part of judge clements ruling she said as the response testimony i found that he was not credible i found his attitude to be very arrogant there's no way this appellate court can review this transcript and determine question again there's no way of this court and reviewing the supposed record make that determination credibility the judge clemens was uniquely positioned to be able to make based on observing mr on oystering his testimony based on during his demeanor just moments found to be very trial he was able to present a very detailed map showing every twist and turn that he took from his residence to really ayers apartment and yet two days after this incident where he makes a decision that he's going to go meet with officer links to explain his side of the story he's unable to give any real details about how he got from his residence to outside corrina her in the ayers residence and i think it's important to note that this interview of officer links two days after this incident was not something where mr ton annoyance was hauled in by the police and interrogated about the system this is something where he had two days to make the decision if you want to go in voluntarily talk to officer links about this situation yet time if you truly knew the route that he was taking he could have presented that map that he presented as an exhibit here in detail in the route that he took at that time yet two days later at this instant he's unable to to say how he got from his for violating the stalking no contact order again looking at this record there's no way this court to know what specifically judge clement's referring to when she said that he got amany animated when he was talking about that particular but the arrest for violating the saki no contact order and specifically he wouldn't admit initially that he was arrested when he was asked very specifically rearrested for bylines or paycheck protection correct his answer was that doesn't mean i did it he wouldn't even  on cross examination that he was arrested and that's a perfect example of the type of response that we got costly through the cross examination mr caetano notice that led to the spread ability bothers them are doing his point about the photograph which would be consistent with a low life one of license plates being sold so if you look at the front photo on the front photograph shows a partial view of the license plate that's different than license plate on the back and so that's not in a way consistent with or two new license plates were purchased and so if you look at our memory of law that we filed in support of an opposition to the post from motion we attach the receipts showing the purchase of the new license place and so the new isis place repurchased looks like october twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen so it's about a month before this nov twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen incident so big my client goes he purchases new license plates and stay in missouri but so on the vehicle as of november twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen this incident occurred there are claim that these photos have somehow been altered or airbrushed or that metadata has been changed there's is completely no evidence that that has occurred in any fashion so that is in order to get the response from the door revile the respondent claims that they had had these photographs analyzed by a website called is it true and it showed there was some sure manipulation of these photographs my client had those same photographs examined by the stand review on a post trial motion that's an abuse of discretion and so the trop or had the benefit of all this contradictory information added the benefit of this claim that somehow these photographs that were shown on cross examination were surprised rebuttal evidence they had the benefit of your discoveries examination of these photographs they had the benefit of the proceeds showing that my client purchase new license plates they had my client's results of th a true examination of the of the photographs that the trial court had to to waive all that evidence and i think it's important to note that these photographs were were supposing examined by garrett discovery to show that the sport the response claimed that these photographs have been altered airbrushed or manipulate or the method that had been and been changed their discovery can't conclude that there is no evidence of that i think there's a lot of problems with your discoveries credibility in the report that they prepared about their examination of these photos they apparently were confused about the examination of these photos with some other work that they were talk they were working on because they don't keep records of that so there's huge credibility issues with yours discoveries suppose investigation but even if you take at face value they were unable to determine there was anything to altered about these photographs and for a post from motion to be successful the response has to show that there is some delay discovered evidence and probably or claim there's something about these photographs that were altered that they weren't aware of the trial well they have the advantage of being able to have these photographs at the evidence it's clear from the case law that you can't use moods covered events so if the purpose of trying to impeach a witness at the here in that's again clearly what the purpose of this is is they're trying to piece a credibility of both will by claiming there's something newly discovered about these photographs that were used at the hearing and you can't use newly discovered evidence so if the purpose of impeachment and that's clearly what they're doing  there's no other reason for the attacks credibility of gary nairn thermal to just one is found to be credible but just one has had the benefit of having all this information in determining whether or not there was a basis for granting the post trial motion response has argued that there's from pleat lack of circumstantial evidence in this case establishing a course of conduct and i think there's really a mountain of circumstantial evidence in this case established in the course of conduct on the part of mr todd on noise to damage my leave a scratch we have an incident that occurred on september twenty seventh two thousand and thirteen where there paroles vehicles evolve parked at his residence we have damage it to different locations and i think it is significant that the damage was damage was being done by someone who did not have any contact with the with her and relationship with either rehire or dirt noise there be no reason why the rest of durga tonneau noise would have led to this to this damage being criminal case where it's required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt versus the preponderance of the evidence standard that is used in this case in the civil case so i don't think that has any bearing whatsoever on this course determination as to whether or not judge clements made the propre determination again i don't know what witnesses were called in the criminal case that could've been different witnesses that were called there could have been different questions are asked of those witnesses it has no bearing whatsoever on this case and to try to say that just because he was found not guilty to criminal trial doesn't mean that he didn't damage to be on the bar twenty six two thousand and thirteen where the burden of proof is by parts of the evidence that has absolutely no correlation whatsoever so even though  occasion as what the testimony was he'd acted very strangely when he came in contact with the two of them there was an incident where really i or found mr caetano is outside her apartment she not bite him there he she was found him outside her going towards her mailbox when aaron came running up to her and said he's here and by the time ms iyer turns around he's r t g the car and she sees him crouching under a row of trees by air and from his car so it wasn't that she didn't see it it i have no reason to believe why he should be out there so by her own testimony she was shocked that he was somehow outside of her residence on that early morning but it's not that she didn't see it i mean if this was a situation where these were complete fabrications you think we would come in a court with ms arthur saying oh obvious i saw the whole thing but she was simply facing the wrong direction she was getting her mail the time this happened and it was only after erin from alert heard that mr baton noise was there that she then turned around was part of his hobby where he would superglue miniature figures to various places around town but again when he talked off for links only a couple days after this accident or this incident he never mentions that he's that some of you should decide that he in fact would have been involved in the incident of nine twenty seven thirteen there's no evidence to support it it's kind of like computer i case is where if someone's had fifteen bad accidents where they've been negligent if you get to  eight i can't use any of the first fifteen as evidence and somehow by inference that is not good in this occasion there's no evidence to support that the fact that he had superglue on him because he has this hobby and so forth that's twelve was going to be used in my perspective each credibility he put it out of substantive evidence to show that there was before pictures and you can talk all you want to about these different pictures but sarah links takes a photo on november twenty sixth showing license plates and then aaron says well here's a photo two days before and they have different plates so somehow you have to explain away how on those two days those plates got changed there's nothing to support it here for it to be drawn there is that the picture was not taken and  purely an objective lete there is no support for the proposition that my client committed any of these other acts period and there's you know again you have incredible distinctions between the testimony of assistant state's attorney barry comes in and