which read come for babies or i'm going to throw into garbage now this message apparently referenced the defendant to twin babies who are supposed to be father by complaining witness of course the baby's never actually existed in our grief and raised three issues today only focusing primarily on the first issue concerning reasonable doubt but this is chorusing questions regarding the second two in fact to these arguments i'd be happy to for the offense of intimidation and basically it boils down to two fundamental parts first you have the threat itself and then you have the specific act that the defendant intends the complaining witness to do or not to do as a result of the frets and the state must prove both of these things in order for any conduct to be considered intimidation in this case the state failed to prove either one of these and so even one of the officers i believe it was the north the workplace officers testified that she did tell them babies that she had twin babies at her sister's house however to one of the way the officer is i believe it was the w chicago officer she didn't i know that she ever said this and of course we don't have her testimony she never testified at trial so this was whether or not she lied to the police was not an issue at this trial and suggest it's not in consequential what i'm trying to suggest that the state did not prove the crime the charge if the state wanted to charge you with obstructing some kind of disorderly conduct they could have but that is not what they charged in this case relationship or they're born after only a four to five month pregnancy and also he believes the babies were delivered on the living room floor of this of us house and then she's back at home later that night after delivering these  and it's all this is their years long on again off again relationship in which the defendant three times prior has claimed that she's pregnant with the complaining witness's baby and the defendant area shouldn't complain when  when you went to the hospital it's the hospital that we don't have any record that big by that name was born here so given this history any reasonable person would be extremely skeptical of future claims going missing below that she was pregnant when given  placing the babies in the garbage or simply beating them expose that you know that is a question that would be up to the trial court and certainly there could be there could be proof that throwing to the garbage children begin the children don't insist this was an impossible act there was no way she could have intended him to pick up children that don't exist in the state has failed to prove the specific intent and based on this alone this charge cannot stay in this conviction cannot stand moreover it will in its present state audience to the contrary that all they need to prove in terms of intimidation is just to show that the text messages were sent with the intent to make the complaining witness generally act against his will however this argument has been specifically rejected by the conviction for the defendant holding that there is no proof that he said this threat with the intent to course the victim into not calling the police now from the facts that case be obviously pointing a gun at someone in the same turn out off he's intending to course the victim to do something against her will but this is not what was charged in the indictment and then that's the same thing we have in this case and that's why the states are committing it's grief must be rejected here as well in fact  well it cannot be picking the kids up because the children don't exist so simply telling him pick them off how can she intend to do this when she knows very well these children never existed well if you told charged that the well but let me back up for a second i think it's important to distinguish impossible acts between the threats and the act that the  defendant wants the complaining witness to do not see do in your example the threats is to kill the children now if someone just said to me and i have no children i'm going to kill your between not knowing and actually of formants of me knowing that they don't exist the defendant again there's a difference between the friend and the intended result is the defendant in your example came up to me and said give me our money knowing full well i have no money the defendant could not intend for that to be intimidation now knowing if the threat exists is a specific intent the defendant must know that is it will defend it cannot know that it's impossible in order for her or her to intend this as a result of her threat if she knows it's partners they like to talk about the idea that it was probably reasonable for the victim to believe these children existed but then let's talk about what the the circumstances more of the relationship between the victim of the defendant this is a case of intimidation b this for lack of better terms night runs out west chicago to her sister's house and then leave there tells the police that in fact the two children never existed when the police officer saw speak to her sons and they asked them you know where one bedroom in the  not saying this here without without god i'm still much yeah sure but all that aside i mean you know it's it's well sort of if you take the victim as a father and if you look at if you look at the context of this relationship with this is that still sort of  conversations are like i truly have no idea but the point is i mean if you know you look back to the other reasonable witness testimony cases like people be turning in for example you know there are certain only reasonable text message comes up so i would i think that there were two different text messages sent from some from the other from two different phones i believe the record is a little bit ambiguous as to when i'm s personal experience with cell phones you could see the number there but that's outside the room for sure it was presented here was huge i'm sorry what was presented here was that there were two different text messages that were identical content but had different different that came from  or that for example the phone said that text messages signature attached to it i'm not sure where you know is that it's certainly possible to see the same number twice in the phone and you see the same text message twice even though you're only using the same evidence of what happened after the text messages sent to their you extended testimony from police officers about searching the defendant's house best not relevant to the context in which the text messages  sent because the text a crime has already been committed all this stuff is just after the fact furthermore this is mclaren mentioned the cell phone photographs of the babies this is insufficient evidence when mounted against all the other reasons to believe that the baby didn't exist what we have is two greenies phone photographs of what looks to be maids but anyone can take pictures of babies on their cell phone or download pictures of babies from the internet this doesn't prove that this is actually gave birth to these children and this is the second part of intimidation is the intended act now counsel can that these babies did not exist there is no way she could intend for mr where to to pick them off the person cannot intend for someone else to do something they very well know that person did there's no direct proof in this case it almost all revolves around circumstantial evidence but the circumstantial evidence is suspect as counsel said in the argument could not saying what phone number or even how many get someone else to send these text messages to himself as evidenced by the paternity suit he wanted custody of these babies he wanted to be part of their lives and perhaps he thought he could use this text message as in some way to benefit him in the phone number and they keep the internet the phone numbers that they bring up at trial in trial three stage witnesses testified to five different phone numbers from the defendant and there's no clarification which one actually poor spelling grammar mr ware to said that she preferred texting in spanish well that missive you up was work for ten years as a receptionist at a doctor's office in completed half of