point that i wanted to make along those lines was that was that the but also the evidence in this this case is obvious i mean that's our first argument is that there is reasonable doubt that no rational trier of fact could have found charmian's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt  knowing that i think there are lots of studies that show that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable given the plus that the other things in this case is that make this testimony even more unreliable i don't think so testify that he knows that i might very well after he told the detective first that he didn't know little my and then the next day when he was arrested he was showed a picture he's like oh that's that's little money so you have that and you had his other credibility flaws the fact that he changes alibi story which he admitted to on cross examination five times this is pretty much came down to a credibility to transition but state the birth right of course you can be a hundred percent certain of one person it turns out couldn't possibly buildings so now you're hundred percent certain of somebody else ok but you haven't quite let go of the other person because you can at trial he wasn't so sure then he was still involved case and it was one of the french counsel's strongest arguments which she was able to argue successfully to the jury but i think what's important is that any confusion as to whether henley was there as to whether she was a second offender or maybe she was a third offender it didn't we can his positive identification of the found in the lineup and again  decision not to impeach the vo with the matter of trial thread do you really believe that i believe it was a trial strategy yes and the judge are talking about how he wants to possibly impeach him and the judge says well if you fronts this then there's no need for you to impeach him and trial counsel says correct ok that's what we'll do then on cross examination he asked and he says yes yes he says not all but i'll get to that in a minute it came out that she identified because he was he was running it secondly as to whether she could've impeached him on you know whether they were grappling face to face all of this evidence came out through detective clear on what they are yes sir and it was important and that's why it didn't come out from detective kelly who testified that divorce stated she was one hundred percent sure or so that that came out to the jury there was no i say i would say that i mean this was this was a trial well if i could say one more thing on knowing when defense counsel was attempting to distinguish whether this was the second person or the third person he was talking about the same person a we may not have been the perfect one as we look at the record now it was a trial strategy read everything that's that's correct that doesn't have to be it doesn't have to be perfect you just have to show that the defendant was denied a fair trial and in in the post trial motion the trial judge this was a boy and thoroughly litigated only supreme court henderson ruled in the exact same fat pattern that we have here who are you looking for i was looking for a defendant they said his name and they ruled that it wasn't a prudent violation or a hearsay violation so to the extent that maybe we might not agree with that that that's what the only supreme court says and they follow my defense counsel cites  the case sample and scuse me one second according to you and i don't have the facts of the case available to me now but the the court said it was so called the testimony should be limited to the fact that there was a conversation without disclosing its content and to what the police did after the conversation concluded and this is exactly what happened here there was a fact of the conversation no content and what the police  us the second point i want to address is that there's some sort of inference that can be had from selling days not knowing what he was doing six months