a number of things about their opinions and will move on to the shore the only other thing that i would say of our all of our birth issue and some of our on our birth issue there's no consequence the fact is that the defendant committed a crime and was charged with the crime of child abduction if he had not done so they would be in no sexually dangerous burglary or an armed robbery or something but they had it once and election is made to proceed with the sexually gained responses petition then the underlying charge the criminal charge is not it does not have to be you know that's that's a very good question i would assume that it would have in the process were dismissed upon the sexual i mean upon the successful prosecution against persons but but none of those you know none of those things happened in this case it proceeded on the sexually interested persons petition and it was not case it wasn't necessary of the two of the elements that the state has to prove is propensity and a demonstrable demonstrated propensity in the states did that and w hundred ninety one solicitation of a prostitute nine hundred eighty eight two counts of aggravated sexual of group abuse with a minor two thousand and two three counts of possession of child pornography two thousand and two criminal sexual abuse involving a mentally challenged person who was had the the he was twenty that had major trial so that that is what the state had the burden to pro pertain to the child abduction but that's a different matter it's not that the state had the say had the burden to prove that but an expert has the right within their expertise to choose what materials will be they consider relevant to making their determination that in this case they had to make a determination of whether the defendant had a mental illness that persisted more than a year prior to the to the filing a examined but they did examine the police reports pertaining to this child abduction and also dr raymond explains that he viewed the interview of the child victim the child victim's father instruments is a crock and that's been decided by the illinois supreme court so that is also not an issue now it's true there was a disagreement among the experts about what to kill or actuarial instruments were appropriate to use in a sexually dangerous persons tissue and but they both agreed that the third one that dr killian used was the stat ninety nine and that was proper so there's agreement as to one of the three of the three actuarial instruments that particular use so that was that was sufficient evidence  they both agreed they both agreed that the defendant had a mental illness a mental disorder that had persisted more than a year prior and this is and there is no disagreement  to whether he had this mental disorder it's just that one testified that the defendant have a paraphilia not otherwise specified the other one also viewed videotapes of the defendant having sex with minors so the court to try a fact couldn't place more emphasis on that and could  they also didn't have any disagreement over the whether  he had a criminal propensity and a substantial probability to re offend with and you know if if not treated and the dr raven his testimony on this issue but even if you just take the court just credited one  my definition that uses the same terms but that's a little different than saying that there's no understanding of what will be tional capacity as within the mental health field and also it was emotional or business you know capacity that predispose a person to engage in acts of sexual violence and in garner the court construed these terms as berner is an illinois supreme court case cited in people's