good afternoon your honour's may it please the court  been the finding of guilty whether quote soon and that he was when he was going through it the credibility of the eyewitnesses and he concluded that the defendant's statements so c statement he denied being involved and so the court defending statement which is similar to your his own statement that is that is hurting mr paul because that's corroborating his own statement and i read it i saw that could have been the case and that the jets didn't necessarily refer to the statements made by both men that it said that in the clear but just as i think it's clear that i'm not saying what it trials to separate and and matches the clearly said that he wasn't going to use the codefendant statement against the defendant and it's not so here we don't the judge should not the judge was not clear did not personally out the evidence very clearly say you know in that case there was a lot of discussion about how he was not going to how he specifically said he was you know not going to use the co defendants statements against the defendant and i think that's something that you know the this the the trial judge should clarify and should and should be clear and parcel out the evidence against each  her and i would just point out the indictment here for the attempt on robbery specifically sad is that they took the two store employees to the back of the store  so first we have the duration of the detention is a very short period here there is not a lot of details as far as specific time i think one of the witnesses as to me did that the entire offense took about one minute but all the evidence indicates that everything happened very quickly so it was a short duration of the detention the detention the movement also occurred during the offense of the attempt on robbery there was no evidence of any independent robbery because the officer was there yeah any think this is how resale stores work you know but yes there were a few and there's limited amounts of money and accounts registers in the showroom limited phones but all the evidence indicates that they wanted to get to the safe that you know in retail stores the large amounts of money the large amounts of probably act if you go to a cellphone store to get a phone i was have to go to the back that's where all those things are kept there's no indication that they were really interested in taking the product that was out in the showroom all the evidence indicates that they wanted to get to the significant danger to the victims independent of that posed by the attempt on robbery and the gun presence here is really what was the danger here so the gun presence is no more dangerous in the back than it was wanting to get phones to be able to sal ok so i think there's a limited things out as you know out in the showroom they don't really know who was able to you know open the safe so they know it was essential that they get to the safe which was in the back room in order to get to order to get what they were attempting to get ok the really kidnapping in that during the commission of the kidnapping you personally just charge fire are so under the plain meaning of that language here the fire was not just charged during the commission of the kidnapping the kidnapping was complete and the defendant was already out had roland and ran out into the show room before firing the w but said that the case was remarkable because in effect there were no major contradictions in the case the eyewitness testimony the physical evidence and the defendant's statements  evidence about what he did goals and again we also maintain that all for loving the party factors indicate that they made a kidnapping was incidental to the attempt armed robbery and in particular on the fourth factor thank you you will take the next very bad thank you both for thanksgiving