but there was never any foundation laid to show that that was the view that the crew had on the night of the accident and so you know in many ways this i guess is just sort of a law school or basic eviden about seventy five hundred feet and three quarters of a mile it was yes says it twenty five hundred feet and a half a mile all those landmarks we're proud of the testimony of the crew the two crew members who said we saw this ever having made this statements to the investigating officer it was clearly a dependence and come down to the issue of what they see so we have this video and i assume people are going to chance to see the video video of the train coming down the tracks nine years later without any foundation as to what the and the conditions were we don't know what the training or you know if it was similar in the training question we don't know if it had the same number of head rights reversed the verdict based on the admission of the videos because they felt that these videos were used to if he used the words of course precondition the minds of the jurors to see that bar a police officer we saw the car these distances it's recorded the statements are mentioned in the brief there are three or four different statements that add a fact and this and so there's no question if that's where they saw this car they clear to me that premise can be presented on the basis of the fact that this video so greatly distorts what the what the crew would have seen and that it was not identified argue about that i know i don't have a whole lot of time the issue about the comparative father of the next week or the negligence of the scene was was argued we didn't think there was enough evidence i didn't bring it up in on the appeal but she got out of the car she got back into the car seemed reasonable for her to try to get the car off the tracks rather than abandon the car and there was testimony that she couldn't get the door open and neither could the woman who was attempting to help her so there was  evidence from from which the jury could find while she was stuck in the car she couldn't get the door open again and we presented some evidence about the doors and how they lock on a toyota camry and how she might not be able to get that and get that door open once she got is that the crew members the about three days after the accident or call from the deputy sheriff and the deputy sheriff took talk to them to notice and the deputy found that she has more than fifty percent fault but the second put on it is that the there was no fear on the part of the trial judge allowing this video both on direct examination and on the on cross examination that that video shows what i saw and it is consistent with what i saw when i was on the tree approaching describing aaron was marked at the various distances this is in the court file and i believe that can be found at page for a team in the supplement to the record on appeal so there was no need to have a video to show you what the what the condition is like everybody admitted this is true track i'm struck down for over a mile and they came around the bend everybody minute there was nothing to obstruct their view and no other reason car who was trying to help the lady inside of the car going off the tracks eventually some of the train ran away but she tried to get the lady inside to open the door and she said she couldn't get the door open so there was that crew members were saying i never really said that to the police officer and here's a video to show what i can actually see and i'm just repeating myself the case was there the three with lakes in the closing argument and everything is focused on what the jury cannot see that video and generally in cases where we complain about the evidence and the evidence is so greatly highlighted in the