there was no physical evidence that directly connected mr killen off to the shooting granted the state's case the space primarily on the testimony that was given by three people one was the i would say an eyewitness  testified that he didn't know anything about these crimes but it was confronted on the stand with a prior inconsistent statement that he had made to an investigator for this case in which he claimed that this sent him to virtually admitted to having committed the shooting and witness had personal knowledge in our argument there is that the portion of powell statement regarding the defendant's admission that he committed the crime was concerning matters that on top of that data personal now or judge he simply was reporting what he was who found him at the scene all said that he was conscious that he was coherent that he knew that he had been seriously injured and that he actually thought he was back it's extremely not under those circumstances for a person that big know who shot them not to not to mention that he was taken to the emergency room and apparently didn't tell anybody in their bed who had shot him he had surgery the following surgery he visited with his mother his sister and his and more importantly if there were three people there the defendant was the last one in he could have no question but that there were three people there so he had somebody in and then took that person back out and i think it's also significant more damaging evidence that can be presented against the defendant then on his admission and sell off it is extremely powerful so overwhelming selling it's very difficult to say this is for any information regarding the implications of a diagnosis whatever it may be all that was allowed in was the fact that she had been taking a psychotropic drug within a few months of this crime and that she had ceased taking it it was approximately a month before she made her after vacations and probably more significantly before she made her identifications so  him and so someone's to keep pain medication do you need to know what's wrong with them you snipped the fact that they're taking the medication that retained their ability to observe and don't recall the reason they're taking it why is that relevant well in this case it would be because she witnesses went to see when you're ready to effect cross examination i agreed that there is a major concern here but that is why this matter of would have been far better addressed in a motion to suppress  trial motion to suppress the side of the kitchen and worse yet he thought he did in his constrain our motion he argued that the court had erred in did not his motion to suppress the chaise identification and he never made it's going to kind of  from this edition is not a confession by the defendant to a police officer that's going to take this is not that serious situation where it's so overwhelmingly damaging it couldn't possibly be harmless is a case in which it was a statement allegedly mates were heroin i didn't bring this as playing error because i didn't think that was appropriate given the fact that the trial court never really got a crack at considering whether or not the personal knowledge  requirement was a problem in this case i have to believe it's they have i agree with justice burke that the family that defense counsel didn't object to the admission portion is highly significant noticed an eye for them was that one of them had fish over here i'm not saying that the police constructed knowingly constructed the suggestive lineup because the officer arranged it said he wasn't aware of the fact that there was part of