but the traffic isn't allowed to even consider doesn't want to consider the other evidence much more explicit those girls johnny would basically he did the crime basically she's talking about those girls but she's showing no she's showing no maces for her personality of that first of all we don't know to be strict about system i don't think the prosecution needs to be hanging over her head in order for the requirement of the rule to be satisfied i mean under the rule the intuition is this person makes a statement that subjects them to liability criminal civil because we have the same thing for  of well if this thing subjects an individual to liability or tends to subject an individual to liability and the rational to rule satisfied because people don't go around admitting their responsibility for crimes or for towards it as a matter of comm and the context here was it was not you know it was she didn't have to say i life or you know my son fifty four or thirty thirty seven years earlier all she had to do was say in this instance he didn't even even if you took it is no and it's good if you recall the argument in the early brief was phrases in terms of chambers so that's why we get this requirement of corroboration that's why we get the requirement of you know whether or not it was time which means it's because the defendant put this in the wrong box to begin with he said it has to satisfy the requirements of chambers not to forty three chambers it obviously doesn't apply i mean this isn't a chamber state it's not an extra judicial confession to crime for which the defendant is currently on trial so if you start from oh i can't think of anybody that would ever take that piece of trials across to her but then be concert or i should say then they then maybe you should be concerned but if you look at the statement in the context of this case it wasn't part of the evidence that to my point and earlier explain why did the ancient documents exception really dispense with the requirements of authentication it does not allow for wholesale hearsay to be admitted particularly where there is here there is  denied the right to present an alibi defense here and the answer is no and it has holes nothing to do with the rules of evidence and everything to do the evidence that he saw to it and that there is nothing in these f b i reports at least the six pages of reports that the defense tender the rules of evidence or design you know to make sure that we only have competent evidence submitted right but if there was something truly compelling in the f b i reports i would think that under chambers not the framework for many of the chambers statement but just under chambers principles  prosperous great but you know does he still share that opinion does the the does he believe it and ensure that that's relevant when you say i don't think that his personal beliefs are really relevant to this whole thing that's the more fundamental problem here  personal knowledge but are you going to come on just to impeach him or you can call it that which cannot deal can you but i don't actually know what happened so we would have testified too because the defense never told us so the theory is the same cover everything every inch of document that the defendant barely had in the box assuming that they existed but there the problem is that's not evidence none of this is evidence whatsoever so if the defense had made a proper offer proof first of all let's start from the right premise that the trier of fact to her saw her testimony found her to be credible so we vet that determination i'm not saying that it's witness identification is no longer valid after the passage of time that would lead to loss of water cold food which results that after a certain amount of days or certain amount of time and all the sudden identification no longer becomes reliable convincing why would we made a difference to me is the last thing the captain testified to or redirect when she was asked what was the last time you saw a picture of the defendant was the last time you saw this man's face or it was december third nineteen fifty seven this is a very difficult case obviously but there are things about this case that are like the facts of course you are born and i think every every murder is beyond comparison it is tragic it is all the way but what i like about this case is the way the law has worked the way we have all worked in this case and what this case says about the system it says that you know no offense the passage of time no offense will be i think if you look at the evidence in this case there was sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty not only states that none of these evidence submitted by the state in any way prejudiced the defendant no difference that was excluded was relevant so