testimony that based on some assumptions and by process of the woman nation he concluded that my client driving the vehicle now it's important to understand that this vehicle was a coup seated car a corvette and he's he's three with that is no evidence that mr summers would have even fit back there he was a large man let alone with the that there with a buckle that mr summers a just come back from training in the military he met with with my client and his brother very possible just as possible as the state's theory that mr summers was driving that vehicle and that my client and my client were simply close proximity to mr so sida at the time of the accident that's how he ended up in serious a position because again mr summers has been ejected from this card is a massive course on a car literally enough to sever mr softee display enough to obliterate the car he's clearly could have just as easily been ejected does look at it as though it was a question of credibility ought we this person or that and i understand that that's like i said it's tempting to do but the problem is if that opinion is not rounded concise to begin with it's not reasonable and it they were have to make a separate stop and and she's right well they really had to do that no matter what half because even if he was in the hedge there they would have to stop get out of the car listen to action and let him out or let him crawl out through the passenger compartment when is there  he has to interject on his subject a reason to make that determination something the other two experts could not and would not do but that he said yes because of newton's law the bodies have to go here and the land here and what you're saying as that is mixing a little bit of science with a lot of opinion because the science is not exactly enough to allow that to determination with three photographs measurements and determine the speed of the vehicle before it struck the tree apparently some ninety eight miles an hour in the trees the reason he did not render an opinion as to who was driving the vehicle is because he wasn't asked that was not his function in this trial mr de hallow was contacted by not in the least department as an accident and it was also determined that neither of the two front seat passengers were seat belts and there is no restraint in the hatch that explains how the unrestrained action kinds move in response to force impact open the passenger door and the passengers would have moved to the passenger side of the would be obviously mr saucy to know since he unfortunately left his legs in the passenger seat  car and the driver sitting next to the passenger would have been forced out of that open passenger door work and that's exactly where the defendant my outside right side of the  reviewed was a two page report in some photographs given to him by and he couldn't render an opinion he said because one could not reach a conclusion as to whether who was as to who was driving center graded when it hit the trees or held off three people out of the car these two people out this way the passenger and the driver and the third victim out of the hatchback and that was mr so however was he agreed with mr detail his conclusion that unrestrained i q points in the front seats would move toward impact and would continue to move unless acted upon by an outside can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was driving the vehicle and trust me i suggest if he could if he could apply that he's charged would have a grudge a year and a half earlier but they're not brought up was it me until a few months change the fact if if this opinion is not based on science it doesn't go to the level reasonable reasonable doubt doesn't go beyond the real result up and that's the problem i see a prosecutor and i see the prosecut larry it isn't the fact that this individual can make the his testimony is not reliable because it's not based on science it doesn't have to have a problem  you thank you both for your very compelling arguments here to hang this matter will be taken under advisement as we said earlier just as the table participate in the decision and written decision will be issued by this for in due course