is committed against the state with the state having the discretion and that's a good and i fully agree with your honor and if it were those the isolated circumstances i would not focus my terminology or not but in any rate you can establish the identity of the speaker through circumstances that show peculiar knowledge in the speaker that would limit her identity to that of some of that person who would have that knowledge and year in the state are these here that you have her identifying the the clothing the birthday the fact that she was on the phone is an inept words for example they were able to use the fact that they found the ransom  appropriate for the judge under those circumstances to say yes this person was the clear this person was the person on the telephone and they were able to look at all of the factors that the judge considered the including excited utterance but we're looking at we're looking at the fact that her phone was used during those periods of time that she was on the telephone when the officer arrived there that she gave the name of her gave her name  identified herself and then testified somewhat consistently it least in terms of the things that she referred to and add to the same content that occurred in the telephone conversation how there was a line by line  coverage of each and every factor but she was talking about the same instant that the caller was talking about there was no third person there there was just miss way and her baby and you could have point years ago we didn't have the advantage of some of the items of evidence that were supplying by the state in this case as to when the phone conversation was with her whether she had whether that with they were able to call back the exact number that was it was used to make a phone call in the first place so really you're talking about a standard to be filed before the technological advancements that we have today which circumstantial proof which balance own quantification justifies an inference that it's with but there are also negative factors that go the other way who he can't be found guilty of that and that's the problem case make sure you get in this court room twenty years ago i believe and of the other circumstances she didn't live there she said she lived in chicago and actually i believe it was through the morrises testimony the south side and the defense case and on the state that nation he told the court that he complained witness rachel witness case i had told him that she had shot herself  sort of figure out whether he stabbed her or merely knowing or intentionally moved toward her or whether somehow through some other mechanism she managed to  that's that's a description of the mechanism of the injury that's a description of how the contact came into being where is that in this case in this case it comes  judge is the person who is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witness having seen the witness and to me that's completely beside the point of the question that i'm raising  saying let's assume that he found all the witnesses to be credible you testified for the prosecution the question is where have the elements of  is enough and her stay there he came at me with a knife and i pushed his way into the bedroom and my hand was caught from which to give her a knowing