ow trivial information to support it. So given that distinction there you'd have to know the perpetrator was in the room at the time of the crime and connected to it. Go ahead go ahead do you so that's fine but if you're aware the amount of people that are actually put to death by the state that are actually found innocent afterwards so even the people that are being released even today can read articles about people being released and the mind being police putting thoughts into witnesses heads and yeah that's why my rule is to work against that because the odds of somebody being convicted for a murder and they were in the room coincidentally but they weren't the murderer that's pretty low.

So yes that's not really the argument though is the if found guilty part. I mean there's clearly innocent people being put to death right?

That's why that's why my rule that you have to have some scientific way to place them. Pretty sure that close to maybe a hundred percent of the people wrongly convicted to die was based on eyewitness testimony. What do you say and no well yeah but incompetent legal system lawyers who are on or incompetent bad policemen I mean there's a lot about you yeah you need all that but it's actually happened. I don't believe I don't believe there's any case where they had somebody's DNA at the murder scene of the of the can they accused. I don't believe we've ever had somebody who had their DNA found at the murder scene and then later was found to be innocent. I believe that situation. I was like sounds like we're on the same same side there.

Thanks to a question. That was one of those cases where we're on the same side by acting like we weren't. I give in those situations a lot where people imagine they disagree with me but they're not.

So let's see if Amber has something. Trying to mix up the gender selection but I've got more men than women listening to this. Amber can you hear me? Do you have a question for me Amber?

Actually I want to sneak tw