but carol, that notwithstanding and that's rhetoric and i get that tensions flame high and the prosecutor wants conviction and the defense attorney wants an acquittal. ultimately the judge had a number of a lot of factual information to base the decision upon. let's start understanding that this was a bench trial. what that means is there's no jury and a judge acts as the finder of fact and puts himself in a position of a jury. it's also important to understand that based upon the judge's findings a different judge certainly could have had other findings and made a different decision. certainly a jury could have done the same thing. but i think there are three real critical components of the decision. one is is it manslaughter for what brelo did. you talked about the 49 shots. he jumps on the hood of the car. he discharges his weapon. the judge found there was no causation. that it was a fatal shot that came from brelo's weapon but it was not the fatal shot and many people take umbrage of that saying there was medical testimony which would suggest that they were alive and it was his shot that did it. the judge opted to reject that as a judge could do and as a