seen in that house. the prosecution called it a looky-loo, like people when we go into an unfinished house to look at the crown moldings or the struts or something like that. instead, there was evidence that arbery or other people were on that property and things vanished. so there s been evidence on both sides. but he s on camera, and as the prosecutor pointed out, he was never seen taking anything away, and he was never seen bringing anything in like a bag or a sack that he could take things away in. exactly right, which is why you saw the defense pivot to the totality of the circumstances, arguing instead of the statute requiring that you actually see a crime, that instead all of the things that were going on in the neighborhood contributed to a general awareness that there were crimes going on and that this person may be committing those crimes. they have to make that argument because the prosecution is factually correct that they didn t actually see arbery committing a crime,