defense' psychologist. the -- the guy that the prosecution argued was, um, the hired gun, you know, testifying just for the purpose of trial. and -- and the jurors asked, um, when was he -- when did he interview potter? and that goes -- translation, you know, that goes to credibility. do we believe what he says about an action error? um, can we believe him? or was he just hired for trial as the prosecution argued? and when you put that together with the other two questions, it tells us that they are struggling with the reasonableness of the mistake and this idea of her consciousness of that mistake. did she really believe that she had a taser when she had a glock and they were so vastly different? and that brings us to the second question yesterday of you know trying to actually physically examine and -- and observe the gun. so when you take these three questions, um, in -- in -- in the aggregate, john, i think it's pretty clear that the struggle is with reasonableness of the mistake and con -- consciousness of the mistake.