▁deal ership ▁owner ▁and ▁distrib utor ▁from ▁St . ▁Paul , ▁Minnesota , ▁test ified ▁that ▁he ▁had ▁lost ▁$ 2 8 , 0 0 0 ▁in ▁his ▁invest ment ▁in ▁the ▁T ucker ▁Corporation . ▁ ▁However , ▁on ▁cross - ex am ination , ▁the ▁defense ▁used ▁this ▁witness ▁to ▁their ▁advantage ▁when ▁E hlen z ▁test ified ▁that ▁he ▁still ▁drove ▁his ▁T ucker ▁' 4 8 ▁given ▁to ▁him ▁by ▁T ucker ▁and ▁that ▁the ▁car ▁had ▁ ▁on ▁it ▁and ▁still ▁cru ised ▁smooth ly ▁at ▁. ▁ ▁The ▁t ide ▁turned ▁in ▁T ucker ' s ▁favor ▁when ▁the ▁government ▁called ▁its ▁final ▁witness , ▁SE C ▁account ant ▁Joseph ▁Turn b ull , ▁who ▁test ified ▁that ▁T ucker ▁had ▁taken ▁in ▁over ▁$ 2 8 ▁million ▁and ▁spent ▁less ▁than ▁one - se vent h ▁of ▁it ▁on ▁research ▁and ▁development ▁of ▁the ▁car . ▁ ▁He ▁stated ▁that ▁T ucker ▁had ▁taken ▁over ▁$ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 ▁of ▁the ▁invest ors ' ▁money ▁for ▁himself , ▁but ▁never ▁delivered ▁a ▁production ▁car . ▁ ▁Kir by ▁re but ted ▁Turn b ull ' s ▁claims ▁on ▁cross - ex am ination , ▁asking ▁for ▁proof ▁of ▁the ▁alleg ations ▁of ▁financial ▁mis management ▁from ▁T ucker ' s ▁seized ▁financial ▁records . ▁Turn b ull ▁was ▁unable ▁to ▁offer ▁such ▁evidence . ▁ ▁In ▁closing ▁his ▁witness ▁testim ony , ▁Kir by ▁asked ▁Turn b ull , ▁" You ▁are