In Dysthe v. State, 2003 WY 20, 63 P.3d 875 (Wyo. 2003), the prosecutor argued as follows: "These witnesses, despite the fact that they are users, were credible. They were very credible. They were more credible because of the very fact that they have a relationship with this Defendant. More credible because, if you couldn't tell, I certainly could; they didn't like me asking them questions. They didn't want to be telling me anything." The prosecutor in Dysthe further argued that he had worked with investigators on the case and could "guarantee" that their investigations were not "arbitrary" and that the witnesses "had no reason to lie." Id. The Court concluded that while the prosecutor did not directly state that it was his opinion that the witnesses were credible, he certainly gave that impression. Further, he did not suggest that the determination was to be made by the jurors; instead, he offered his own observation that the witnesses were "more credible" because "if you couldn't tell, I certainly could that they didn't like me asking them questions." And finally, his personal guarantee that the investigation was not arbitrary certainly amounted to a personal attestation of fact. (Id., 2003 WY 20, 63 P.3d at 886.)