course down below in the credibility terminations in those things but the evidence here is so insufficient there is a reasonable doubt in each and every one of the convictions i think in this case is the in rare cases where the defendant has been able to prove his innocence certainly with regard to t w he has done it by medical objective evidence and let's review and point out four things about t w and part of it whether or not the virus is present is if there is a positive result if there is a negative result it doesn't necessarily mean lives here or it's not there it just means you didn't have sufficient evidence of its existence i submit to you that the evidence from the record is not as clear as your honor is stating it ok tell me what you think it's so i would agree with what the state writes in their brief where they write that the evidence quote suggested the strong possibility of the presence of h p v i think they are conceding that if you look at this this child had this disease and for this sting to say that well she couldn't relax during the examination so we really don't know w talking about a man who is serving life in prison couldn't they have brought the child back and when she could relax find out the answer because the answer lies there because if she indeed had this sexually transmitted disease he is not guilty because the evidence was undisputed that if she has this disease then it is super contagious in any contact with her her sex organ is doing because abuse over a two year period until april twenty ninth two thousand and seven the testimony of pan easily was that  w said to her during that during the month of april two thousand and seven he touched me in my vagina with his hand into his private part and it happened lots of times so seven the state is is put this in their grief they are going she could have contracted i believe the is it is possible she contracted this disease after charles branch or abused or for the last time in happened and the only thing the state says forces well she lived with her step brother or there was and there were other men around her household now the state gets that from the defendant testified and basically pleaded i don't know what happened in this girl it wasn't me and it maybe was those people i think for the defendant is it in pleading for his life or for his freedom and the state is very should not figure oh well she contracts it made it that is unreasonable and i think that is one key point that makes this core makes this case the correct case for this court to say you know in this very rare circumstance the evidence is on reasonable and is on satisfactory certainly ansteel we now another point t w said and i believe this is crucial she said she has brown spots on his penis and this is a girl who is alleged and i mean no disrespect to these children but this is a girl who is alleged for three years he touched me with his penis on my in my vagina she made me touch him on his penis she admits i saw his penis and then she says he had brown spots too of course he went to the police station and  i would have a real hard time standing before your honor's today he didn't have any brown spots she sighed how can this be true well off the state says she testified they were trying they were tiny but she said she  but at the beginning of the cross examination defense counsel said did you talk to the prosecutors before this trial and held down that mr just figure out what happened here but i submit to you she said i don't remember if it was true shouldn't she have said no i didn't say that i never would have said that strike three and finest right for the photographs again i would have a real hard time standing before your honor's right now if i don't think i would be if photographs of these children in compromising positions believe search of his home and they turn it upside down as you would figure is that they have every right to do i suppose and they find not a single photograph of these children that is in any way compromising we know that's not true because he had some imperiously photographs and so they were an adult woman but quite frankly i looked it up in there in various human nature will be if you're going through your home you know the police are common out what is the state say well the they just didn't find it again look at the look at the things that they are saying the examination wasn't complete she contracted the disease in the thirty days after that evidence the indictment said he abused her the brown spots were small the police didn't find the photographs i submit you this is there are cases where the evidence was on satisfactory with regard to t w and no she and there are many other things i know they don't have to prove it but t w dot com for i know she doesn't have to but she did not of t w was found there was a photograph of t w and her legs were in here please take a look at that issue it's in the record that is it child there is i do there is absolutely nothing inappropriate why does it you have any problems with charles rancher that's not how it's supposed to be done then they are now it's true they don't get the negative and then there's no violation of law for the word ninety eight so all you know is it will be can garnish but i believe that's why things got to where they are charles major has done everything he can the interview by saying do you have any problems with charles ranter she is the person that said a picture was compromising and bad when you can look at the picture and i said maybe your honor you will not find march sixteenth two thousand and seven he put his name will she says in a couple different ways but getting right to it she says he put his hand down my pants and touched my vagina five pages later she says he put his hand on my s for three years how can those be similar if he'd child sex offenders i believe that acts the same way there's no bonus after randy here they cite the tale of case and say these are so similar that they corroborate each other and i to you the tail of the case is premised on the proposition that the acts at least in one of the acts against both victims is very very similar that isn't case here t w is a whole different ballgame th basically what they say is for whatever reason this story is made up and i know that and i don't know with your honor's but maybe laypeople and others think this has to be true while the child make it up but we know children make it up and the fact in the world makes the system work is the truth doesn't change and these children were inconsistent i know i can sit here and argue well the time line wasn't right point out to unfortunate and artful statements that are he and i were brief and i may as well just address those right from the start on page ten our brief says presence of the human papillomavirus that is you know artful in that that is not what the record shows the record shows that the child had what the doctor the medical expert deemed a very humorous lesion and he was unable state with any certainty even what caused it and he was unable to rule out any causes and as the justice mclaren pointed out the trial court question dr lee at length at the close of his testimony to make sure that the trial judge understood what the expert was saying are you saying maybe it was and maybe it wasn't did i get that right and dr ling said yes you got that right the doctor didn't stand up there and say i think it probably was more i think it probably wasn't he said i can't state it's inconclusive and he was actually the expert for the prosecution he didn't really mean in favor of the prosecution he was quite honest and said i performed this examination and i performed this test and he so even the negative test didn't rule it out but it didn't prove it either and he was unaware of any other tests that were performed on the child and even though he was pressed he could not state with any certainty at all what did or did not cause the le this is the trial judge issues were raised regarding gentle toward four spots on the penis of defendant regarding t delis description there was no detail given at the trial except on cross examination where the questions were asked the question was asked about the spots she said they were small and further description was invited they were tiny and small and that she had never seen a p s before and that were from t delis testimony that was given on march thirty first two thousand and nine at page  one seventy three the trial court goes on to say so the court was unable then to match up medical testimony as to the exclusion of or likelihood of the event taking place based on the medical observations of the of these two pieces of evidence the trial court face them head on it is a little confusing the trial judge made a ruling even in the face of ambiguous information the though t w had had many many many opportunities to carefully examine the defendant's sex organ and that the brown spots were huge moles on him you have a problem with the concept that if she sees brown spots where there are small or large did with her inconsistency is are you reconcile abilities or inability to observe is one thing but to say that this is confusing i don't think it's confusing and i don't think that the fact that she had seen the penis before those really means anything one way or the other in so far as whether it makes it less or more confusing well i don't want it don't you rank speculation but she was a little girl and even to big girls a male sex organ can be a scary and intimidating sight i don't know what the defense expert are going to look like and i'm glad that i don't i'm not interested  i don't really i have to confess to your honor i didn't give a lot of thought to it because this was not an issue that was discussed at length in the trial court i will offer to the court this thought in the very short amount of time that i had to review the record and i reviewed it from top to bottom i read every document in the common law record and every page in the record of proceedings and i would offer to the court that this is a model  care and perception on a trial court's part mr johnson pointed out that the child sex abuse cases are very difficult because the witnesses are ya know it's difficult for them to testify accuracy and precision and it's difficult assess how well their memories hold up over time and whether they know what they're looking at or what they experienced and so on and he expressed a great deal of fear that somebody could like mr grant or could be sent to prison for a very long time because if the i think he was arguing the inherent unreliability of child witnesses i'm not sure that child witnesses are inherently unreliable but in this particular case the one fifteen ten hearing that went on for days  gave the trial four and the people and the representatives of the defendant a great deal of time to wade very carefully step by step through the entire statements that all of the witnesses gave pam dealey was on the stand a reviewed her notes that why the mothers were on the stand the other investigator was on the stand at the close of the one fifteen ten motion the court said i will continue to consider these things in a court way to everything very what what corroborates her testimony over the her own testimony that there was criminal sexual abuse in this particular instance as she described situations occurring between herself and the defense which were markedly similar though not identical to the experiences of the other child witness and it's just just pointed out there are a number of consistenc between the stories presented by both child witnesses to pay immediately when she took their statements and also when the individual children later testify a trial they did offer their statements twice once to pay anyway and once a trial they both came to know the defendant through church they both were given presents by the defendant they both spent some time alone with the defendant at his house the defendant bought them clothing and took them on one or more shopping tribute inconsistenc over it it's not completely certain that the defendant knew b s quite as long as he knew t w and it is very clear from the record t w lives in the neighborhood and was able to walk to the defendant's house quite easily and spend a fair amount of time there on there did have the defendant listed as tito please go godfather and good tinting in that same lying child sexual abuse certainly is a crime of opportunity and i would submit to the court that the record demonstrates the defendant's opportunities to be alone with t w vastly outnumbered his opportunities to be alone with b s and b s came from a big family and to defend him and his wife took b s and her other siblings my shopping trips together that unusual possibly broken family that was very economically distressed it was unclear that we use family had an automobile was so why they couldn't manage to have a statement at the usual ok at the investigative center in a cane county if it's not totally clear what does appear to be the case from the record of his eliezer office discovered t w because of one of the photographs discovered at defendant's home and i think  characterization of the photograph is kind of beside the point it is just an ordinary photograph i agree but it did alert the investigative team to defendant's knowledge of another child of approximately the same age and i could i do believe that the photograph of t w was shown to be yes his family and b s his mother identified her as a little girl they knew from church on wednesday nights because it is just as her points out the two children were acquainted with each other they were occasionally apparently in the same wednesday night sunday school wednesday night church class there is no evidence though that they were chums or pals they didn't go to the same school they were of different socio two is very concerned that the photographs were never found both t w and b s consistently testified that the defendant coleridge photographs and they didn't say polaroid they said he had a black camera in the picture came out and it became a picture the rest of us would know that polaroid and that he said to both of them a variation on i'm going to put these away where no one can find out so i suggest to the court it's not surprising that they were found and  when mr grantors property was searched and his testimony he did know there were several cars and trucks on his property none of them were searched his property caring for sheds with padlocks on their handles mr jones one of the investigators stuck his head into one of them and walked away and the other three sheds more and searched at all so there were lots of places the photographs could have been and defendants that he was going to put them where they couldn't be found the photographs of the new female that are in the record i believe justice tony has a correct i believe those are most likely photographs and that's why she apparently willingly post for them perhaps she was proud of them and defendant was happy to take them he didn't hide them because she knew they existed were there any other questions i do wish should know for the court say that t w told her the defendant try to put his stuff inside of her but stopped so they're really not there really isn't any evidence in the record that t w and the defendant gage didn't fall  beyond a reasonable doubt she seems to be saying that there wasn't that his penis never touched her vagina that is what he was convicted of so i would take head to suggest yes newsgroup if you look at the in our family draft in their brief i submit to you was an honest and appropriate assessment of the evidence and that is why it is not so clear that this child did that the expert could not say whether or not this child clear on page volume i page ninety six she stated that her family was friends with defendant's family ever since they started attending church together when she was six or seven she was eleven at the time crimes and that's why they don't corroborate each other mr grand jury did not work outside the home his wife worked a nine to five job or made sure their new job she was always gone and this was a relationship where a man