detectives refused to provide a day time exact location or the accuser's name leaving the interrogation vague and wide ranging face repeatedly asked for details and when they're not forthcoming he dives into this neander ing recitation of the sexual and i understand what you're saying that you know you got video in front of them and i but what i'm asking is i believe those circumstances it would have been even clearer that this was a strategic determination by trial co under what happened here maybe it wasn't as clear but i'm going to put this is someone who is a trial counsel myself once upon a time when i still have honest work just like what you know you're making all kinds of judgment calls and all kinds of thoughts about that counsel may have thought that he's not going to be able to get this far but there's no reason to think relatively short offensive many of the sentences that he utters are sentences that i would not feel comfortable saying no harm or hearing as a jury member in a bar and this video went on for ninety six minutes second the video was inadmissible because it contained the necessary you don't need contacts to introduce base denial of sexually assaulting anyone but that doesn't become nonsensical if there is no contact if you don't have first the detective saying we know you lied we don't believe you  connecting you to this offense as well as many other offenses throughout springfield and coming down from chicago you don't need contacts to hear bases denial or to understand what the denial this and that the other cases where the detectives opinions were admissible the defendant changes the story so that again that makes sense that the force of contacts that you need the detectives accusations to follow the course of the interrogation but i find them in the defendant remained firm and consistently denied which is like this case and in that case hartmann the detectives opinions of the defendant were lying were not admissible and so this case is charged and telling him that his d n a connected him to the servants is not relevant because the state didn't present any evidence at all connecting bates to these offenses they're only unsupported allegations they're vague they lack detail and these comments are also substantially outweigh any minor possible probative value the video was inadmissible and should have been properly moved to suppress counsel's failure to properly file this motion was therefore professionally unreasonable further defense expert explaining that there are four hundred eighty six other people that could have contributed the d n a profile that was found in a p s and elsewhere and also the d n a you know bates was charged with national oral penetration ye that there are multiple odile so there's multiple choices of the profile of how it would work out at multiple of these fifteen locations we know from that the state expert's report just stated you have a forty five that there were multiple choices of profile at six locations so we know from that that this was a nine low so max there's nine locations that fit bates and that there are locations they don't take into account the fact that there are multiple choices on six of these locations so they don't factor in those traces they don't factor in that bates is one possible but defense counsel the defense expert looked at it and said what's the state didn't do not they didn't contend that the defense expert was wrong or pulling the wool over the jury's eyes or anything like that say they expected it because it's it's significant other times on trial for the crime against a p and i understand that the c h evidence can come in as propensity but the journey is to look at the evidence against a p and i understand that that comes in and that forms part that the defense counsel may have decided i want those jurors see my mind denying every single allegation made against him regardless of what trip or effort what they use against him trying to get him to break he adamantly denies his involvement in any of these cases i want the jurors to see that but i really don't want my guy up on the stand is in your favor you know why do you want to exclude a state a state that despite you know just as justice counsel say hey i want the jury hear this browbeating these accusations and mice clients constant saying i don't know anything i hear all of this rope is description is pretty to put you know that you can't just excerpt the first responses he have to have a question as well so that the defense counsel not raising this hard theory which was decided  police questions could come in even these quote unquote statements of opinion at at that time because they're not testimony of the officers opinion at trial is at that station between different method of computation taking into fact that there are multiple contributors at certain places it comes down to one hundred four one in four hundred eighty six that could have been a contributor so the defense expert has two figures and he gives the state x for just gave the one of the four hundred eighty tree as the the experts russ honor i think that the as use suggested before this falls in the category of overwhelming evidence i mean you have the two identical crimes within a month within the same general area the exec same method off operation neither victim knows the defendant and the defend this d n a is found in both will case the hundred eighty trillion if you calculate it this way but one four hundred eighty six if you calculate it this way i think that for a here is two virtually identical cases within the same geographical area same method of operation is through by clear cutting a screen attacking the victim with a knife leaving telling them to count and then neither knowing the defendant bought his d n a there so i think that this that any prejudice in very famous mention figure revoke just to correct something about the d n a again it's not one in four hundred eighty six it's that there are four hundred eighty six other possible contributors and the six multiple low c's those were not excluded all those possible combinations a all the way through out the genes you know a b all the way through out and you look at different combinations where there is multiple fields and that's where the four hundred eighty six number comes from goal so you would there's only one choice at nine of the locations so you use those nine and then you use the different now lunch hours and four hundred eighty six other people they all  there they all match of that first night and actually all those four hundred eighty six people have the exact same match of one in four hundred eighty trillion that a say can't all four hundred eighty six of those other people match at that amount and the defen motion the oral motion saying it's beyond the five hour i didn't get to see at the beginning of the next day or the prosecutor comes up and says you know i edited the video and i took out the objectionable bets that t trial in response the aura that this is this is less that five hour it's like the ten second it's needed to be made a long time ago for the reason if there are no more questions for these reasons we