his statement be our evidence of his uncertainty as a trial judge i don't know how many times i said that to myself the fact how our i could be wrong yeah i everybody could be wrong so how is that a issue of his uncertainty well i think i think it's clear by the context of the entire transcripts from the well but i mean just preceding that particular statement i could very likely be iran he said i'm sympathetic to you unfortunately i don't believe your past and i understand i understand that but it would if we look at eight i could very likely be wrong there's an appeal process for you but in my mind i'm not wrong obviously i was here but i thought her testimony was very consistent i thought her demeanor understand  bill and i just didn't buy into the way you said things happened either in a bedroom or certainly in the kitchen now i could very likely be wrong and there's an appeal process for you in distan when in my mind if i said i was firm in my belief that this judge did not say anything that is equivocal wrong or and ticket him of his belief that he was committing any revers would you claim an appeal would appeal way that what i've just said is something on which you could mais appeal a claim that i am sane to you now then i think i could be wrong and therefore you could file sleeping with the truth is there was need no cooling off period needed because after the kitchen he went back to bed she went back to the bedroom and started running around throwing things trying to keep him off he didn't do anything else she that he she was a fear for your father here in the bedroom for the next two hours he didn't take her cell phone he didn't detain or even do anything which would you would normally think of someone who was o deny it she didn't say that's not sure i never said that so we we have to take over but evidence as as as what it is it's for its face value the bottom line is the kitchen supposed to her belief that she was entitle to seek revenge and therefore if she was a title to seek revenge that she believes that she was actually wronged in some way shape or form and therefore it is  essentially a prior consistent statement in the sense that it is consistent with what she was alleging took place in the past i don't well my point is why are you arguing a point of supposedly a person who's seeking revenge is is normally seeking revenge because they've been wronged as opposed to seeking revenge for some sort of all teary or reason such as vindictiveness or just evil so unless there's evidence of evil  vindictiveness your argument basically is corroborating the fact that she is saying something that is consistent with what a person who's been battered wife which is isn't it the public policy of the state to punish domestic batteries and therefore express it and so they're in the kitchen and she does you know reach out and maybe him does he have the right to grab her to stop the hitting  i'm sorry about this relationship gives a little kind of advice to the level or an almost doesn't look like she's the right girl three does that does that show any favoritism toward her testimony or is she does it look like he's just trying to get the facts straight with the facts i don't think that the man had in hearing the charges against the defendant or the ultimate outcome of the case i as far as just his question about favoritism is is i don't know look when he says he started off the st statement of his ruling in the trial was i have a moral that you know you just can't do things like this there's no legal basis for doing things like this almost as if he was saying you know doesn't matter what she said you can't do this as far as the rehearing goes you know  reasonable doubt wouldn't he have been granted the motion to the truth of the matter is he states right in the rehearing transcript st thing off he hears defendant's counsel and then he stops the state before they even start and says hey do you mind if i  consistent she got a little bit he didn't say what he didn't he didn't say this is how i see the pictures now i see go here's the here's what happened beginning before during and after here's why no i believe there's sufficient evidence to fight the fight and i believe i believe there is evidence to make a decision one way or the other the fact that he didn't do it just means he didn't do it but that doesn't mean it was evil being done