first question that has to be addressed in this case is what is a fair characterization of mr overstreet ineffective assistance of counsel claim and i contend that means fairly alleged she saw her attackers arms and she did not notice any tattoos on his arms mr overstreet alleged that he has tattoos on his arms and he alleges that because of the way his attorney handled case in which the defense that defense was mr overstreet did not do it somewhere else there was several witnesses to an alibi defense what about the other evidence that was they considered it relevant well let's see the victim testified that she did not see any tattoos on the inner part of the r anywhere on the arm is that right that's correct and at some point his upper arms as he was as the attacker was pounding her she didn't notice any tears no tattoos at all so if you're the defense lawyer and the guy you're defending is just you know he looks like the tattooed man with all these deputies over what's the first thing you're going to do when you defend that gate you're going to show the jury that fellow's arms aren't you i would sure you would but then on the other hand what if the tattoos have faded or you can see them very well or they're kind of well maybe then you have a life testify that he had tattoos all over azhar mz and you don't put the fellow on the stand your honor i think that that would be something that if this went back down for an evidentiary hearing would be a question there in evidence without actually testify i'm not sure about that i think there are there are cases that support you can show the arms without having him take the stand yeah yeah you know here we are just so obvious that that's what you would do if you were defending this case the guy had discernible observable tattoos all over his arms now that he didn't lands want to believe that the defense counsel made a strategic choice he's going to rely on the testimony of the wife or ex wife of it which was  was a confession it did get before the jury the defense attacked the weather's that was given in a consensual way went into the fact why didn't by family members but partly by professionals who had very little relationship at all with mr overstreet and they all had independent reasons for knowing when they saw him at different points on the afternoon of the capital problematic for the prosecution in this case because she was the witness to a lot of the timeline which supported an alibi defense so the prosecutor had to attack her credibility and spend time doing that in his closing talking about look she says why she cares about him she doesn't want to go to jail you can question her testimony jury so i think that we don't know the jury might have thought well probably making up the tattoo thing as well a reasonable tactical choice that's not an ass the type of evidence we have in this case is simply not enough to point out the jury deliberate deliberate it's fairly long and ask what the tattoos what do you make  et attacks are inside her house she got the good look at him and he beat her up and then takes a lot of her possessions and then as he leaves he threatens to kill her but then as he leaves she's able to watch him drive away and then the car and the car tracks back to the same defendant same address we have fingerprints from the finding in the house and then we also have a confession from this defendant that he did that because he didn't want to be charged with  that there are independent alibi witnesses yes yes i do i take complete interest i think in this case and it was it was one of the very most very strongest prosecutions cases that are saying and i'm that i just don't think there's any thank you your honor i will be brief i just want to address the independent alibi witnesses so certainly the prosecution did have a bottle a neighbor i'm sorry a person who worked for the m w c p youth league i believe she was involved in some youth election and he dropped ballots by the overstreet home  and she knew what time he was there because he had just picked up some kids at a youth center and you know it was three fifty and that's when he saw the defendant in front of overstreet home and gave him these bal s there's also an individual who worked in the same for the same organization as rita overstreet which their organization was having a management meeting on the afternoon of the capital's robbery that person left the meeting at about four o'clock to make copies to report that they didn't have enough copies so he leaves around four o'clock and he's mr overstreet out in the lobby and says can i help you jury believes that someone saw him at four o'clock at this substance abuse center where mr overstreet worked then i think it would be very difficult to believe he could have committed the capital