and more than that it's absolutely frightening that somebody could be convicted on such stands and they are evidence of such a very tiny we connection what resource confidence  mistakes and i believe when you look at the other oath in this case you will agree that this was insufficient evidence to remove reasonable doubt of guilt and provide us with the moral certainty that mr sanchez was responsible for this crime the defender is alleged to have strangled the victim at that and september ninth two thousand and six and it is important to understand all of the players involved in  events and the scene of the crime a victim was found naked in her bed strangle and she was also stabbed in the face and neck area five times and this was in the basement where she lived which is across the street from the defendant she lived in this residence in the basement area with her husband mr he zeus relays there was another individual that lived in the basement and set roommate pablo hundred and then there were people that lived up stairs weekend so the people that are upstairs are his george is gabriel sanchez and downstairs and you have the victim her husband and this other individual that lives down now they don't know  they live across the street he would occasionally go over there for a party or a watch or a boxing fight or soccer the victim and the person who lived up stairs wife were friends with hugo sr who also lived across the street with the victim and he left the house about three thirty it were told not one am when he came home around two am he had found that a door that appeared to be busted then he found his wife naked in bed and the bat and he yelled upstairs  and george upstairs called the police george was present so was this mr sanchez who was sleeping on the couch apparently he had been there all day the paramedics had said that there were signs of lived upstairs they ate together george left to go fishing around one gabriel stayed there and we know that again he sues the victim's husband who lived downstairs the left around three thirty george to come back about five thirty pm gabriel still there and george left again around six forty five pm to go to a dance gabriel still there watching t v s now this puts the window of the murder around six fifty or two am and they found again april sanchez asleep on the couch so where is the find during this time all the witnesses have him coming home to his house across the street around three thirty and he began working on his vehicle they had a cookout at that house and most of the witnesses and everyone eating around six pm some witnesses and hugo leaving his house what he says was to go buy cigarettes around seven thirty the old one who been leaving earlier is his was then his girlfriend the time she says he left around six pm at any rate he returns around nine thirty give or take while gone the evidence shows that  this in this window that you would have either before or after in this completely unrelated incident going and busting out a window of his parents house and also went and either by himself or with other people busted the door cross the street and then really raped and murdered the woman the some scratches on him have a bathroom so he uses the same bathroom they eat together they watch t v together she's over there every single day and the d n a can be there just from simple can't say it can be from using the same hand towel me from washing your hands in the back room as her evidence that while this here they could be there he scratches that they use this evidence i gather from a photo of the person looking at the photo and saying yeah i did these could come from fingernails they can also come from scraping against anything a sharp object you know car something your house guy's blood his blood along with the victim's blood is on the makeshift curtain that is that they used there's a makeshift door it's a curtain that goes into her room in the basement so his blood is on there her blood is not there  it's possible ali hound dog that he says he says he got off work at seven thirty he went to a friend's he drank a twelve pack of beer then he went home to get money as he wanted more beer and he saw the victim dead but he didn't call the police instead he grabbed more money and went and bought another topic of beer and drink and then he comes back to where when the police are already there there's also cocaine found in the gravel victims r looking at this connection the fact that how this in a may get under her fingernails that nothing else puts him there and all this evidence of other people's blood other people's prints everything else but him being there to me it's kind of like saying well evidence or statements to give a note about and the lack of testimony that he brought out that brings me to the to the other two arguments regarding ineffective this is now and i don't enjoy making these arguments i'm far from perfect and of course everything's better in hindsight but this is this is going to bring here if you look at it how council handle this mr public if my memory serves me correctly is about three or four pages of cross examination three or four pages which one is maybe three or four minutes and let's look up let's look at what he had the information that he had about mr powell i handwrote when the detective first interviewed him he didn't disclose it first at the victim even with there he said i lived there with a supes which is the victim's husband he claimed not to have seen the victim for a week prior to the murder besides george's wife and kids he didn't he claimed that nobody else or didn't know lived up stairs which would of been at mr sanchez and then most incredibly left hang out all the time or anything like that or they somehow imagined and planned something there's just nothing there connecting any of these people other than a quick then you know doesn't know that he's been over there a couple times because the daughter had a party or he's watched a fight but there's nothing else all they ha  and then when they get the d n a under her fingernails i think the binders go on and then they have the guy right there was also never came out him saying yeah i was unusual for me to stay home and be home all day that they even though he was invited to go out didn't think it was unusual for me to be there he says he heard a you know a loud noise if the i think you could get that statement out to show his opportunity to commit the crime maybe show a state of mind but that's irrelevant of course because he left he the parties stipulated the fact that he broke the window called his girlfriend's father make sure no one was home broke the window and then then came back went to five or four crack are broke in with somebody else committed a crime against the victim and then arrive home at anywhere between nine and and his girlfriend's attack a lot of other people's and nine hundred thirty again of those gentlemen didn't match the defendant either therefore the people think it reasonable to presume that someone else was there and someone else was involved in this crime but none of that changes the fact that the people submit that if this defendant was definitely  whether the scratches were there when on defendant when he left that around six o'clock and his girlfriend at the time testified that they were not there at six o'clock when when he left i discuss grief but she knows that they were there when he got back at ten o'clock therefore it's reason to assume that as the jury did hear fully capable of doing here that he got those f five or four for casual contact casual touching to after touching a contact to get such d n a on your fingers but she said in her experience that this is more d n a than is expected from that kind of casual touching minutes according to the testimony you get there broke the window had to walk all the way back another thirty five minutes and of course was involved in a some very intense confrontation in the basement of  probably i guess i will agree with mr murphy on that one for lack of further understanding on my part  agree with the state that it's reasonable to assume based on the evidence that certainly other people were there at the residence may have committed the crime it's not reasonable to assume that mr sanchez  certainly lives with her changed the story about what she first cousins factor and what she tells what the story of the trial but but that's the that's the point of this court is where you know testimony is so improbable or unconvincing or or not enough you or not this apennines is just simply it's almost nonexistent the only thing that puts him there is evidence that doesn't prove he was there it's only evidence that it's just as likely to have been slightly let's compare her statements she's just trying to say on the one hand no this amount of d n a is more than i would expect from this kind of contact while they cross examination you don't say no it's just as possible that this d n a could be there she would say no something in it could be there from kendall contact but as i've already said this much it's not consistent she's saying the same thing i think it's more than casual contact now this could certainly be there for the casual so again your honour's it's it's it's looking at this extremely bare insufficient connection now only against what states all the experts say but also against all this other evidence that shows all these other people were there and for somehow mr sanchez is the only one you know clean enough for or in this violent struggle that he's not going to leave haven't any evidence of him being there none of this makes sense and it's not