complainant there is no physical evidence at all there's no chance of the defendant could god make the evidence not close by establishing alibi or anything like that because the state changing charge against him from occurring within one month with and months so obviously he can't you know present an alibi that would cover ten months you know mr bolling never confessed of the crime when he was interrogated by the police he took the statement testified denied assaulting ok i know there's nothing in particular the status pointed to about his testimony that is particularly unbelievable it's best evidence you know most of the time they never said that she was assaulted at any time even remotely near when this supposedly happened to you but there was a statement to  under his church those twelve s it's been interpreted to refer to the acts that were charged by the decisions i cite embraced forty years old rape in my brief yet you know there are cases saying that it's limited to but there was another there was another simultaneous one there there was a sceptic case where she's looking at the tree and she sees somebody sitting on the train see somebody else being assaulted that's another case which i think supports embry because that indicated that she did because she thought the same thing might happen to her and she assumed that but had happened to her in the past was happening to her present correct yes how does that not constitute a matter of detail simultaneous it's not simultaneous now she was assaulted shortly after that he took her in the room after that shit she didn't telescope have but no one else so the bag yeah and you know that's my position it's after it's not the same and you know under these packing embry it's not a miss because it doesn't what happened to her cousin doesn't explain what happened to her you know it wasn't what would happen to somebody else was perpetrated against her so that's that's the best i can explain it's oh it doesn't really explain what happened to her  w is not an element of of this offense obviously it's not subject to this prosecution so again the cases have held that unless it simultaneous it doesn't pertain to the elements of the prosecutor characterized it so as that it was that she stated that it was a very credible statement no well cope certainly seem to believe so that's how it was presented to the jury as a credit as as a nurse cope testifying that was  says history is credible she's saying that the witnesses credible i don't i don't see how there's any distinction between st k was telling the truth or are saying she's credible and you know like i said you know the prosecutor didn't statements kind of man you know doesn't really reveal i mean you know the jury can infer that since she didn't actually state what the cousin told them told her you know that's you know probably not bad but it sets up the problem with eight years old so is good touch bad touch conversation with the child conversation isn't that a conversation with ar what was the need to provide the motivation for riordan's ever the conversation with it so that it would make sense to the jury that was in the jury otherwise would include a conversation like this without otherwise occur and i would have but i would assert that it's always relevant circumstances in which the well makes her right  are that according to the aunt hernandez s to talk with her privately about some things of the defendant and then according to the mother she and the aunt had a conversation about some stuff the defendant had been accused of so that's the extent of it did i mean does indicate that it was something about the girls i'm hearing no no she did not indicate that fernando said you want to have a conversation with her about relating to good touch bad touch but again you know this it was something that was not objected to in the best scheme of things this is not something that wouldn't tip the scales of justice those situations that applies too much to the evidence in this case we have to remember that not only did defendant not get trial and didn't object in his but from motion old girl we have to bring out that she had heard information from fernandez about the nature of some stuff that appeared that had been accused in that conversation was in the you make the shepherd as to why any hearing that you know this guy heard some stuff about him that's some stuff that he has been accused of so you better talk to you and see make sure she understands about good touch bad he don't think that would carry with it an implication that the defendant has done this before with other little girls which so then the question is or the prosecutor was also aware of other things that and would have known that the result of such a hearing would say we don't know that and we it's it's unfair to come back on a where she testified to the use telling her that after the incident with her cousin ok he told her about it after the incident  get the door couldn't she pushed a guess and that should try to open it with her fingernail which detective seiler then went and investigated and made a videotape of himself actually opening the door with the with his fingernail and mr bowling is a mere visitor so i would argue that he does not fall within that exception as to whether or not the questions