court only ruled and to the court never ruled the belt incident but then again i'm looking at the briefs in the record nobody in a motion to reconsider as i understood it pressed the bell incident ok often is there an issue of forfeiture how we addressing something but never ask the court to rule on the thirty will then two of the three and since didn't say anything about the third didn't put it in order and then the state never followed up and asked the court to rule its notice in its motion it when a there was a hearing only on one aspect of it i don't think the trial home was in any position to go on about the belt incident which was not the substance of angelica's testimony so i think the motions i have which is not to say that it's wrong to call with this in the ocean eliminate context i mean obviously we could all be so we've all we all have some trouble or familiarity there may be some concerns about the witnesses ability to stick to the script or whether she testimony i think everybody was focused on the punchy incident as opposed to the belt so in that sense the parties didn't make the best record i think you've also got this is why i said you need to do over you've got a fact that you didn't do anything why are we in that limited circumstance state's motion limited because it's unusual to say ok you screwed up we're going to send it back to what you can get or if you look at the so little record on page five the aids i mean the defense said it's not that we're concerned about this when this is a bill he became yourself in the court room we're concerned about the belts incident in the interest of bases other than defense counsel saying she need inconsistent statements and we want to testify extent that this was a reliable the ruling of the the trial of course believe that you know because of the witnesses potential it's a lie bottles all those things that are relevant to a liability ruling i think those require because the state hasn't provided that transcript now the motion we consider only just can dealt with angelica and also the state's attorney ro the written order saying that the motion eliminate was denied in toto so the is the state is trying to use and a very slim thread of other crimes testimony to shore up a case on which they have even less evidence and in determining whether or not the probative value outweighs the substantial presence or prejudice this court has said you look at both and here we have very limited testimony from angeleno i  didn't see it i don't know if it was an open hand closed fist i don't know i didn't see it so and then as far as the evidence on the charge defense and that and how prejudicial the other crimes would be you have no witnesses and in fact i want to make a comment on one part of the state's argument a statement that they made on page fifteen of their opening brief they state they seem to  to try to say that the defendant made a statement that he punched the child and as far as the charged offense and they say at some point therefore it's all they don't have any witnesses and as we point out in our brief the state's own medical expert compelled the state to file a motion to get my client and angelica to have s because they suspected a congenital heart problem as the cause of the minor the child's distrust and injuries and the e k g he showed according t serious congenital heart condition and in the motion which defense counsel asked me if i am asking for a recall bond he said that there are serious issues as to causation in this case and that  granted so there's a very clear they're trying to piggyback the other crimes evidence which is which must be kept out unless evidence well that's a meaningless exercise if the judge could hear evidence that he's not allowed to assess the evidence then what's the point so it's not the judge to misapply the law he heard the evidence which the state says he could yes i believe they have forfeited and for the reasons that the the they didn't bring it up in their motion to reconsider and the defense raised forfeiture in our brief and in the reply brief the state did not respond plus a given the fact that there is no transcript of judge foreman's the you know that first hearing i'm not saying something did happen i don't know we don't have that record but in the context of essentially just testimony and you think it was not brought up which would be founded by the four corners of the motion limiting anything they didn't raise that's where i am and that's why i think that's one possible good and i think she's a good ball she justify originally she saw school conclusion get back to my question why is that an abuse of discretion if it sounds like you're asking us to review this record and say gee we'll if we were the trial judge we would have next version of the events that she's told different from the next version of events that she told on own cross i think those are not things that cut against the reliability or i mean look they're all bad ok but they did none of them prevent her from being a reliable witness at trial the reason that we have witness examinations and motions of whether they are other than what fifteen ten situations is usually out of concern that the with this is not going to be able to control him or herself in the have you have defense counsel statement about he wanted angelina to testify because she had given him consistent statements i believe that this was defense counsel's tactics to get angela on the stand to conduct an improper deposition to impeach her