shows why she would stay in the small one bedroom apartment as a teenage mother of an infant son and not get up and leave when all this evidence of unlawful activity was seeping into the apartment it gives the jur in order to get an accurate and fair and balanced picture of what was going on in that young single parents life any expert psychologist who examined her and spent a great deal of hind i would have been a great benefit to the  wasn't just she was i mean she could have been present in the house and if they said look there's all the stuff around she was present she must be an accomplice then i think you would have had a pretty good case for saying well here's a reason why he stuck around logical inference of the case if she said look i was i did but it was a very nice then this will help so so then you have to ask how does the battered woman syndrome thing help at was actually in personally involved they did and there is evidence of that but i think in final argument if you look at the final argument i meet presence was one of the factors that the  government relied on in their closing argument and then they kind of the little of the battered woman said well we didn't we weren't able to flush out the battered woman issues that the government argued that this issue  evidence sprinkled throughout the record of trial indicating he was a bully it was a very violent behavior family members the mother solved black and bruises black marks and bruises all over her body and certain points in time even one of the prosecution witnesses that it was a violent well relate them then why was she taking notes about men are involved about men if she was worried about her husband having an affair with a woman while she testified on the stand it was more of her own response she was doing  broad was that somebody that she was he was she was afraid he was having an affair with now she had no idea who these people were when i was writing the profiles of michael brown because maybe he would be in a position if she was able to have the opportunity to do quote detective work or try to figure out who these people were that all these expenses were being written off on and he had no idea who these people are or what i mean we have a perfectly good is no no no i didn't do this for that reason i do the for this other reason and i guess i i thought you were she was saying is that i was keeping track of th her legitimate reason for keeping the smells her legitimate reason was trying to use that as a starting place that she can track down or at and get some witnesses to figure out or at least tell her where all these items that were being purchased were going through because she was not getting any and i remember she has and it's in a small file and they were still living in poverty they couldn't make their bill so she knew their boyfriend was out there doing something with all this money that evidently he was acquiring that was verified by these receipts and so she was tracking her primary motivation why she thought he was having an affair she was writing down all these notion how much time to do that in the hopes that she could over you know what i don't know what went on both of the jurors i think that's true it's all for the jury doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the court should have precluded an entire area of expert psychological testimony person you translate that into the battered woman syndrome sure the doctor in this case was not able to say she fits all fifteen points three classic symptoms of the battered woman syndrome  no idea i mean just thought it was an excellent judge and i'm sure she would do a very simple job whatever but it does open up the whole field and you're not just back there for download parts of time this is this is now you know looking at consecutive of may fourteenth the so that he was not around at the time that these transactions were made and she was not involved in any way in the offense so i think it's important with the expert testimony to kind of evaluate what this was being used to explain case here i mean the government's theory of this case was that she was an active participant in this fraud and it was not dependent on the mere presence of facts and the jury was presented with that view i mean she the jury was presented with the