dozen times you need to talk to us you have to tell us you have to tell us what happened on the police used the prison is a guilt trip they repeatedly said god will not forgive you until you come clean happens and again the police don't have the power to do that and to tell repeatedly that this was an accident that will make a big difference he pushed the accident scenario starting at about  what happened is exactly what he said in the video i believe that's what the judge said but that's not correct it's the medical evidence shows it's not correct and these these expert medical evidence shows much more severe that's correct question you before but now he's charged in the just trying to figure out how he because he doesn't verbal the acknowledge that he understands and they don't say you  hearing therefore the record contradicts defendant's claim that the trial that is the judge decided the motion entire in documentary evidence the score should review the denial of the motions for us under the two parts to review state accurate both were filed on the same day in a record there are no timestamps it makes you people since to say that the arrest warrant was issued and then they had this fifth interview and then after they get more information the confession in this case that they then indicted him for in this case information so will clear showing in the record the information came before this last interview murder at the beginning of the video right that's correct they didn't show him the information so we not positively officers use that we're charging he may be even charged by an arrest for with  hands or something move or bunch of scenarios that were presented to defend it and if he finds it world that's really what happened you know i really was playing with the child i was afraid to say anything i didn't want to you know just to come back on the could have been charged with  potentially involuntary manslaughter tension in the battery for something he did that caused the harm or just but he was told first degree murder when this if this was a pretty states is that it isn't a trial so that you then have to waive counsel in open court so when you're waving kelso and you're saying you're going to represent yourself that's for trial we're as pretrial i will consider on a resume everyone considers pretrial to be a trial or cd so at that point yes they definitely have the right to six minute right to counsel and then they have to waive counsel in open court but that is a trial that's the time when the confessions are made and when and by the time he gets to trial they're done because there's been a confession and that's the most compelling kind of evidence that there can we have to remember in this particular case this was a specific or a waiver and there was no indication that any time the defendant he didn't ask for counsel he didn't say want to end the interview nothing he didn't say you didn't want to continue speaking he didn't vote any right that he had whatsoever even though it's clear on the on the video that the detective read the miranda rights to him then head in the form and it says clearly on the top waiver of rights he signed that had every opportunity to read it again and he made no attempt to to invoke any of his rights that he kept telling him this is exactly what you've done before but the times that he'd done it's not a judicial proceeding at all and police have no authority to sentence anybody for anything so therefore rule for one doesn't apply in this case the defendant in his brief first issue or it was  defendant any promises of leniency in the not told in of the charge would be reduced if he confessed these findings by the trial judge or not against manifest way to the evidence but there are some things that are the things that he rested his decision on were number one that when his mother asked him three times did you do this or is this true he didn't answer and the failure to answer was consistent with the no or a yes i can't remember which way he put it the tape clearly shows that each time his mother asked to that question he shook his head no more the you it was finding that defendant did say was mother yes i told the police that i did this to the child he said yeah and then it said unintelligible after that well if you look at the tape what he said w but that's not what we have in this case it was a very long suppression routine here and in that we had all this testimony to back up what also was the motivation between the police officer from the police officer and what were the thinking at the time when he made certain statements and such  position that he clearly shakes his head no and that there are no other questions