first by a reasonably interpreted as irrelevant to any situation other than a quid pro quo threat to take one's children if they don't the court rejected the statements about jeanette being separated from  doesn't render a statement involuntary so irrelevant moving on rights of all children that aren't a quid pro quo don't render involuntary so again irrelevant there was no outward signs of exhaustion other on that there were repeated statements made if not threats to remove her children from her that's the part that i'm less sure about i can think of a few re pressure got more intense as her emotions were higher there were more officers in the room the interrogation had been going on for a longer period of time they repeatedly bring up you know if you want to get home to your kids for god's sake help yourself here and they're talking about being with your family and the way they could be with their family it's by giving them a better explanation by giving them a better story and the wisconsin court of appeals you know one of the things that we've talked about being an under reasonable interpretation of the fact is that wisconsin appeal says well yes they did make a promise that she could get back to her kids cooperated but by cooperated what they met was give them a truly story statement that was consistent with all the medical evidence that they knew it whereas in fact that's not at all with i mean we have poured upon quite a plan quote i mean really from pretty early in the interview two when things insisting that something must have happened between jeanette in the space and it could have been an accident it could've been a shampoo bottle it could have been a short fall it could have been anything they needed to give them something and certainly we involve much false friendship at least not after our three and a half hour course certainly our five these were three officers at many of the most heated parts in a small interrogation room hovering over an eight month pregnant woman who's just been separated from her four young children and again over and over and over saying do you want to get out here do you want to go home you have to change your story from telling her over and over the story they want to hear with something about an accident they knew full well never could have killed this baby and so it involves a level of coercion that just wasn't in it and then in terms of the supreme court case i mean like i said there's a there's several different ways to get supreme court is saying you can't evaluate and rejection factors in isolation from each other without taking into account the to tell you the circumstances that's not what that frees me and there's certainly that but again the fact reasonably balance those personal characteristics against the pressures that were brought to bear in this situation even if even if this points in two different directions another court might disagree primarily on the misuse the acts motherhood and her pregnancy however when balancing the personal characteristics the courts sensibly understood pointed out that yes she was what's going on with my kids i've been separated from my kids i need to know what's going on with my kids and the police department thought well let's get someone from child protective services and here c n n and i think it might since i know you're concerned about the children i have spoken with them i'm not taking them into custody now you know i think she was trying to reassure her and yet she's saying all right but you know you need to cooperate you know just  it's pretty clear that the temperature went up and the pressure dialed up pretty substantially you can see that from the transcript and you can absolutely see it from the video and it was mr back her her chief back her said we're talking about jail here you know there's not going to be any kids no family why can't we combine the two points that i just mentioned and interpret all of that collectively  for an accidental explanation when the police thought of themselves that that was just impossible but they know that i don't i don't think that's correct i don't think they thought it was impossible if if she said you  and then she says well you know she might have fallen off the bed she fell off the couch for months and she might have fallen off the bed and now that doesn't jive with what we know and then and again and there she was pretty set so i mean she seemed that she you know she's not a fall for this whether it's i didn't do anything or if i did something was really an accident she fell off the b are children and that no one needs to threaten her with that she no respect and that's why she keeps talking when they keep telling her look we were not getting anywhere here so well then you know and then she's not falling off the bed but if there was a serious accident or if one of her children through the child from high stairway or something that bad might get her home if not right then interview that she was going to be taken into custody again unless the swim possibility that she would let's say she said all right all right my boyfriend good ok well then let's go talk to him there was nothing correct a few things in the record my opposing counsel says that it was early in the interview that she was told she was going into custody it was about three and a half four hours into the interview and that's actually when things started getting increasingly progressively more difficult and there was some exploration or was there anybody else there could there be other suspect that was the beginning of the interview in the friendly part of the interview before the part that we had ever argued was involuntary heavily fact and circumstance dependent where do you think the line is you know given all of you know the depth of knowledge you have a law in this area about  unfortunately it's impossible to define where that line is because i think even the most extreme sentence i could come up with you could imagine a context in which it might not have been meant the way it came out or it would have been surrounded by other circumstances so i think it's really there peter discussion of getting home to the children of changing her story combined with the social worker talking about potential removal of her children and the fact even the county that looked at that before combined with the length of time with her expressing to the officers how much she needed to be with her children and connecting all that to what she do it with to give them a new story and one that could be an accident i think she never  context of the saying that a person would give a particular kind of statement a different statement to keep talking to change their story i think i mean i think you have to draw a line and using that but again i could imagine a very brief and friendly interview here we don't have a brief and friendly interview we have a very antagonistic very lengthy interview and in which the officers are very clearly using her desire to be with her children to get her to change her story