with refuting her testimony and her physical evidence here is weak and doesn't place here in jackson inside of the car after he was identified by an archbishop all at detecting mcafee's urging him to worry for testimony pocket of his jeans a small stain consumed in the testing process with an extremely low population frequency that jade winners the state's expert did not state is a match to make sure your prints on the car were only to make commonsense assessment of the evidence and there can be minor inconsistencies within the sentence and if there can be inconsistency in testimony the question is whether the prosecution or defense counsel the event explain his claims if he can show possible neglect new counsel is appointed only there only then will hearing of her on the ineffectiveness claims where my defendant would have counsel to argue the claims expert jay witt winters testimony  serial when lead trial judge permitted the prosecutor to comment on the evidence that was a listener but from the defendant and his attorney that is that is that the it you really complaining about court is missing the nature of the error in the point that this court made jolly the problem with this is if the state adversarial dissipation leads us without an objective record that the reviewing court needs for a harmless error review so severe that reversal is required whether or not we are struggling err and again this is it's not just the nature of the area here it's the result can we rely upon this record to view against my client or asked basically told me you have to prove your point are you calling your counsel a liar this proceeding was not a neutral proceeding at all and my client was unrepresented  have the kind of objective neutral record here that would allow us to do a harm expected these are women that observed a very traumatic event it's also a good murder and they testified about it years and years later it was up to the jury to resolve these these inconsistency and they did so this is not a closed case at all and it's clearly guilty that they could not definitively say that the blood on the pants was the mayor's wife was very careful to say they can only say it was probably the mayor's blood because they share the same person profile as to the fingerprint calling it a fresh print here's why i did this or that and as the truck court said in the hearing that he plans to review the trial transcripts and you will see in the written opinion the trial court says i've now read all the trial transcripts and trucker goes through these transcripts and defense counsel raise all these points that should have them so i think your honor is right that this is this trial the trial judge to be grateful proceeding was not the one that you know for trial but clearly who have to remain in for a completely new hearing from a completely new judge even though all of us know that that's a completely meritless claim he would never be entitled to there are certain situations where even though the prosecutor and during that time the prosper did not say one word it was only at the end of that after the event had finished talking about every single one of those claims court asked the defendant is there anything else i want to say is right and you have had an opportunity to address that and it said no it was only at that point  be reviewed based on the trial whether counsel should have objected or whether counsel should have called a witness to implicated in it at the st trial things of that so although counsel has said that we do not have an objective record is not adversarial in any way and so how so when different raise a claim for example the defense counsel didn't call certain alibi witnesses defense counsel responded as he should of what we investigated one we could never find the other was drunk at the time and i didn't defense counsel pointed out well your fingerprint was on the outside of the car if you read that in context the reason the defense counsel said that is and how it was explaining his strategic position counsel it made a strategic decision to argue that yes there was blood on that as every although my client did say he got to present his claims in his motion for reconsideration he was trying to do it dance things that he did not feel like he had an opportunity to talk to the word of mouth and again and we can we can determine that reading the record if you can determine their reading the record if the sport feels that the record is neutral and objective enough to allow that kind of harmless error view and i think that that's a distinction here th participant in the proceedings from the record can we determine that it is very difficult to argue that something is missing and that is a challenge here it comes back to the driver's side she said a lot of things that refuted by other witnesses in this case she is simply not a witness and she had something to gain here she came forward only in the nd trial when she had been sitting in jail you're arguing the fact that it's structural is not the important structural or the noun structural is not the important factor here but whether what the result was yes all right so would you agree that if the court could articulate an objective record or the appellate court to review that that result would be a harmless result if there if it's not total reliance on what the the record and it's asking do you feel that this is a reliable record when people are advocating against my client and what is supposed to be a neutral proceeding that leaves a record this unreliable we simply do not know what is perform little i mean i'm lost because now i'm struck sure seems to be always subject to harmless error and you and you've said like three or four times no it's not the nature of your it's the result so for purposes of argument i'm saying let's throw out the nature of the error of what was the result and if there is a subjective record to be reviewed that's the nature of the bet it was to the nature of the are did not jack is there any about the state's participation if you look at the record carefully that we would see that the record is such that it's not an objective record because what the states which is