of an unusual procedural way that we see things here because the st part was a combination of the pull of mary hearing transcripts and what witnesses testified in the guilt face that two officers what conflicting evidence on that point though about i can't recall if it was that that that that that's the fabric that was choking as well that the  autopsy doctor said that it couldn't say for sure that he was true but that there were injuries to the neck that would be consistent with a chunky isn't that part of the evidence too it's not how did the prosecutor since a jury was hearing the penalty phase and the judge heard the guilt say how did the jury what were the witnesses that the prosecutor called and what were the witnesses the defense called in at the ok mr frank mr franken mr townsend and then and then there was a doctor m with a long name that also and they said certain things about your client but they also also both said that he's a says the empath so i guess i guess my point is that there's your as a lot of things that you're there there's also damaging information included in all the things that you want them to do as well as positive information so we have to look at that in terms of counsel trying to navigate that i mean i don't know one point your client said he can't hold how many people before he stopped and then the doctors that looked at him said he was assessed the path besides everything else that was wrong so it wasn't like calling people was that easy i guess that's what i mean in if a person with if the only theory that they're found guilty of based on the foreseeability or whatever then that's i mean she basically says that's an insufficient basis for a st rate murder right and then it wen know you don't have to tell me every avenue about it but i mean that is a significant  elected not to call celia as a witness to give the damaging statements this on she hasn't made it and of course you'd still also get other inculcating statements about laughing after the murders without any other right as portions of the so once again he put himself in the house during the time of the murders how did this statement about the murders to the press add a dazed correlate to why he said to stay organic brain damage at eighteen something along those lines what why did anything come in about that well your honor as we said counsel was focused on the end and i was seeking mercy on a report that sanchez was a sociopath with borderline personality disorder who was an alcoholic and drug user and pretty much a trans am and school dropout that could have led to some mental health evidence just say that eight or seven or eight years later we could have other mental health experts review what they themselves had done i her and find things that could not lead to further investigation is not the standard we're looking at in this court social anthropologist social anthropologist or something along those lines yes your honor and she did as as good a job as she could at presenting the defense team in a plea for mercy that is he had a terrible childhood and in fact even the prosecutor admitting that he had a terrible childhood and was entitled to you know sympathy for that his mother did not love him and that he was poor but no presentation of the penalty phase evidence they omitted evidence of drug use alcohol use because that didn't go towards of beds being a seeking mercy so can you explain couldn't argue things not supported by the evidence after trial if it if it if they but knowing that there's three actually how could they have argued differently if they had known there was three there's no only two people and that's important because the prosecutor was relying on the evidence available the evidence showed schoolbook friends the evidence showed people after  the prosecution's case him on there only being two to footprints so then that there couldn't be a conviction if there were three so what's your view as to whether or not the pres q from case depended on there being only two footprints the guys it's not that saddam has pushed her into a room but he her by it he pushed her away so that she couldn't hold her husband she couldn't continue to scream and perhaps getting assistance from someone else he pushed her into her room he found her hands and feet and it's interesting the prosecutor didn't say closing it there wasn't evidence and he was trying to strangle her but if i were trying to quite someone's out i wouldn't put my cloth around their neck and put it around their mouth the complaint or the information i guess he was doesn't does a great question whether he was found not guilty of robbery and felony murder of the boat in a dress or he bought a special circumstance not off and that's know it would be pretty much conceding on that's had a murder not only not the capital murder in this case but it was the best thing he could do he hasn't had wanted to plead guilty and hot glue landed just plead guilty so in this way he was limiting the evidence  and once he realized he wasn't going to be getting that he didn't want to go on a fishing expedition going we've heard enough to know you're telling river the articles were only to prove the allowed to come in but the court limited it to a few things that could come yeah right that's correct all that's right he testified to where those too fast but the article he actually but we know murder could not support a death penalty a trial could that have been proven well the felony murder the just trial court found that the felony murder special circumstance was not here because i didn't for he and i think counsel on both sides  this way thank you thank you