life and child the telling of doctrine or story was not an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the jurors instead it was relevant to the people theory as the case that dr noyes extraordinary personal history would have leaving any kind of abrasion why is it relevant that he thought he did resist the evidence resistances in point in this case because evidence of resistance is evidence of motive for the murder every jury wants to the information that is being talked about about his previous life is something that i might believe would have been explored in war dear do you know what and where do your consisted of in terms of communicating the substance court tells us as a whole if the question is whether there was inflammatory information i'd like to see to what extent that inflammatory information got into more dear what was said whether the defense asked that this be brought up and questions asked about i just don't know so hand probably with the trial court's instruction that carries not be influenced by sympathy and passion objection to argue and there was an objection raised as to peeling to passions and prejudice not arguing facts not in evidence and that objection was raised after the first opening argument given gave a ruling and said i find all of it relevant so in that sense it is an objection because the court made a ruling of the court at least interpreted it as an objection and said i find the discussion about doctrine or is life relevant in the yes someplace like that how much time elapsed as far as we know from the time he left the house of his friend until the time of the  i think that would be relevant to determining whether there was a fair trial here you may have to disagree with me on that i don't know if that's important if i could get into that in a second because the things i think the gist of the prosecutor's argument i of you may remember when you start hearing this case the doctor nor i had an interesting story whatever the story was he was an academy award winner now is anybody going to necessarily take that into consideration that's usually what happens and it's a lot of this information that was already in the prosecutor's statement was there and it was a promise by the jurors not to use that in a proper way maybe relevant to whether this violated due process if they went into the wife dying  wanted to make an objection would have been futile but on top of that it doesn't really matter because the problem is that this state court did not default or did not default this issue they addressed this issue so i don't think it matters if and i was telling her about the issue and i was going on and on as my wife will tell you i'm inclined to do that she doesn't have a twenty minute rule and after going through the whole thing my friend said you're going to live through one and she said i saw the movie i cry you know that's the problem with this case there's some normal cases where every murder is emotional every murderer has victims every murder no actually the question told them i think you should leave out the part about the baby which he went on included anyway there wasn't a form so this is a question of how much they could have seen the difference to work and this is very important for a lot of things because the question of flight is is this you could recognize the three gangbangers might run from gunshots just hearing gives it to us then you don't have to talk about babies dying and wives dying and fingers being tied up all that and yes now the problem is that if you don't have the struggle which we say is fictionalized there is no defense of the witnesses the two witnesses did not see if you don't have the struggle then you don't go anywhere else the way the state quote addressed the struggle even if there was a reasonable that's the first aspect is there and reasonable the second aspect is completely taken out of context what happened with if you read i think on page twenty eight of the magistrate's report he l the places where mr huhne talks about the the picture the picture is the only thing that's left the picture is what with more valuable than anything else the picture he's talking about the only photograph the photograph the photograph the photograph and the photographs contained in a locket now it's not the only picture that's a lie in itself and closing after locket something like that as intense emotional that it may have emotional but it may have emotional value that that if you have worn something every day of your life since a certain event happened that you get and it contains something important to you the fact that you had another copy of the picture someplace with filmmaker that that part of your identity and it later on i'm not denying that it had i'm not saying it had no importance but the fact of the matter is is that you cannot divorce it it's a reasonable t it's the law which is what it is and to say that they also very well think what would it be i can replace my reading their will they also stature that i wouldn't struggle if somebody were trying to take you know read the quotes and when he's talking about the picture a lot look at the picture of the picture and then ask yourself what's the important thing here seven references to the picture up the role that fought over the locket as the prosecutor argued both in opening and closing statement there was just nothing else to this at all and there were other things of value there i mean there was no evidence at all as to what happened and old my understanding the franklin my understanding is that it was not transcribed and state court that's my recollection because i do not remember seeing it as part of their record  that when dr nor escaped cambodia and went to thailand he was first in a refugee camp where there were no beds and then he went to another refugee camp in bangkok where he left the refugee camp went that he had of his wife he had a negative made and then from the negative he had duplicate photos made and he had one catch up with color and he took that one purchased the locket and the necklace and he had th and that is not a part of the appeal of the court you've asked a question about whether the defendants had contested that there was a robbery and they have to live very end of the trial in this case basically one of the first officer who arrived at the scene thought that at the crime scene looked a