that that make an exception to the wave pool what is on the record is that the or what appears to be on the record is that the attorney investigated  this witness that this attorney somehow contacted the witness and somehow came up with the conclusion that on her own throat investigation that he witness had moved from peoria to to georgia his on the record are what appears to be on the record is that the defendant waived continuing the case in order to find the witness or what is not on the record but what is in the petition is that the witness was known to the attorney witness stacks and was interviewed by the police the day after the incident so may second two thousand and five so from that you know off the record that this witness was at least known to the defense attorney when she received the discovery we also know that the witness was not listed until august eighteenth of two thousand and five so we don't know what steps the attorney may if any at all to investigate or just try and secure this witness's appearance or for trial for any of the trial dates what is also off the record but is in the post conviction petition is petition that the sitter any did not do any sort of investigation did not contact the witness at all or try and secure her appearance for her trial and what is completely off the record is when the attorney told the defendant that the witness would not show up for trial on september twelfth which was the first what was the third trial setting that was the date where the the or ask the both parties they were ready for trial the attorney for the trial so only into the next day when jury minutes before jury selection is about to start that she forms a record that this material witness will not be present court that on july twenty seventh the attorney had no problem asking for a continuance that even though is over the objection of the defendant can also be seconds when the state requested a continuance on august twenty second that too was over the defendant's so for the attorney to present to the court that you know she that she was only going forward with trial simply because the defendants didn't want a continuance continuance is a bit disingenuous cont'd considering the previous trial settings when she had no problem requesting a argument that what was on what was not a record was that the witness was the friend argues that as the record stands it appears as if the attorney f for trial however it's the finance argument that what what what is off of the record is that the attorney knew that this this witness would be record shows any shows ineffectiveness without the information from the post in the competition that mr harvey did not inform his the witness's testimony petition includes this interview from the witness and the witness you know first gives an alibi and then changes her story we do know that the witness was  arrested and she was taken into custody for the evening and we don't exactly know why the sara lee her story changed if it was simply because she by the first time or if it was because  she was coerced or threatened by the police which and support for that back possibility comes from the other affidavit that was included in the petition from  because she was somehow coerced by the police so i think that's something else that that is off the record and it's out i guess coming toward if you've got a witness that arguably might be helpful to you and you find out before the trial starts and i mean for the five star that the witnesses are going to be there is the remedy to get a continuance allow you to get the with us or as a remedy to say oh let's take a flyer and see what happens if and if i get if i'm not believe problem solved if i'm guilty then i'll just argue that i should have had the content i had i should  witness to you to request a continuance over the objections of the defendant if he if the if the tourney's duty is to be as alice advocate for the for the defendants that means making these the proper legal decisions and i think it could be argued that she failed in her duty tool she what he had to say and he claims this is a material witness and that would assume that she knows what the what the witness is going to say and that perhaps it was the attorney's duty to that therefore absolutely continuous and that it's know that there was change in in her testimony and like i said it previously said it's possible that her testimony changes result of being placed in the custody and being arrested and that may have caused her change  testimony i think that's important that's important to know considering that you have another affidavit where somebody alleges that she was coerced by the police to testify against against the defendant