so there is no it is a specific intent crime the government is not charging that he did those things only that travel with the intent seems that argument needs to be preserved for the best that i can preserve because as i read at the end of the summary of argument when you're dealing with this issue you're just making the argument that under four hundred and three it should be excluded i don't see a separate picking up the kids from pennsylvania and bringing them to maine and also traveling to pennsylvania so there is that there is a difference in time i would suggest that's not it is not a substantial difference in it client's position is that none of this happened so if the evidence works schooled it would be one person's word against the other so why isn't it highly  from before and it is reasonable to assume that it happened again you have a situation where if you're using able to to to listen to a young woman making these allegations there was there was cross examination i would suggest it was it was very limited  this sort of sanitized rendition of what happened and that testimony i would suggest to you that in in open court typically you would find the witness would come before the if the witness have actually been a corner and the jury could have seen her demeanor and could have written this how she reacted to these questions that are so much about determining credibility of a witness that has to do with how  and the difficulty that i'm having with the argument flows from the point that you made when you st stood up which is that you see this as an intent crime the interstate travel portion as opposed to molestation and yet the government attempted to prove molestation and your client took the stand and denied molestation i don't i don't see it so it if the argument is that the district court did not find willful willful obstruction yet that that seems to me that that should go to the intent to travel with the expectation that this is what was going to take place and yet the denial is too specific as as you've crafted the argument the denial is is with respect to the specific factual will charge of molestation so it's not just a i'm denying the allegations in the indictment as you as you have set them forth and so the jury verdict can't constitute proof of willfulness but rather it is a denial of specific facts that the government tried to prove that that's how i see this playing out in trying to move you know to treat your two separate arguments coherently suppose you just summarize your argument for us i can do my best goods again you know given the said in the shower too many times to count in his bedroom in stone and too many times to count he would get to her bedroom much thinner her mother moved and it was the same thing then you look at what he did when he brought her to me from pennsylvania and  engaged in this molestation cond which is different from the charge of transportation with intent and was it appropriate based on the testimony for the state as which i was asking was it appropriate charge of trying to figure out what the charge here is intent to transport in the evidence here is obviously of the sexual molestation as opposed to it may have been highly probative but it was just killer evidence and you don't have the witness there for cross examination to set change the calculus at all because i'm not actually sure how where the propensity that we're talking about is with respect to intent which is a typical four for b anyway right so in other words her th grade teacher when i asked her why are you doing she said you know she was feeling kind of low one day she said that her mom you know i told her that that  flags there were some significant inconsistency in particular something that was developed at the trial level of cross examination t g we testified under oath with  that the court therefore abused its discretion in meeting the evidence that strengthened the government's position that this took place what are you suggesting  significantly higher thank you and before you step back just so that you for thirteen and for fourteen speak in terms of which one is and thirteen is accused of a sexual assault for example you know it doesn't say a charge but doesn't say you know where one of the facts is the issue might be whether the sexual assault was actually committed it doesn't it doesn't go on either end it just use the word accused so if you have a speaking indictment charges and trial with intent crime like this one for example but the speaking indictment goes further and actually makes the factual accusation that there was a completed assault or an attempted assault even though the statute doesn't require it in the rule doesn't necessarily speak to those facts have you seen any cases that might suggest one way or the other what the word accused in the readings whether it means strictly the charge or whether it's a reference to the indictment in the language used in the indictment