the record and looked at things said that this was tried and tested at the trial court that the evidence at one fifteen ten hearings were the pointed at this ability said the testimony wasn't trustworthy he waited the determination of credibility by the fact finder and the admissibility into credibility as a major consideration of this can see how it drips with intense passion a tensity an emotion just pours off the page we don't need annoy you reporting about how things now go home and ages twenty four twenty five as adults testified as compared to when you were ten eleven years old his finding that they were matter of fact was on the record just by looking at the words that the government used under under intense cross is testified that when he was at the embassy center i think that's where he saw the boys he didn't have any idea of and did your client had been a victim and he was just trying to find out what the boys knew about this didn't they claim earlier that they were told that if they indicated testified to the crimes that they would be kept together they would i said did they not say that they were told these days yes your response was they interpret it could be and then he went back to told but then you started talking about the user base see that i didn't  with let's get back and point which was did they not indicate testified that they were told early on in the investigation that if they cooperated that they would be kept together and we how the judge made that credibility determination it's clear from the record that the reference to the one thousand nine hundred ten hearing was a recitation of the history of the case it was not  he uses the word credibility when i believe he's talking about gestures eddy's previous here but again that's really not what she decided on one fifteenth i don't know that necessarily that's a correct interpretation i mean again could we just always the fact is that his credibility terminations case was clearly made based on his finding that he demeanor of the witnesses were totally incredible  to be honest in this case i say it actually acts the opposite if they're talking so he actually i couldn't sleep every night since i was eight or nine tap i lived with could every holiday every day i went to bed knowing this if you're testifying sadat and saying this poor guy that was my caretaker that loved me that cared for me and showing no you're testifying that bad but i don't see it i don't feel it and again that's exactly why of four of review is not supposed to look at the words on the record that's why we give the deference to the judge in the case that i new testimony against the facts and circumstances previously established a trial report is clear he said that yes you're not only can you're supposed to look at their credibility based on the fact that they were have cases that the only adds is the testimony of our witness and if they recant they must be given pretty much in trial why because we can't rebut their current meetings maybe i shouldn't have but i met with the boys outside the context of the case why because i felt sorry for them was around the holiday times and i had the over my house i went to interview them and saw them live in the place that they were all the inconsistency is that council and defense are now praising those who were tested at trial when they were brought to the attention once again at the hearing is it alleged that some of these a battery of defendant the intensive interview process and the lingering fear of being separated none of those are extraordinary circumstances why well the age of the victims an circumstance that we say wow that's pretty credible if you're going to stand up under oath and say i did it we tend to think that you're probably more reliable than otherwise the extraordinary circumstances are here just simply aren't there present in almost every case relating to a child the child is testifying about a crime that occurred when they were young whether it's something they will destroy or something that occurred  they're going to be again theoretically somewhat fearful somewhat you know surprise we'd like to think that they don't witness it on a regular basis that it isn't current parcel of what goes on in their life so if that is an we are supposed to take good consideration that's one of the reasons why supposedly when something is allegedly recently fabricated test prior consistent statements or a law to be brought in to establish that it isn't recently fabricated that's time in order to determine the way to approach a building to assess as to whether or not it's recently fabricated i don't disagree with that justice if it does state