line of events that suggests that her testimony her statements given to the police officers and others were unreliable the incident took place to allegedly on the twenty fifth of october and saturday night it wasn't until sometime the next day we don't know the exact time that a phone message was left with the united states probation officer we are certain that the complaining witness  hawkins the thing that phone number by stealing the phone directory or phone book from mr and from his residence then some twelve fourteen hours later the complaining four hours later she meets with the attending physician who was the testifying witness at the trial or at the revocation hearing dr grover has actually no independent memory of meeting with miss hawkins or discussing anything with her he simply read from the hospital's records it is not until four days after the incident that a police report is first taken there is no record and nothing in the record that shows that  made prior to the police department this was the period of time when sandy of county was engaged in a significant firestorm that started apparently on the night of the twenty fifth and so police resources then arrested the next day and at about three o'clock in the morning he is held in custody for five additional days he's released from custody the detective told the probation officer that there was problems with the case because of the delay in the reporting and it was some question about the credibility of the witnesses finally the probation officer makes her first attempt to contact you to talk and ten days after she received the first phone call from miss hawkins on the fifth of november we do not believe the good cause was shown for the failure to bring this walk ins to the hearing the police officer did not get any identification number as e from the social security number police officer does not remember seeing even a photo identification police officer does not remember seeing a government issued identification there's no government issued identification number that's she is first notified with respect to mr hawkins she has no fixed address there is no follow up done by the detectives there is as we know i think in our common experience are a number of causes of homelessness there is some suggestion that miss hawkins was a user of illegal drugs she did go to the emergency room and was given very serious pain medication we don't know what animated her  testimony her statements to the police against mr hall but it could have been involved with substance abuse that could also then involved with some form of mental illness we simply don't know and no testing was done either at the medical center or another at any other setting to determine what was going on with miss hawkins the only way to really guarantee due process to mr holland the circumstance was to have allowed him to confront and cross examine the witness yes sir and again judge jones found that that allegation was not founded because red did testify during the hearing that although he knew that mr hall our mr hall here in this case was on supervised release that he read those presented in this case that confrontation across the examination is the only meaningful way to test the reliability of a reporting witness and we believe that that in this case mr hall should have been permitted the that mr hart should have been permitted the opportunity to confront to cross examine her and the district court should have been permitted the opportunity to assess the credibility of this witness reserving her demeanor during that as i only want to point out that mr hall is serving two years in prison and he was never allowed to confront and cross examine his accuser we believe that implicates the due process clause and we have believe that in this case under these facts and