jury convict it is our position and we have the authority to support it that the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the record must be given competency based on her inconsistent testimony what's been described as perhaps outlandish frivolous the frivolous nature of her testimony aren't you confusing  court ten either retain jurisdiction and remain for those proceedings which would be in the nature of a critical proceeding or direct that the court will not consider it no and it can be presented for post conviction review the difficulty with the post conviction part of it is the virtues are in birds and that is where this court to retain fully developed and if it were you would still have to show deficiency and prejudice that's not the state's burden home with respect your honor we feel pretty sure it is the state show it's the funding that's not the standard review the standard of reviews we are not suggesting that i'm suggesting where the facts are such that there are inferences that can be testimony in this case just like any other case not not to close scrutiny that used to be applied to sex crime victims these cases are i'm talking about  argument ineffective assistance of counsel based on the stipulation that was entered between defense counsel and the prosecution yes but how can we consider this argument or this contention given the supreme court are leaving the fence council somewhere in the middle what to do not because i know post conviction on the state turns around and urges that there was a waiver by not presenting it on direct appeal and you should have done so you're putting the defense bar i see in this respect you but the courts and the only supreme court is not an exact link there by saying well if it's there you have to raise and if it's not there you shouldn't raise but if it's in the middle it's risky and it's risky because there may be a waiver if you don't raise hence i present you just the important part of this i am hoping if the court  about custody and so at this point that is exactly when within forty eight hours of that is being used when all of a sudden she him for the st time presents mom with this scenario and then mom takes her to the doctor and the doctor calls the c s the c s and mom was told unless you get a restraining order we're taking g m from you and that's what the record reflects and then the record reflects that g m when she went and spoke with the  any number of things from the dog hoping on her while dad was assaulting her in the shower to and debbie calling the police and the police awaiting them go and dad called the police on think that evidence here especially when you add in the actual travis the medical evidence that is in fact very strong and with respect to her mother the testimony or evidence that came about this alleged fight was through the defendant himself it's obviously at that point self serving that he would say oh we had that fight thing or if you look at to the child's own doctor she didn't call the police she didn't call the c f s this is not a woman who was out yet the defendant she was clearly trying to see what she could do to help her daughter in what was loses what it sounds like from the record there's certainly no evidence in the record of some kind of an eye knowing problem between the two of them in fact he was watching her this child every single day during the week out there that has not been developed that needs to be that's the place to do it you can file an affidavit as you can but you know assuming you can get to the different stages your st stage would be to show there is some expert here that could know that it could be developed to the extent there are some hints of what the expert might say most of those things would be not admissible this wasn't a case where expert testified testified about some kind of a syndrome like a  trauma center or something like that and also no one was you can't just put an expert out to say children are credible that you can't do that so from everything we do see of the record the little that more developed from the standpoint that it had at least been briefly discussed and you see not only a five year old video of this child expressing herself promising to tell the truth of those things you also have around the stan the defense at that time was given an opportunity of jack there may be many strategy reasons why they decided not to do one of them could have been you know don't give her more chance to get comfortable with this study this was the st time this child is now conflating she may be doing different because this happened also multiple times so we don't know as far as the daughter we don't know it's very possible the dog remarks to the court there's help with false testimony in this record and it came from the lips of the five year old and what she told to miss t the representatives who took g m to see the prosecutor according to what we understand fifteen or seventeen times according to g m and i'm sure that's an exaggeration or maybe not i don't know what she did say is that to the prosecutor and window her dad only touched her private two times in the bathroom of his house to put medicine on her she never saw his privates she never touched his privates he never helped during the shower that has to stand for something well let me ask you this if you're i'm sure you're familiar with this notion it's been received your reading questions to me i just want to know if you agree those are propositions that the supreme court has recognized and the supreme court has