statement like to first start off with making a few comments just about the circumstances surrounding his state first you know what did the expert witness to say about conducting an interview like this searching for to please the adult but if you actually and i didn't look at the transcript and i looked at the the the order of the questions they didn't he didn't keep using the same question he would change the question oh no he didn't keep questioning the child so he didn't keep saying if he didn't see no way first work you know he said was there something in the in the room i don't know what is there something that he brought out and you know was there something on his body i don't know so he kept changing the question where did group and again i go back to dr goober to say that he must stop if she doesn't answer or if she doesn't provide an answer in this this it was going to hear mother was not in the room not a mother was not right the door apparently was either closed or was ajar she couldn't hear everything but she could overhear generally and then she left and shortly after that the defendant comes happen and don't know i don't remember it didn't happen she talked about the allegations freely i mean she testified she talked about her lying as a five year old this was a problem for her or what she remembered but she's now eleven and she was qualified as competent but one of the judges that she knew the difference and she could testify so while it wasn't why are you saying that she was not testimonial hearsay evidence sounds like a prohibition on all fakes and we're dealing with a child also and i think that i think work takes into consideration we're dealing with member it was a mother so she she must have understood that there would be implications and even complications by that particular report to the police correct she didn't think she was no walk in the police is it when my daughter said this i just wanted to tell you see you later that's correct so she knew that there would be found out she had some idea there would be follow up and the cooperated in the follow up correct that's correct another thing that might be interesting here is i think when the child was eleven and she's now testifying she said it basically has been away for four years what do you think of that particular statement that she hasn't seen her nearly four years or something i don't believe he was allowed to see well if he couldn't lifetime before and so forth and the jury was aware and happy the rules were that she was eleven that the statement was it six the actual allegation was made when she was probably halfway through  rule is only going to apply when this is all you have it's it's learns very error and if you look at the other cases they had that kind of experience while if there was an opportunity to cross these cases has to be looked at independently and if you find a case it's not all force you're probably going to get a prize for it because the various you know such thing now you know counsel is going to get up and say the word is bad and should go away i mean i know that argument i've heard p the state agreed that the child was unavailable and the only supreme court essentially justifies the fourth district who are not accepting the stipulation on and he actually did say you know tried to help her with the end of town a full pardon one point but this but there's nothing well i'm hoping the court watch the d v d because important to it all is the tone know i mean she was there at that point in time well except you know she is she is doing what other children do at that age and when there is more than one in the family we take the group better off she's taking a bath with the least one brother right and so you know she is she 's aware of the different physiological features but she really doesn't know what to call crowd other than what the family calls the into their own preference correct but when you look at the four factors of sexual abuse that to language is clear that it happened at least twice as to the other ones i believe that we proved all six of the other sexual assaults on the jury was instructed it's at least twice and thing these two specifics are going on but yes also how the jury can find this beyond reasonable doubt no you're the one to use their common sense but they're also allowed to look at circumstantial evidence the circumstantial evidence was the father he knew coming into the room every night to check on the kids he pulled the buttons down of the bunker now on the other children he was saying two to three times a week and there's something else a little girl said well is to allow in the testimony there a child that is sexually abused makes makes him an accusatory statement out of court close to the time of the incident or the choose no the accusation has to come in not i will stay out of court statement this is the one fifteen dition does not require an accusation it just requires testimony and when you look at testimony now why the sky is blue often expanded is generally related to what the direct testimony pat so in this case so we'll believe under crawford as you have to come in and explain and defend the statement that you made out of court she explained that she came in and said i don't remember at all the case closes gaps in memory does not mean the person is not a villain if there is a standard if the person came in and said i don't remember precisely all the game testimony and and that is the child does not have to come in and say this is the person who did this and this is what he did to me wouldn't be availability include the ability to test the credibility of the witness we're looking for somebody to be able to test their credibility and for that to be done the transfer has to be available to explain or defend her statements and her explanation was i don't know her and simkins and say he made a comment to bradley about the credibility of the witness and so there's a big difference and i just wanted to ask one of the question because you counted up on the video is pretty compelling it's probably more compelling been her testimony it's more compelling than mom's testimony it's it's a little girl struggling is should just because she's been  the child can see is sky is blue and the sky happens to be blue what's you know is that child available and i would say no right because you can ask her about what's you know the basis of the you don't know what the state's evidence will be when we go back in effect five years from now if she wakes up and remember something she can go to the state's attorney's office and this is this this could be prosecuted so