state made a conscious choice and you could tell from the transcript of the trial they'd be a conscious choice not to bring in a tear of joy who was to pay a foul just she was in colorado she left the county and she report what she said and i remember when i tried the case is she looked at all hospital records x rays from the hospital and in the emergency records i don't remember  quite honestly don't recall and i don't believe they had she got it from the path out she reported it she didn't testify to a reasonable degree medical or scientific certainty what caused the child's death and neither did any of those three days he was in continuous custody the state's position is well they didn't have it in a locked room in the police station he was afraid to go and wasn't in custody at the hospital and he had a policeman with him at all times from the moment he was they came to the house for the a bad call which they've described as an aggravated battery call all the way until he ultimately is charged and in fact  think he thought he was free to leave when he was taken up stairs room or the police station and kept there on him or whether he was kept overnight i don't think it entered the a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave i know it's the only time he was actually conduct caused the death that was never really in question the which the potentially fatal injuries is a question but the injuries that there isn't a question the defendant caused was the cause of death so i think that he ordered i believe and then dr creamy kind of had the overview of all the medical records from the first house when the second hospital but i don't believe that she testified as to the medical examiner's report well in he said something about the picture so were the photos help him to understand the autopsy maybe the other way around the autopsy helps him to understand the pictures but wasn't there some connection that he made with the autopsy report indicat clearly considered it is part of the evidence in this case was it is clear he considers part of the evidence and i think that he is well within his rights to do so as it is not a testimony on this can be submitted is evidence to be considered with all the other evidence of family and friends are looking at being in custody when he is the hospital is taken into a room there's a translator there is a hospital priest at some points wife arrives at one point there were two officers in the room one of them didn't see anything he was just standing there listening  other one was asked to generalize questions at one point one of the officers left to have a cigarette at which point there is nothing in the record to indicate that any police officer is in there or outside of the room now we can see that when he was taking to the police station placed in the room at least that's his recollection did the court specifically make a reference to that particular sequence i don't recall if you made there's a particular reference to that specific question i know that he said he did make a finding that he found the defendant's testimony as to that entire counter is supposed threats to be not credible how was how was it explained to the defendant that he was there one night and then he was there two nights  bed and then you admitted later that well no i was four or five feet away i was over here and i tossed her onto the bed so i think as this defendant story kind of changes over the course of time the investigators specifically recall that it's been a long time since i've looked at the record so i have even if that is you know i mean we have multiple statements by the defendant saying what he did him proper chest compressions so i think when we look at the nature of the severity of the injuries that also speaks to the defendant's knowledge that what he was doing was in fact likely to cause severe bodily harm and or death to try to blame him for things and then he continues to speak i mean if you've been reading your race three times and i think the question was how do you add all that together to come up with a waiver well by the mere fact speaking by continuing to speak that's a waiver of your right to remain silent but doesn't this speech need to relate to the investigation and what was the investigation at that particular time because he doesn't even  you know he's asking questions about his daughter and there's a lot of testimony from witnesses who say he loved both of his daughters he was happy to have both of his daughters and he was the primary caretaker because i guess blue bay was actually  floyd party your and she had other obligations and he didn't have a driver's license and he's taking care of these girls so is he talking about his concern for the girls or easy talking about an investigation that he really didn't know was not going here well he does ask for after the health of his daughter but then he does make this statement but i don't know why they're trying to flame me for things that have nothing to do with her obviously he's aware that there is some sort of blame being cast against him that there don't i think this is much more to do with the investigation he actually says they're trying to blame for things you are trying to blame for things obviously indicating he's aware it's something in it at least some wrongdoing if not a charge when placed against him thank a lie all the hospital which detector all those which was separate and apart from the autopsy report additionally she testified which is what she testified she did not h so with respect to mr chavis additionally with respect to the question of the reenactment there was tremendous direction given by the investigator east whether this should be a first degree murder case or the involuntary manslaughter case prior to the again in which was written by a justice for star in the first district which i forget if the name of the case was his minor daughter then in his ruling and then he goes on to say that he must have known that this would cause the death and there isn't really evidence to show how he must have known and it's interesting because now clearly the testimony here is this child who was crying he was trying to stop the child from crying and then he was also trying to get the child to grief where he believed she had way and we also have you know and we know that we throw things that are thrown baseballs might we hear it and i think maybe this goes to the common sense that you issue happy and he was trying to stop her from the crime we thought if he did that it would perhaps out her that goes to the question again of the reckless i mean was this something intentional or was this a reckless also in my argument ritually and i think it's it's definitely in the transcript was there is it talks about did you do something which was below the standard of care well clearly it's below the standard of care for a parent or anyone else to try to stop a child from