say why and how he was acting on the day in question i think that the evidence shows that had to have the defense in florida an expert to investigate these things to read the writings you would have had something more along the lines of d dr can rely on the writings she relied on his his police report where he said at the time of his interview all the things that happened in there and then out in the space that these events actually occur the council had  murphy's report isn't that correct from september two thousand and fifteen which has a focus or was looking at the question of insanity but found no symptoms information dr murphy just one day he's talking about how the defendant has acknowledged having these visions and talking to god and being with god and then the following day he just says there's no evidence today he  would have realized i'm my own expert this guy is not acknowledging some of the some of the things that are right there in front of our faces from this record how do we know that the defense attorney did not do anything for the record you know because the the etc we know they had generated information that would have been helpful for the defense because we have teams reporter you know and i think those things are helpful to the defense even if they don't end up holding in the speaking to insanity they set forth a different with children good with children here on earth which he describes sometimes as making them laugh and having them think that he is he's funny having them or not you know spend time with them reading books with them but and then he also g go outside of the record that we have to be in your honor and they see how this is a point but i don't think we need to go out of the record here because i think we've got two things we've got one we know from the the right kind of expert would be would produce the right kind of evidence or testimony while i understand you are saying but i say that if we had someone who didn't just as much as as dr king did that even if we decided it wasn't enough to present insanity defense even if we take say that it's still giving the generated the defense to put forward facts to put forward facts to challenge the state's case which is not what happened here because the expert would have been able to say turning back to the you know the prosecution that what he's saying there is done i didn't punish me for masturbating by taking away my gifts my gift of basketball my  that if you take non trivial action here today just to give yourself the opportunity of sexual gratification with a child in the future in the future here in the afterlife is not that satisf it in some fictional future or whatever for the opportunity maybe that some sexual gratification if it made it made make some of it some of the arguments less less  compelling but i can't imagine i think it's a matter of law you can say that if his conduct was designed to secure an opportunity and having a tool to have sexual situation that if if the that was for the purposes of some sort of sexual gratification and is it fair to say that every time someone is attracted to another person speak man and woman man and man woman and woman you know it as opposed to children that ever just single content is for sexual gratification if i'm sexually attracted to someone and i hug them hello did i get gratification from that out if i didn't you know if i did i don't think that you can say that every time someone who has sexual attraction to children makes any sort of conduct with the contact with the child purposes of sexual gratification and that's what we're talking about here and the fact of the matter is that if the evidence and the evidence that was relied on to just simply say as a as a matter of course situations there's some sort of even if there's an if it's non sexual contact that involves more of a more of a groping and more of you know i can't speak to every other type of situation how th  children to save them and i understand that see means here and i'm not trying to underpay with savings here but again it's a opportunity of the future or the possibility in heaven of sexual gratification but to see children here by closeness to pray over them he other other things in this state saying well he's got other times when he says he's he's touching a child's leg and he's writing about it but he's writing about praying over them at that point to save them for him it burns itself for suppositions to stand by on presenting any other theory of what was being written and not challenging with out knowing the mind the mental illness of the of the defendant at these various points in his writings who are we the statement of experts and i also want to just clarify that he did review documents from the house and car and first page of his report first paragraph he specifically states examiner of the year the volume of information which included his counsel couldn't really communicate with them and counsel says on the record i kind of thought maybe he could get it together as some point if we could work this out we may have to kind of information in this case about what defense counsel  i'm going to get them away from adults he keep showing us through his writings what his plan s and he does that in person to the first incident on may twenty seventh he's trying to get the little girl away from my gr discounting for i didn't see it he can see he's trying to get her away from the group he's trying to talk her into a come on come with me i've got m and m cookies showed him like he's trying to get her away so he can touch her and when he realizes that isn't going to work he's got to go with the it's not much of leave to say that this is me and his trying to other towns he's driving around apartment complexes he's going to play with kids he doesn't know who is playing hide and seek he's trying to get kids away from men touch them it's not a leap in logic to say that he was on they seem random they don't own it's going to be ending but when you read them all and you see what the plan was to get kids away from adults lure them away candy money cookie it's get them away get them you want to have sex with them you want to be with them and who know for sure where it was going to happen it was clear that he was touching down even for sexual gratification there and he was trying to get them away but the kids were pretty smart they would know ways go with him one of them going back to it's how our mom a couple their dad  and so the evidence in this case definitely demonstrates that there was a reasonable doubt and the sentence in this case was also appropriate as well here with respect to the second question we didn't the trial judge and just an old history we conduct on this record but when we look at this case he's exaggerating he's we've got two separate instances where there are multiple children is trying to pull away he's trying to touch and we had several different counts the judge was sudden saying on twenty years it isn't like the case the defendant sites where the defendant was given fifty years for two brief touches of two girls that he didn't know he had this case where he was really spending time he was looking for kids he was trying to pull them away he's touching them repeatedly he's doing this for sexual gratification we've got a little more evidence in this case than some of the other cases it's not really a disparate sentencing case between speak children have privacy with their children the question is why and why or why didn't the defense counsel explore it because there is there is a record again i  even though i stick a lot about an expert because i do believe an expert could have helped there's no immediate didn't need to have to be an expert defense counsel could have put on some of these arguments as to he knows that he needs to things that were present just from everything presented from the state for the board to assume that those factors could have other reasons and that they should but they should be our new ones will doubtless stablish that the touching near was sexual just because of those other circumstances and i think that with expert testimony could have helped it and yes i see how it can go into strategy not that once you get to if been evaluation right what evidence would that have given him and then how could he have used it but it starts with his failure to even have that examination because if if those records were examined he would have had important factor is that as with who are literally said there is more of a valuation that needs to get done and their defense counsel didn't have additional valuation for either of those reasons either to evaluate sanity either do value mental illness or follow up on a report of dr murphy would have given him evidence he could have used to set out a defense to begin to challenge the state's evidence at all and the humility of effect of all of the the failures of the defense counsel to challenge these assumptions that were being made and you know resulted in the court just getting bombarded with one version of what this man's ramblings in certain times mean and he didn't necessarily need an expert but the the privacy to what issue i think is raised in the writings itself the judge said you had to read them all nobody read them all it was piecemeal picking from two thousand and ten and adding it to something that was written in two thousand and thirteen or you know reading half of what was said and not the rest of the sentence which says by the