the count that addressed conduct that was committed against the w well centered on the defendant's motion after for the purposes of trial after the sufferings the state moved to admit the evidence that it the prosecutor did not distinguish between the charts and the charge conduct but rather just told these stories one story after another about all the terrible things that the defendant had talked about in the case is reversible error the case load to not bedroom living room there was evidence that the family had to walk past them back and forth in order to achieve be able to come and go from the girl's room and he didn't say anything about having seen the defendant do the act and most attention to the others they have to leave this function before they want to deliberate do they not well the only person who told them that how you know what to look you know what was the charge how that was the prosecutor his time also it would make sense this is such a common era in sex crimes their eyes it is very very common for the state to charge just a few acts and to prove out a multitude of facts time they are not going to focus to the potential for confusion simply of the possibility that this person was convicted based on a proof of contact over that the charge contact to make a final s concede that because of the closeness in time of the events that perhaps it would have been a better thing if the court had said prior to it was consonant discussion empire shouldn't the basement case i believe it was three the first came in from within the events in wisconsin and they were relevant because it showed how the abuse incidents that occurred after she turned thirteen one was an after school incident where she would not allow the defendant into the house and he called her mother her mother said don't be a brat lemon in the house specifically said yes the surrounding circumstances are relevant no you can't bring in anything bringing your best three or four in and based on the determination surrounding circumstances are relevant the other crimes evidence here told both the story of how something occurred how it ended and why it wasn't reported because it is the important thing about the situation where she left the defendant out of the house and her family evidence that was presented gives kind of justice to the history of circumstances of the show i think that it's extremely important because this isn't a matter of piling out as to the defendant because different situation this is a situation that within a family it was important to show this rounding circumstances of how this occurred and also as to protecting the credibility of the victim why it wasn't report immediately and i think that that i think that because judge phillips in this initial ruling was very careful in saying only things that were part of the surrounding circumstances and only things limited to three or four events could come in which however i think that i don't buy the premise of the question in that we're only evidence that is relevant can be presented i don't know that we would want to tell the jury you're going to they'll do it on their own so i don't think that and you're gonna do it under the statute you're telling them that if you consider for a propensity i think what you're doing is not limiting them in any manner as to how they consider that if their determination whether the event occurred and what we need to accord it so i don't think it's a matter of saying in addition to identity your presence or whatever else you could also think of this is propensity i think the natural ely prejudiced on one what's the take away from this case i'm sorry justice that's an ass council what what's the rule that you wanted and then see what is the rule that you want to speak with respect to these instructions appropriate way to handle the evidence at the point it was presented judge calling it based on his ruling apparently didn't think it was necessary perhaps he would have thought it was necessary to have been more than three i believe three was either three or four other crimes and perhaps well that i do agree with you justice so aaron when you have regular police the implication that i picked up from your question about whether there's a difference between propensity and simply evil person and i think that one of the dangers of evidence