small portion and that concern incidents that happen from three months before this time the statement which would have been february twentieth two thousand and fifteen up until she turned thirteen which is a seven week  period and i want to make that correction because in my brief i stated that the operative time period was from february twentieth two thousand and fifteen up until the date of the statements on may twentieth two thousand and fifteen but that's actually incorrect because she ate term thirteen and the interim which makes the operative time period even narrower so seven weeks i'm so as i say i describe six four six years worth of abuse in her lot this past year ok so that would include the operative time period if this happened all during this past year that would include the three months also she talks about when the defendant would come to her house in the mornings over her house she said that he had been going over her on for the past three months so those incidents that would be included in that period but the bulk of the incidents he's talking about things to happen when she was seven and she's eight she talked about incidents that happened for many many years though certainly but not while i'm there this statute and the state doesn't dispute that what we have to remember here is that the video was the lead with many many many many incidents and it was very detailed it was a very powerful piece of evidence it was taken by a professional interviewer who interviews children and they are skilled at eliciting the elements of the best getting all of the pertinent details and all of that this video was two hours on and it was a very powerful piece of evidence for the state so now the only issue is whether or not this error whether or not this is the closely balanced case such that this error would be reversible now that's where the state and i disagree under people pers witness testimony but that isn't correct that isn't correct the witnesses did not see any of these offenses the witnesses didn't testified that any of these acts occurred what the witnesses corroborate it was the fact that she told them about it so the witnesses corroborated her outcry they corroborate the fact that she said something about it they've been not corroborate the actual offenses and as i stated before there was no physical evidence in this case the nurse molly hofmann who examined a stated that there was no physical evidence to corroborate her version of being abused and if you look at people case the complainants testimony and her allegations against the defendant it was arriving rated by physical evidence the medical personnel who examined that complain it said that there was evidence of bash penetration system with the complainant story and so on holloway the court found that that was still closely balanced evidence because there were two plausible versions of the offense and in this case we have no physical evidence and there are two these chain of events rolling and the jury the jury couldn't believe that those were two possible theories of the case so a videotaped statement that was an end miscible that corroborated not only her allegations of defenses occurring but it repeatedly corroborated who the perpetrator was she's repeatedly saying it's my grandfather my grandfather did this my grandfather did that my grandfather did this and that was the issue in dispute over royce testimony his theory was that it was someone else and hers was that it was her grandfather and so the state can downplay that impact of the admission of this video in this case and i believe that indicative of the impact of the video in this case is the fact the prosecutor emphasized the video repeatedly in closing argument because it was so powerful when you come pair the videotaped statement to the other one fifteen dash ten witnesses i it's night and day seventy the mother or the friend two year and the other friend and cousin often they want to fifteen ten statements about what they told them was very general they say yes she told me that he touched her inappropriately yes she told me that her grandfather was abusing her very general statements where as the videotape statements as i stated were with very detailed it was very detailed times dates times that's who was there what happened it was very  corroborated by ants when a testimony is private raided by aunts women and we have to remember that the state argues that credibility was was so much greater than the defendants put ariel she was getting out of the car that he had been touching her her blood top and then when she walked to the bus stop austin asked her about that hey what what what was your grandfather's hand in your seat like that well went off and testifies he says that never happened you never saw out which was almost every every day basically every other day or something like that she said every day i would go and tell my friends yera when i got to school and she locks in on that every day i told here well once here i testified here well but they're both plausible person of the offense that the jury would have believed and that exactly what a closely balanced case is that's exactly what a credibility contest is even when you look at people vs naylor in that case there were impeachment or whatever it is has to be two possible versions of the offense two possible persons of the story i'm sorry that the jury could happen leave and that's what we have in this case you honor so i don't know if this court has any any part of questions about this issue or if you have any questions about issues two if not i'd ask the sports reversed and remanded   frequently in the defendant's brief it talks about the judge bearing and allowing the evidence or using his discretion allowing the evidence the judge was never never brought before the judge  top of a i think he testified to it his wife or former wife a grandmother of eight testified to it and asked him why it was rubbing her side asking why was laying on her times as much as i have because there's three of you probably more like ten or fifteen times as much as i have and personally i have never seen a sex addict i'm this good and that's easy to challenge but i'm looking at volume nine page thirty two thirty one this is the trial judge a statement impress the court as being intelligent for her age and for her age well spoken and reasonably articulate but that's not me talking that's the trial to talk and i've never seen a young girl this good myself and if you look at her testimony and you look at her statement now in elocution she's very articulate day and another time he was on the couch on her i my opponent said he was on the couch with it but i think i think the testimony when she was on her is that when the wife says well yes she  testified and then she testified for the defendant my best memory is when she testified for the state that came out that it was i that's my best memory yes your honor but of this whole question so your argument is is we saying you can't legislate evidence and i was there to look this evidence in but he's the one he's the one that caused the delay now forty days after the timer and his is the arc forty days make clear is is in closing argument defense counsel used the differences between a video and an ace testimony and i don't know what volume it is but i'm on page down and then she talks about the brand diary in her testimony that she said she was writing all this stuff down when she was seven excuse me about what it was doing and what does she say on the stand in her testimony i misplaced somewhere i don't know what i did with it i lost somewhere what did she say on the video and then he goes into a whole different thing so all of this again defense counsel so we're what we have on the video is a clear contradiction of what she's saying she never used this phrase before he's referring to the word vibrate so he's drawing he's saying she's not credible because use the word vibrator in the video but she didn't use it  defense counsel again i'm not using her words but we know from the testimony what we're talking about here try to force his penis in my mouth and he got it in a little bit but i didn't go any more on the video she says he never did it so they first of all the intimidate this girl into the lane to report them they use the same evidence in closing argument to discredit her and now they come up here  yeah i think so i mean i don't see how they can use how they can come up here and complain of evidence and then use or to discredit or clothing or things when new drone but there are other examples cited i found three i don't know where they is i think it's a fluid state you know i don't think i don't think it like you said there's i have no case of case law this support me other than general all about proper profiting from your own wrongdoing or this course of conduct  the impact of this statement was that this little girl was giving information to a professional interviewer and a very friendly safe environment where it was just her and the interviewer and she does testif i'm sorry she does give statements to the interviewer that are very impactful and that is exactly argument that that the prejudice of this video cannot be downplayed also i wanted to mention that believe that because something is repeated that it i don't think why this court should look at the videotape because that was part of the evidence but without what i'm what i'm trying to say is that it does not have to be an equal amount of evidence on both sides for it to be a credibility contest one other