questions regarding some of the other issues i'd like to focus on the issues two and three the issue of whether or not mr carwell was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the issue of whether or not thirteen year old girl alleged that her father showed her pornographic movie and exposed his penis those allegations were vehemently denied in testimony by the father  minor and the mother were more credible than the father that language does not sound like reasonable doubt simply insufficient to say that i had that the defendant had been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt when you look at the evidence in the story that was told by the minor it's bizarre and it credulity she has this story of these things and this happens and over at the house that my dad lives there and it's not his girlfriend's house it's someone else's house and he just happens to and that other person has kids in the house and he just happens to have a pornographic there happens to be a pornographic d v d entitled t v that he just happens to grow in children and the minor takes a considerable amount of known from the record that at the time of the allegation is may mom and dad are hurt in a divorce situation and at this time a minor is living with mom was boyfriend in the parties are divorced my dad has a new girlfriend there's all these things going on there are some testimony from the minors grandmother on behalf of the defense that she tends to exaggerate and may tend to make stories the evidence as it was presented was just not sufficient to show that mr cardwell is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and again picking up on what's a truck council are initially in a motion for direction finding minor even testified to that any of this showing again and if you can find a believable was done for sexual gratification i understand in the state's position is well you can show that by circumstantial evidence because of the showing of the video but i i would submit and it's defense counsel here that there's just not enough that's certainly not enough there's particular way when you take into account even from a minor perspective that part of this was dad trying to explain certain things to her based on a request by his mother because a result indication mine and the miner testified that in fact she did testify in the trial that she immediately when her sister came over the next day she told her sister that this mean yes it is if you believe that that's what it was and it was a sex talk using pornographic video while it might be able to buy it's again there's there's no testimony that he was doing it to gratify him self and i think in the context of the conversation and it presented by a minor the the whole be the purpose of the act is sexual gratification and even if you believe that the complainant actually testified the purpose of what the father did in this case was not would do if she didn't get her story straight and support her sister in i think those are the best really the salient point that taking the newly discovered evidence with the  favorable to the people could have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt that means it's not a question of whether or not we believe j c the victim in this case for the purposes of appeal we take her testimony as true wanted to show her something else retrieve the pornographic d v d from on top of the television told her she could try some of the things in the media that she was about to see while the d v d was playing defendant asked his thirteen year old daughter to see if she'd ever purposes regarding the defendant's motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence tell her which is he told her she told her and that just wouldn't wouldn't make such a conclusive difference that the result in a retrial would be different for a little more was a bench trial so we have t available she had some things that she could have added i thought it's also important to know her fear of her mother and the things that she said along the lines of i was afraid i might do th she kept telling me to support my sister to stick with the story and not and whether or not it was available to defense counsel i believe the testimony was that when asked by defense counsel and see said she was just one staying neutral  at school and my counselor at school told me just to wait it out so here we she's not a twenty year old she's still living in a house with her mother she's sixteen years old at the time of the trial and she's talked to the only bill that she knows who to