guilty of the charge of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt the only evidence against him in this case consistory consisted of pretrial accusations made by his half sisters but they all testified to trial recanted those statements when they were false and that they were forced to make them by the older sister done there was no physical evidence in the case no third party other witness testimony in the incriminating statement by the defen three of the criminals like in the small convictions for which the judge impose a no sentence in order to win today i'd like to discuss some of the neutrons of the issues of course if you're owners of questions about the other issues i'd be happy to address those as well after the reason no physical evidence of the incidents occurred no incriminating statements by the defendant no third party eyewitness testimony so no testimony about the statements m in this case that the defendant was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt aggravated criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual assault no first of all errors committed and stayed out for the first issue because reasonable doubt the evidence require building the anatomy identification touch inquiry abuse scenario in closure those interviews showed all three triplets interviewed individually identify that they told their sister dining what happened to them after donning noises she heard the night before before long sleep coming from their room she would run into the noises at first the girls did not disclose what happen eventually they felt comfortable enough to tell their sister that their brother the defendant was in back sexually assaulting them during the during the interview  they also said that dining time contacted their parents and parents contacted their pastor pastor dave who also testified in these proceedings a meeting was that where he defined it made it and apologized for experienced the interviews were so reliable and and such credible evidence based on how the girls despite the pain that they experience it didn't appear to be coached at hurts there was blood coming out of my behind after being assaulted by my my brother at the defendant so the evidence that was revealed or the testimony that was revealed during those interviews  was not only damaging it was extremely truthful and accurate coming from the girls and each girl said that this is the true that's what happened but then when there's the and and really have to look evidence so we have that testimony earthbeat we have the victim's hundreds of interviews the video we have diamonds testimony that didn't necessarily visually see what was occurring but weight and those noises when she inquired about them but heard to find out that the children were being abused so i would call that you know somewhat eyewitness testimony or actually you're listening testimony as to what was going on that something was awry and we also found out we also have a lot of consistencies in the testimony from the other individual but mean the father's testimony about where the defendant was actually living at the time no one seemed to be clear as to whether or not he lived with the victims or did not live with the victims that he was living at home that had son actually was when these allegations came out was he in town or was he sent to boston immediately after these allegations were made just several inconsistency is about what occurred in this situation her duty to free the defense to free her brother so coupled with these in consistencies me hadley's these video taped interviews that truly show what happened to these anomalies unfortunately by the defendant told that it is their duty to free them and it should also be noted that diamon is one of the children that does not live in the household anymore because she was abused by her father this is how this whole thing w kicked off she was beaten by her brother and father and that's how d c s past even became involved in this case so her her reason there is no reason for her to lie to you  independent evidence of this occurring we have you know diamonds account which in the first set of interviews with the the triplets you find that you acknowledge that well actually i did so it was those kind of inconsistency is where you know sometimes things happen one on one aaa is saying yes and the other one is saying no but when they get impeach being scared or i'm sorry the victim is being scared coming into court against her brother cannot be an easy thing and when you are being prompted and you know in a sense forms two li be the trousers properly granted the request to view the victims and give interview statements during deliberations without providing a statement without providing a copy of the transcripts for the jury  their request was made to see the video normal request as the trial judge stated it they were allowed to see the video the trial judge said if you would like to see that the transcript and has to be multiple errors that occurred because our position that that was the only error occurred and it's not reversible error because the evidence was not