together so fat readable and x rays would be made available to the defense the trial court invited the hardest to come back into court and i drives him if there were any problems indeed defense counsel and score and got an order from the trial court on october twenty first allowing it to view all of the evidence at the corner here including the computer because the data given to the defense attorney was reduced down to one percent and ninety eight percent reduction of the data he did not get a pediatric neural radiologist there is no way that the reenactment portrays what actually happened on the floor the camera doesn't pick this stuff counsel and the defendant discussion with the detectives in her discussion she had been three times that during the course of that part of the incident the child hit his head the back of his third the size of a fraction of the weight of bending and and demonstrates but she still demonstrating that and she said she picked him up facing now and that manner and so we have is this a hematoma and then the second one by a pediatric radiologist of course there were no radiologist at the trial who says there never was a fracture here two major medical findings the other thing that doctors t the circuit court's determination in that case a factual determination that there was a letter that had not been tendered and here you get a factual determination whether the quality of the x rays was appropriate at this point in time those x rays were in fact tender now is turning over and on readable will legible x ray compliance with the state's discovery obligations i think it through the trial court was attempting to get the discovery clarified so by ordering the opening of the corners computer and other records computers but if i had been given access to the actual computer where the images of the state were stored he had i would be giving it to access to the can the coroner's files i would believe it further because his theory of defense did not require the x ray to show or a natural a fracture that's a shock to cheese base your opinion not knowing if there was a fracture and then be convinced that there confession did not match the medical evidence and we have the medical evidence didn't that it absolutely show trauma that the jury to disregard  the impression i've gotten from reading the record and from reading the crosswords order in the third speech hearing is it everything the state had the state turnover and everything that the state turned over w repeat what they had great is about suppression nothing nothing prevented and again nothing preventing both the state and the defense from going to the corner and saying we can't asking was was the information tender materiality comes a medical expert but again looking at this case both at the trial and it experienced a gemini entry hearing there was a significant amount of medical evidence presented you did the child stre correct a month into things i'm not entirely sure that doctors never means testimony based on what he specifically said we're not going to trades can be taken definitively that there was in f don't think it's officially compelling to undermine the verdict it was based on a significant amount of medical testimony defendant has to share that the favorable evidence could reasonably put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidence of the verdict that's your burden at this point that is correct to have one doctor who says there reasonable probability the whole case would be put no lying that would undermine confidence in the perfect how is this a fair trial defense witnesses at the trial also testified in fact that