the detective and the trial court that the child had numerous injuries before the father brought a minor child to the mother's house at that time the father the mother of the child were separated and they were living separate syria all that had a very existed prior to the child even going over to his mother's house further the only injuries that were if you will of the new injuries where the child's years in the is growing as well as all the other isolation of injuries the child was treated and released the father went back to work later on that afternoon the father got the child for his regular visitation and took the child to a different care center a silver cross where the child presented with the same injuries he had the morning and that this investigation ensued from there and furthermore the child was interviewed and so because hospital was asked whether or not  that he was staying with his girlfriend on those days of september twenty five through twenty seven and he also religiously check that he was using alcohol using heroin at the time and he also other  hardwood floor at that time so essentially the state had no evidence regarding injuries to the client's hiers caused by high on the first first charge above the the growing asked whether or not he was writing down word for word as to what he asked and what was said the answer was no and the interesting thing here is well is it possible the detective could have asked mr canary is a possible you could have hurt her this child one would hurt him a whole lot more in court now the first of the first was just a suggestion which isn't really an incriminating statement here in fact the statement is wrong because the doctor all through that she was more concerned about everything else rather than just the ones that the state charges and again his arresting thing is most of those injuries were present before the child went to his mother's where mr canard was and i think that's the major point that was missed here and we're in state's case here is basically built on a possibility quite the child himself said it was my brother and through the evidence at trial we also know he doesn't have just one brother he has two brothers and the older brother fourteen year old teacher would be a bit of an adult size which goes the child play football could have led to some of the bruises but not all ok that doesn't doesn't doesn't prove anything if in fact the doctor did not preclude really the one closing arguments was well the funded must lie because sometimes people lie what's the evidence of the law the judge the court had no opportunity to and to observe the defendants to peter his tone of voice fact and in this case it seems from the decision itself that the trial court found my quiet statements credible because she's saying that well he said it was a possibility so then he must have committed a crime again that gets past the possibility of hard possibility is not beyond a reasonable doubt rational trier facts in this matter the abuse rather than accidentally inflicted those injuries included facial bruising a scratch on the neck bruises on the ears that yours are really red extending back to the scale and there is also a domino bruising and genital bruising that included very difficult to bruise and not often injured by accident so dr like are applying that they wouldn't have been caused by a football accident or falling in a bath or wrestling on the hardwood floor instead she said that the injuries were caused  intentionally by an adult sized person the adult size person who inflicted the abuse was defendant who had been staying in the victim had been staying with a friend and finally admitted that he was there over the span of time which injuries occurred and the only explanation he gave for the injury is was  he wrestling with the victim and may have accidentally cause the injuries but we know this is a false statement because of the testimony of the doctor on the child abuse expert testified that the injuries couldn't of her in that way  wasn't recorded because the defendant didn't consent to the written recording and about the child statement so the care providers the child was three years three years old and the doctor testify that three year olds are sometimes not reliable and interview process and that the victim really was an intern those kinds of questions and the victim's statement it's clear the victim wasn't able to communicate about these events because he said the seven year old that it and and the seven year old couldn't have cause a person and he also said that mother's boyfriend or anybody else nobody heard them and obviously someone did so the fact that the child made that statement does and doesn't take away the pr the reasonable doubt if it was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and so the people would ask obviously the one the chords he's using that's obviously the one that we all use that at trial in which just the word that that interview is the one that should be recorded in some fashion because that's what we're arguing about what questions in the office or what questions did he actually receive because the interesting thing is the both statements that the officer testified to are very similar in how they were given to the office the same type of language used which suggests that it's it just doesn't sound like a person who if if what we were told was true at the trial is that my just doesn't sound like a statement that a person who was a heroin addict is going to use it that time and i was just the fourth through this court that rational trier of fact needed to look at the languages of the fifty languages possibility that possibility