i did i'm sorry i probably mumble that that's what's that's what's and what's up next you believe it doesn't absolutely control and if you do why do you think it does i'm not recalling the fact that case well you might want to take a look at it when you sit down because it is practically right on point ok i will look at it  involved an objective and reasonable application of the us supreme court authority or if the state court decision was based on and on reasonable determination of the facts in white of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings didn't the doctor who was called to him to establish the time of the day i concede that it could have occurred either when the defendant had custody of the child or when the mother theory that it could that that clara had done it that the mother when she came home and found the child asleep shook the baby in a way that caused the the head injury and that was the he had custody of the trial yes and that was not true with i i don't believe that the expert testimony i think that would have been an interpretation the jury could juries could have made about the testimony but they didn't have to make that determination one of the doctors with the facts if the arizona court incorrectly said there was overwhelming evidence of guilt in there wasn't your honor if the court had made that determination which  didn't say i'm basing the decision on overwhelming evidence of guilt i'm basing it on the circumstances of this case and because the standard of review is two or three pronged i'd like to kind of go back to that just to say that i think we've reached an unreasonable determination of the facts i think that's where that's where all of the previous discussion with judge hawkins was going and the standard of review there is that the determination by the state court if it is a determination of fact is reason reviewed under a presumption of correctness has to be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence i don't believe that there the record support the record that there is clear and to show that the defendant admitted that he was taking care of the child for the entire day until the mother came home at four o'clock that's all your honor this is required to prove its entire case now and this is what he says under all the circumstances of this case he doesn't say based on overwhelming evidence he says under all the circumstances of this case that the error constitutes harmless there and whether the testimony would have come in or not or whether the take it come in or jurors would have found him guilty anyway which gets us back to the standard of review and the standard of review if we backtrack away from from the factual issue and talk about unreasonable jurors would have found him guilty anyway even if this tape hadn't come in the state was a very small part of a very big trial and i guess i do want to come back to the essential question we talked about at the beginning which was is this case really defaulted was the all these issues that we're talking about now where they raised in the state court as a constitutional question and i would argue that they were not all of the summary to the entire argument which consisted of three sub arguments he threw in the argument that that is we got a we got a fifth fourteen six here he never spelled it out i think my time is up but there  and the officer keeps saying it's the stomach that did it had it whatever suits them and the main part of it is that the jury sees him being treated like he's a criminal and there's