and basically heard her confession against her testimony which was the only other direct evidence they completely clash it was completely contradict there is one of the factor also that would begin it would be circumstantial evidence but to show her intent and that was that the attack only actually stopped after i think it was the son in law or somebody  drag her off of the victim right and put her in a chokehold to to get her to stop is that correct yes which is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence you could also go to her intent to attack which is what she testified he she it was the defense theory that she did not intend to kill her she only intended to scare  teachers but even s this is the confession was so strong here that the state friend did not ask her statement corroborating other independent evidence but rather all the other independent evidence cooperated her statement that he actually heard i attacked her and with her hands out ready to be cuffed and he also heard that it was based on the motive you know that i should feel that what the victim was having an affair with my husband it was just too much whether you want to wear it right this minute before the speech which was the what was the clarification recission my recollection was he said he mentioned something about a lawyer that's certainly you right but i wanted to clarify that and so that he didn't get the ran out and then she agreed to speak but it doesn't matter anymore now that she spoke and that was the clarification question when you have close the fact that she walked over there and sort of droll so her car wouldn't be there she didn't have any identification on all of these things suggest that and she and she had time she was pleading for the return to maybe victim had testified that she only had minor server neck and some scratches that she didn't really have any to the rest of her body so i believe that's the answer to that question i don't know that she would have had time and in fact because she did not stop until she was physically pulled off by a male and a child so i think that all of those things show not intending to scare she brought all her supplies with her and of course you do have a confession obviously if that were to be removed i do think that there is still overwhelming evidence without those without the taint confession still initial confession that she attacked her and also the motive for doing so plus speak with an attorney he clarified the issue by giving miranda warnings all over without the qualification which you claim created an ambiguity the nd time what she said was i think i want a  fourteen and the way she let after that day if that's not asking for special treatment under the law so the fact of the matter is they were asking you consider for the fact that she works seven days a week justified even if you're trying to answer that argument how does it justify making the statement that that this was attempted murder if the same facts have been committed nothing a forty year old woman in sycamore analogy might be if you had i say a domestic battery where the male was the victim which is more or maybe unusual and then you want to point out that he is entirely the same protection under the  even though it may have been timid that does not render it ambiguous or indecisive it was clear what she wanted and to give i have the medical to that effect if one is at the restaurant and they say i think i have