judge bassoon said to me when mr stance on the way said your guy did it wasn't a problem because i said judge i think that wilson requires much more than that and i think there is much more of that here all but and of course there is more to it because first how they came upon mr record if the judge had know that mr rector was picked out at way and i'm eight years later and the reason given for him being picked out was he crews from that area and he did drugs the judge when he said what does the had to do with getting him and finding him it's too much of a coincidence that they found the perfect witness on reasons that make no sense so this is a first that the second problem with mr whitner is i don't know why that makes what he unreliable how is that how is that relevant it's the beginning of a series of facts that suggest that he's completely in wa but worse suggests that the police didn't find him they invented him there to say anything and didn't really hear anything at this or he was just trying to make a deal we can just add a speculate about that as a basis for the finding of lack of this witness who has changed her story a number of times where you look at the thrust of her her final version of events and you look at your statements and you look at other sister's husband has been even molesting her having intercourse with me that's not something you do right in with back to that issue she didn't say that to the rest time and she didn't say that until she outset that there is a means i suggest of cutting all gordian knots in this case by resolving the ruling may be to and you may wish to to guide the district courts in this and whatever opinion you choose to write while it's suggested to use a term from common modern parlance best practices to ensure that the ruling is a for if for the existing record this court can in fact perform the methodology that wilson it's ruled was necessary and i would suggest that if you read the wilson case carefully that chief judge becker's opinion in that case seems to say to me that in fact in that seminal case they employed the methodology for the first time in analyzing what exactly but that's then and that only says that we were doing for the first time in explaining what we want to see done we're the ones doing it yes and that point forward we expect that the district courts will hear that guidance and provide us with that we constructed affidavits so that we know and can precisely an actual you say that because i don't believe that it is that clear in the wilson case well it's good to determine the materiality of the misstatements and emissions excised if amending inaccuracy is which would be if there is a misstatement and insert the facts recklessly omitted presumably that is if there is an omission here with respect to hawk that looking only at reckoning or and taking out hawke entirely you don't account for the possibility that looking at the whole corrected affidavit with all of her statements and then with record you might you might find a different situation i see however i think what the judge did was notional and proceed i do wilson he russo it reminds me of arithmetic classes when i was a child and the primary school teachers telling one show your work don't just give me he answers and in this case i think you that all the problems here seem to be with the statements of sarah how ok let's throw them out we stood probable cause in this what is that but will soon be russo methodology i submitted  informant eight years after the fact someone who is seeking when we need treatment and who have knowledge and he read the public reports and is giving some treatments that are then question why would you want to look at what what need in this case perhaps be an even stronger affidavit if you could sarah hawke statements and well that's why if you'll excuse me that's why  simply russo and reach that conclusion remember we're talking about probable cause this man was quick there's no question there was reason that out and that there are all sorts of problems and all sorts of questions that have never and probably never will be answered victim of domestic violence in that situation the courts have been paul ar'n't of such victims and women and who have gradually we don't head to different standards we did is all of we we can do what wilson versus rousseau requires the district that's my basic position and if you do that you'll come to the conclusion that playing in sarawak statement you still have probable cause despite the faction made a progressive series of revelations under all circumstances that bear in this case you can also do with the alternative way that i think but i've i've had my eyes open to some extent by judge crosses question up and i had never thought that you couldn't simply evade the difficulties by just focusing on what was there that does provide probable cause that the that the difficulties themselves must be considered in context along with what is solid and solid and i think i understand clearly that this court has read the transcripts of the telephone conversations and they're not as as as simplistic as my learned opponent would have you say in terms of credibility kinds of determinations as to the the trooper's motivations what was communicated from rector to the troopers before the when did you come in contact with the states did you ever even have the states somebody got them and we gave them to him but the point is we don't know when that happened or anything like that or whether pierce was even involved specifically with their probable cause affidavit no we do not we do not know that we don't know those tapes were not transcribed until mr simpson had them straight scribe for the summary judgment in this particular case they were they were available we don't know those he never asked them did you get the states you have the statement did you listen to them did when did you listen to them i mean there was a murder prosecution after this and they definitely looked at sara and they definitely looked at purchased tapes there was a n i agree inconclusive tape from mr borden bircher to somebody talking about what's what's can we know about something about this party at the mood and they the prosecution try to make something out of that as corroborating witness statement you know there were there were a lot of there's a lot of evidence that was obtained after the arrest took place in this case and i'm just pierce was with what the pennsylvania state police right now are so you know i don't know where he got them he may have he may have got them he may have listened to the but he may have done it wrong after he rested bircher we don't know i think i think my knowledge of them were sufficient knowledge of them in order to decide i'm not going to put the cent which is what happened and read it you know where he deliberately lied and he he omitted things and all sorts of and he ran with the hare and hunted with the hound sometimes it was a serial rape other times she was just trying to hide her own theft we don't have anything like that here but on the other hand it it's obvious in the read case perhaps because they employ the methodology and in wilson so carefully scrupulously what it was that the detective benson was a meeting and falsely stated and the record had better position here just simply doesn't come to grips with this now of a sudden it's very important why was it important when you had on the stand at the deposition why didn't you tell him oh why did you leave these things out why did you you knew about them and you left the mountains you think that's a problem then we have a very different case but we don't have that case here we just have something where as judge bassoon said we can we can we're supposed to speculate that they had all this information it's years later there's been a field homicide prosecution there's all sorts of evidence that wasn't available that time the affidavit was filed we can't take it all back would not be nice for their position because he was found not guilty we can't take all the evidence and