for the first trial in some respects and some say well that's as it was an interesting question just generally if certain things happened in the first trial and the second were looking at the first trial record an art then i don't know you can't just state arguing that he said the witness was truthful you have a witness testifying about his demeanor was consistent i mean he didn't he didn't say to the jury i mean he's telling the truth call them because they didn't find any physical evidence of abuse so they kept putting in the same kinds kinds of things if you have if we don't have any other questions on that did you get any other issue you want to just pacifically f what's what is the issue they were on some cash correct there would have to be song affirmative action i think we for them to get there and that was one here we have what appears to be it videos that were there by your client admitting in the chair and saying that he watched them and the evidence says about another but we have but i have a buddies account several videos right and a certain image from that video and we have maybe a hundred other images how does that just happen without anybody's knowledge the people asked for it in computer forensics testifying about the issue that opposing counsel brought out i realized this person was identified as an expert and he had forty hours of training or something in this area but what if this expert wasn't totally accurate well the facts this expert was tendered as an expert and was admitted as an expert whether or not he was nothing in the record to support that his information was inaccurate well he did he introduce the concept of a critical difference between the browser cache in the thumb case or is this something you introduced pursued on step internet website again so let's say you go on to e s p n at seven pm you close it down and let's say you want to go back up and check the score at let's say ninety nine pm when you're going to be a scan again and the images put in to show possession but when you take that into consideration with all the other evidence presented it does show actual or constructive possession well in justifying this is one of the was directed at something else because i believe it was but can now be used to substantiate the fact that with these on the video and these other nine b plus images that there is evidence multiple asked during this right dan rather just trying to understand which well there was emotional and the need to introduce some of this evidence to talk about i think the other pictures maybe to talk about other crimes that could have been committed in connection with this one step motion women is granted in this evidence comes it can the jury consider it for any purpose that big would be used for or does it specifically have to be related to to substantiate these eighteen photographs is being possessed because it is also evidence of their crimes of a similar  were there the defendant had to make some affirmative action here and there you know there is a presence of a cleaner program that is on the defendant's  computer that would be supportive of such a cleaning the you know the computer the fact that there were no images found in the defendant's temporary internet files and all that has been you know wiped clean as detective r difficult to calculate and you sort of steady trial time frame and in terms of compulsory jointer i just want to point out that the child pornography charged in the shirley was not a possession child pornography twenty possession child pornography charges at a later time there's a specific difference between photographing and possessing and that gets to the heart of compulsory joining which is it must be on the scene and act well into it but between but we've got some other charges coming if you knew within three weeks or a state within three weeks there were other charges coming why did it take until fourteen fifteen months you're right i can't answer why it took just going back to other crimes if some of those images might have been used that video might have been used to rule the victim and keep the curiosity of the victim as it were listening to what the defendant said he was curious about in williams they were very specific about the difference between an act and conduct and they were very specific about the fact that compulsory joining requires an act explicitly said that conduct because they wanted to ensure that it didn't fall for a series of acts or serious series of similarly related acts and they did that because they wanted case progressed in this instance the way that this information was heard was that the victim's brother overheard the victim telling a friend zone incidents with the defendant the victim brother runs over to the mother tells the mother the mother asked the victim the victim begins crying says that the defendant is annoying in stocking the mother  information that he would otherwise not know well unless that was an inappropriate things and then based on that evidence then the question was well did he know you know it was the victim  evidence they did not charge the videos and so they were going to the stated purpose was he wanted to use that evidence the state said to show that you know this wasn't a mistake