any knowledge but he didn't know that he didn't know the facts about the shower in the dumpster and didn't know the facts or have heard the testimony from the other witnesses with respect to their relationship because in terms of the you know of the age we live with when people are losing their their face at all levels of government appearance is very important and all the judge who knew there was simply responded to say no i don't talk to my sister or my  television needs a response is there anything about the timing of this that we should be concerned about the difference though that would be quibbling here would be the daughter coming to the judge and saying she my friend is the victim's sister right ok if we hear more official development of this issue we can answer that question but we couldn't because the judge or i believe it waking state juror who took an action where they spoke to someone it is not the facts they are at perhaps the judges daughter might have been a facebook for him the victim sister you know that's those are degrees of separation that don't create the appearance of impropriety which is not to stay there we have here so if anything do you think it's relevant th d quite easy for counsel order you know if the defendant apparently had a handy conversation with his attorney just before it was brought up had the defendant then leaned over to his attorney you know if misprint further instructions of freedom of speech problem and i do not see that raised i cannot see how this or any court could rule that a trial judge has to monitor his families they may says something murder while it may be unusual it was normal it's effective because we have the dead body to prove that so if we were talking about in the attention murder beastly it is possible not impossible or on page seventeen of the defendant's brief it talks about the defendant's action which is holding her brief stint on the bed and ultimately putting his knee on her back when she lost consciousness and then he victim down on the soft surface holding her face to the mattress so that it's molded to her face and she can't breathe he puts his knee over back which for the restricts or breathing his intent is in to is to incapacitate so the defense credibility on the judge i think said it was slim to none clearly he does not believe the defendant's testimony about you know the struggle in itself to finance and that is a big factor to take into his to kill her as a better ha shit had i been the trial judge i would have probably given the instruction obviously the judge did consider that the two factors it was a large part of the defense counsel where i think that might have been in the post trial motion her chest his objective was to incapacitate her and make her stop struggling the way you're going to do that is if you lose consciousness or you're so severely you know hurt and restricted that you stop a couple steps up in front of you defense and the state can do that to my former partner i'm going to recuse myself on this because whatever but i don't have to and so where do i as a use or you tell trial judges that regardless of what the rules says there regardless of existing case law you know have to state on the record your thought process in deciding whether or not to recuse based on something that the defendant