keene attacked her they had been living together she had she was the custodian of her two children who were also residing there at the time of the attack about one o'clock in the morning on a saturday sunday morning the hawkings mother was also staying with the parties at hawkins house in mount what's interesting and i think important in this case and why the why this case in the court's ruling should be overturned is that the state failed to prove it meet its burden of proof finding the defendant guilty what's important i think is that the the trial protection on scene that occurred in october of two thousand and ten then we cut and the court agreed to take judicial notice of those findings in the transcript part of that record the court then heard testified what great friends they were with paul keating they were best friends lifelong friends close neighbors interacted with paul keen on a daily or insert or certainly weekly basis and went over to his house and he spent time over there testimony was the difference was with regard to their relationship with with paul keim and ted and what the court then said it's trial court in the criminal case said that the the trial court believed that james near him an errant kitchens or in kitchens being a police officer were the most neutral witnesses he was going to take he was going to take their word above the word of any of the other witnesses who were family members and because they were critical of the were they weren't family they weren't close friends they were the most neutral witnesses and appeared to not even want to be in in court not even want to be testifying and  their connections their fact that their neighbors that they'd gone over the house and they certainly played that down and then the court but counsel seems to mean the court was aware that the court still sess credibility and f so i think that's a fair assessment that that's what the court the court decided that these two people they are in kitchens a police officer and james newman were neutral witnesses decided despite the fact that the testimony had been in the he did seem them credible he also refers to them in his ruling as neutral the most neutral type of witness the court also heard in failing to not only to consider that interest in bias of those witnesses but in denying allow some minimal testimony with regard to the fact that yes paul keim was the defendant in a small claims case filed by solely but refused to allow further evidence with regard to the amount of  with regard to the contract the terms of the contract and the fact that the in this offer of proof that it pokmon could be liable up to several thousand dollars if if  successful in that lawsuit and part of that was that once it was the small claims to put under the contract was if she moved out in less then a certain number of years now it's moving out of being kicked out or terminated was part of that contract in the court despite that relevance and the importance of that of that interesting bias that is that would be pretty that was present in that case i refuse to allow that and tonight that offer evidence and the court had the evidence before it of the the cuts on the defendant both the defendant's forearms that that she had her staying all night in the closed bedroom not allowing  in and keeping her testimony was keeping her back against the door to keep anyone from coming in and and then leaving as soon as she could in the morning going to taking her children out getting her children into a safe place returning her children actually to the father of the children from whom she was divorced and then seeking assistance from a woman she had met i believe sure an acquaintance of hers in order to try to get her her personal belongings out of the house be the testimony and the evidence was that that the courts i think did not give proper w have with regard to not only his the interest in the bison interest in that contract and the small claims case but simply in his vice an interest in being no longer being in a relationship with as for the argument won the sufficiency of the evidence argument there was testimony from multiple witnesses that observed definitive cutting yourself this was mr cain and mr cain mother however their testimony was consistent there were also multiple fusion not only were there the multiple witnesses testifying to her mission there was also the trial court noted the lack of common sense or logic in its actions after to the contrary of course the charter fact was in the best position to believe whoever story there so there was sufficient evidence especially looking at the evidence like  to evaluate credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses as a testifying that's important here because the trial court in making its findings it's ultimately finding was that these witnesses were completely neutral  see that most this was a harmless error because as i said there's there is no debate that was not a close friend kane and his testimony was exactly the same as hitchens so this was going to the evidence even without mr kitchen's testimony in fact the trial court noted the officer can hear him testified sort of reluctantly in this case didn't seem like he wanted to testify against defendant at all so at most know that matter which it did appear that there was no question of the bias or hostility between the two witnesses the state would argue that the bias would be much more or much the hostility re much greater in this case where a defendant accused cain of committing a felony of committing of cutting her multiple times you didn't need any extra bias or hostility to in a in the form of a small claims contract court was aware and presumably applied any extra bias or hostility but this contract created again as i submit there didn't really need to  the the defendant had her testify to having her back against the door staying up all night and and therefore not allowing anyone else into the bedroom and tell the morning and then she could she could leave under with with daylight and with being able to see what was going on the suggestion that somehow not credible when she had been the one who had been attacked i think was was not appendix show people's exhibit for show us show the rooms they are superficial because they are on top they're not internal but i think there are some there perhaps is some misunderstanding of the they were superficial wounds because those are on top of the skin and those were cutting into the skin and you can see that this because this is several days later and this scan starting to form you can also see and the photo perhaps doesn't look as clear on the forearm so she opens her arms up in the following people's exhibit i believe that's fine and then the photo of people's exhibit six all of which were entered into and if it into evidence was discussed and the evidence has been admitted on so that the the suggestion is well by the state that it's not credible that she waited four days to be able to report this the evidence was she attempted to report this