argument if however we want to think maybe that the court didn't quite get it right or wasn't clear and just simply left out that factual findings well there's no factual find to be given deference so if this court wants to look at the record about a cigarette at one point he did ask to have a cigarette it's unclear that from the record that that was the purpose that he was there or that we can really imply that that was the reason he was in this room with the detective i mean there's conflicting testimony between the detective and th senate of course but the tape does imply that he asked specifically what have you talked to my mom yet and that's what he talked to and even if you don't want to say that that was a general as attentive to discuss it then you know if you watch the  record that when the detective said you want to talk to me it was understood and translated or related by the detective that he was talking about things regarding investigation not whether or not  testimony that he didn't want to talk still so no i can't give you anything specific where he says yes i want to confess i want to talk about this investigation but i think it's a very rare case that will find that and i i do think that he was completely thought about it and somebody just wasn't somebody down in serious trouble here i'm going to bed in a situation yet and hurting myself sounds pretty good i don't know what i'm going to do he also scarred things on his cell about the people who there with him that he would have known have they come to the front of the police station and someone misinformed them and said oh he's not here are unaware they have this is a big ongoing investigation yes it might be a miscommunication but i think it does it  towards excluding the statements i mean this should be a limited function to exclude statements such as this and i think that it's unfortunate yes but these families also knew where he was they were there when he was taken away they know where he was swimming attempted to contact them at s trying to take apart a little bit of your question piece by piece calling to ensure that the families were told different things according to their testimonies and some of their testimonies don't quite fit together it's hard to tell whether all these trips to the police station really occurred however the trucker did find that he did believe that they were told misinformed of where he was but there is no doubt thinking he was in custody they were there when he was taken away they knew he was in custody as for the fact that you know he was this was a voluntary because he was just so you know oppressed by the police and excluded from any would you know that's good interrogation that's the essence of interrogation is that you don't have free will to just contact to everyone this was not a minor we were dealing with he had no right to have a parent in the room with him or his family or his friends he was had a way to have reasonable contact with them at a time for school with ongoing investigation was going on and at some time they were going to let him test to contact  i believe it was late hours at the twenty second as of early hours of the twenty third of the day if it times are somewhat up in the air by they had information that he was in fact the shooter they took him then there is no argument at all defendant below at the trial court level that he was unfairly detained over that i mean the question here is that when he revoke and of his rights or if he did it is clear he did it whether it was at his house whether it was at the police station he like i believe a randall that was thrown in and making one detective to testify and saying yes we were we were going to question him further i don't think that's enough to find that he was being held that one detective may have said this he may have been  he may not have known that his rights were involved yet he may be just dealing with another part of that investigation at the time to come goes i don't think it's there's concrete enough evidence in the record to know that that is the what happened that's the problem here i think you reinitiated and then go on to determine whether or not the waiver was knowing and intelligent now regardless of whether or not the court finds the defendant read initiated contact the court's ultimate finding that the scene that was involuntary trumps everything even if you didn't  that he was in custody incommunicado interrogation the fact that the police essentially support the families every time to get contact to him to get a police officer together how is it relevant the fact that the police may have done that is that a factor that the cour simply for that the next day we're not saying it was wrong for the police to give him chicken nuggets and french fries that's an argument are you going to run argue that he wasn't given you know nutritional meals that were wholesome and and full of vitamins we're just saying cell and i'd like to just point out too that the record is not clear that he spent a whole lot of time that called cell because of corning to the defendant he was pulled out into these interview rooms over and over again much more than the record really indicates according to the detectives in those tapes so i guess i'm saying he can't have it both ways either he was in the cold cell or he was being pulled out interrogated much more than he claims and you see a little in credibility down there because it's one thing or the other and it seems like he's trying to play both sides now and it's true we don't know the temperature now as far as getting to the involuntary issue yes it would true whether or not he rhenish a contact but i think the caller did find that he did renegotiated because i don't think he would have even had to get to the involuntary this test if he had found that i don't know why he would waste the time doing that now and i think it's really important to look me yeah ok sure he had a key so he mentions in the videotape ok you said you were hungry so i thought he was me on what he's showing that it was monetary that this guy had been fed i mean that he had been going to day since he had been refusing minute he knew his rights he understood what was going on he confessed i don't think it's fair for him to play the system in claiming that he didn't know his wives or his family was allowed to see him he's not a minor and i don't think we have to face like that i don't think he was kept from the outside world just to get a confession i think the cops were doing investigation on the shooting that was given away to to try to find out exactly what happened and go forth with the most evidence for the concrete piece that he said but you know yes not paper cuts i don't think he ever claimed there were paper cuts that are a number of the records are in for the questions though that i can answer for