prior to collecting it nor did he put a little protected on the blanket before he obtained the evidence these are all measures that could have been used to recently protect the forensic evidence on understand the questions of your argument you're hanging your hand on the fact that it was an act like that in its assumption in the proper manner so therefore even though the forensic expert testifies in my opinion based on the facts of this case it didn't really matter i don't was not compromised by the expert testimony of seems to be we've seen i believe that's correct or on of the officers who collect the evidence so the only ones who can testify about the reasonable measures that are used to preserve it when they collect it all she can testify to is i got this folded it up rolled and stuffed it in the back it's our position that the trial for the originally made the correct ruling in essence and these are not his words but in essence he said at the original ruling on the admissibility of his blanket that collected one get in a reasonable manner whether or not the jury believed her testimony the tro her did not allow that and on the case law it's relevant in this case whether or not she had prior knowledge of sexual matters so given that we think that the cross examination was which together combine together but in regard to whether or not we made a prima facia case and having to do with the folding of the blankets and the insertion of the linen protector between the four walls this is really a red herring because between the time when alex when the incident occurred which was three weeks prior to mine that was  to the people are responsible for the condition of the piece of evidence because we don't know that a crime has been committed or there's going to be an allegation of a crime we're only responsible for the piece of evidence and the time what i recall her testifying was that there were two grandstands of the pushed together because of because of the way it had been fooled the d n a would not have manifested itself in the testimony as to how besting occurred now she also testified to the point you know there are all these stains all over this blanket and she didn't test she didn't test them she testified that she was told to look for something with it and saliva and there was a specific test that she could do for the presence of the saliva which immediately eliminated most apparently the most of the sings on the blanket when there was a group of kids outside the window fifty feet or fifty yard i fear fifty feet fifty yards away and assuming cool and he looked out the window and saw a little bit of it and she was looking at him  defense was she was angry because he and moved out of the house but he didn't say no judge i'm trying to get her angry he moved out of town two years ago three years ago whenever i was and i want to go back to that and today i did you know from the time period to when he would turn out of home until two thousand and six to figure out if over there period of time she was continually angry at this for such and such and she said no he didn't get the yes the answer that he was expecting to get but more for to the black eye and if there was any kind of improper ruling regarding my region i don't know i would take for purposes of argument that she said that she also said that she could not determine if the the stain that the state relies on was a result of him if it's possible and given that i think back negates the lack of evidence that the state collected it in a reasonable manner the defense doesn't have to bring in an expert on police collection practices to testify live it was wrong  the state has to show that what they did was right and they didn't do anything right in this case the lieutenant officer the detective honest testified that that was critical it was important to prevent contamination he said that