at this stage because it's not rebutted by the gardens actually supported by the record t m would have testified that in two thousand and thirteen on his all their siblings came forward there was tension in the family about where t m was going to live at the time and still does live with his mother hole but in two thousand and thirteen t n did not want to live with hope because she had problems with alcohol and live in boyfriend and he wanted to live with his father and he said no strategy where if you put t m on the stand you run the risk that he's going to come off what he said to the police because now he's of the world and there's a possibility that he may say it happened just like am did am originally denied it but then when she was too funny and she was interviewed by the police she said it didn't happen so isn't that a reasonable trial strategy to benefit from that is left for nd and rd stage proceedings not for stage and it wasn't just that he would rebut any propensity evidence trenton would have told the story to the jury that the jury never heard about the circumstances under which and and  did not want him to put his clothes on and that was left on your budget because trenton or t m did not testify in this case so his testimony would have refuted their testimony that mitts being around them all will sometimes which just goes up to the point of you know they do hiking naked but just the nice the sex acts i mean even if they were to call  tina if the defense of called him was the reason why can you hold that the outcome would have been different when you have this abundance of corroboration for their stories that he puts himself in the testimony would have supported his defense because it would've cast doubt on the veracity of his older siblings motives for coming forward and it would have exposed the possibility that they came forward during to early fabricated viciously the jury never heard the story that is in the petition about the circumstances under which am and c m came forward that story was completely not told and the jury never heard any evidence to refute the propensity evidence propensity evidence in this case well in testifying to why they came forward they necessarily brought forth the presidents when they were discussing their father or taking their younger brother hiking in the nude and not wanting to put clothes on that is at the time t m t not want to live its mother at the same time z m was fighting about frank's alleged inappropriate conduct toward his fiance that could even remotely relate is that tripp wanted to live with me being the defendant the media makes some allegations about the mother but there's nothing in here about frank was he did being at his mother's house or hated them the live in and there's no indication they were living in that household so it would be kind of odd for those two being out of the household and am specifically testified she had been seeing defendant five years since she moved out september two thousand  i had to chastise t m to put his clothes back on and when he would walk in on we changing i had to yell at him to get out of the room because it's not a reasonable to assume there were conversations about nudity that occurred between defend earlier i am a testify that she hadn't seen the defendant nearly five years at the time she made these allegations so it certainly was not her reporting abuse in the midst of a fight she had actually testified she had moved on and thought it would stop with her until she was twenty three why because it would have called into question am n z as motive for coming forward and it would have reason the possibility that they fabricated their allegations during this time a family turmoil and as to the turmoil regarding her between am and frank that isn't the record that they had a strained relationship since at least two thousand and seven when she was a teenager but their turmoil she went away she was gone the relationship according to c testimony to the defense how it would've called into question his siblings motives and it would've explain the circumstances surrounding when they came for test when he was important to the defense and given the importance of his testimony it is at least or you of all the counsel failure to call him was professional reasonable and it is at least arguable that the that it was prejudicial