and the trial judge ruled on that i think at the trial and then so what you're saying is that when there is they have whether the remaining issues have relevance or not or are valid or not they still must be brought and argued by even though the record might be lie the issues and in this answers to which the judge says no you will of the way she said i will try to avoid she said and he said you will of the way and she said yes i will and she also says something to the effect i believe i can and he says no you must put those you know put this friendship such as it is aside so what what value would that have had on on this post and it probably had two churches if you go to church with anybody who might be that if you're a juror and you go to church with somebody you can't be on a jury and that relates to something close church friends and not once did joe when i say no you know you know what she's not even a close friend i know richard's like and strawbridge pays for in order where we don't even know if the jerk knew the victim's mother hopelessness of the relationship between teacher and victim's mother here we do have that evidence we have it out of her own mouth they see each other in church that we we know that they are close friends through church and so what does that mean that is this her only friend is this her is the person that she turns to about  later on the firms i would have used as having known she was the culture friend and so we're at the point where in between jury selection or in between opening statements so this is weird between my but other but he said this isn't an actual bias so i'd rather see it as kind of an interesting term i think there would be more and but but the reason why i say the state is that you're just looking at the relationship you're not looking at and that there was some tangential connection and that just the same here and when you look at closeness it's difficult to to say that she's so close yet she had no idea that there was so she recognize it or one thing she recognized  said she recognized it and then she put two dollars and two dollars together and assume and we're talking you know there's much being made of the fact that she was a close friend and i will just note for the record that that is the court friend of mine in church and she is a st cousin of the victims a she herself doesn't indicate a close friend and that later on in question she says she's not the closest friend she doesn't see her every day i think actually you know my closest she's now my you're correct there is no relationship and many of the cases that are found that there is a bias is that there is a specific relationship between the victim or sound very nuclear part of the victim's family y perfectly one of the arguments that it is often brought up is you there or there would be a biased because you would have to answer to that person for your decision so who would she have to answer to sure and you've referred to mother or pay here and once but we don't have any such bright minds do we there is no specific great line i do believe that  counsel cites in brief talk of our eight nuclear family and you know familiar relationship to to look at a bias but you know the case plus it says that you must look at all the evidence at that wants the circuit court to go through the motion for a new trial to determine which ones have merit which ones were raised before and then determine whether or not there is any  objections raised during the course of the trial and while there may have been litigation at the time of that motion to reconsider or arguments things of that nature does that general familiarity with it other than the specific yes right so is it likely that the judge took that into account as well as what he did earlier in the proceedings conclusory correct and did not give a basis for what any of the issues raised having to be constitutionally just said these are the problem fix them essentially sure and so are you saying that is not a sufficient post conviction petition at st stage which is where we are just trying to turn understand the senate understanding your it was that factor plus a close friendship here you combine those two i mean and when that was your st or a strong well some where along the line we assume that she told the bailiff because it's not on the record that it's a close friend other than the judge saying it but she must have told the bailiff it was a postscript when question she says she is a friend and she's a member of the same church now are we talking about  know you it's not a problem that if you're both members of the same church but if you have attributed to be friended a person is in their congregation now you cannot be fair does that what you're saying is that enough to make that sure cause it or not to be indifferent or impartial but you throw on top of that your hose friendship i mean again this is an arguable addressing claims and you him the parents said ok we want you to apply we feel that these are the big issues that are attached you should consider would you expect the appellate court to comb through the record the harness sure i've heard and have a difficult time i'm saying before you don't even get to are you would you expect us to come to the record to clarify what the defendant is trying to tell