no one saw pardo commit the crime and said his guilt was established on the basis of his sole custody of the child during times when the injuries likely occurred and reported by the child's mother pardo denied is truly an ad a review of the facts that were presented at the case and what could have been presented if the case had they been properly fleshed out and presented to the jury there is no direct evidence no one who's directly saw any of the injuries to the child at all they occurred at the trial the jury heard only that they occurred at the time that the child was obtained or or received from george pero circumstantial yes circumstantial evidence can be very compelling and there's nothing wrong with dealing with that and if the jury only heard that as i said in here one in one of my points in here even in an ancient practitioner like myself would have both sitting in the jury would have said this is very very strong and compelling oh that's not the entire facts or to talk about some or some of the evidence and the facts that you have raised i guess how did coun injuries later i'm trying to understand how miss leighton would have been significant in any respect there i'd like to address it in two separate ways number one the formation of the trial tactic in this case was based upon the fact by mr bennett at the trial counsel in this case it was based upon the fact of the limited knowledge that he had in other words he pursued a particular defense because he thought that's all that there was and he didn't think that's all that there was because he had gone out investigated the case he didn't think that that's all that there was because he had reviewed the pictures in the case where they reviewed even most of the evidence of the case he didn't think that's the way it was  investigators talked to reduce leyton who was right there in available he formed this tactic in the dark so that's one one explanation as to why we got to that point but now the court is talking about that the with the fact that rita slayton or what misunderstood another time to read a slate namely that the injuries miss ungar herself observed injuries after she got the child from robbie she were in the government raised that point but it's  if you start with the idea that this chain of custody chain of care for this child left out this giant gap and that really the injuries were observed after the child grand canyon but your use of the offender would not have said that the child was fine first received by him he wouldn't know he doesn't know he didn't know at the time he was testifying who had been in that chain of custody think there's a difference your honor he's saying that he didn't find any injury in that regard that it wasn't pursued in any way of how much he looked the child how deeply he looked the child when actually was pursued the other way it was pretty clear from  bath he was present at the time the bath was given and it well i recall the record you saying is what i reviewed this morning is that mr unger says and the record reflects that george pardos contact with the child was a change of the divers a change the pants and took off her shirt and which point he surmised later on maybe that's how this happened question is questions were put to miss unger how carefully did you did you look at the child and she says i looked at the  had in the morning i kept her for three hours nothing happened why would he say somebody had injured the child before he even saw it he would know but why would he miss it i think it's a question i think that's the question why would he say it and miss it i can only say that i don't believe he did the examination of this child in an intense way the same way with for example a doctor would but by the way can i make a comment on that the doctor who examined this child also missed those observations the first doctors who saw this child didn't see that the injuries to the child that was finally observed the next morning by the experts the expert doctors who looked at it now isn't that a powerful indicator that george pardo was nineteen or twenty or something at the time she was sixteen would not who is there no evidence at all that he had cared for children before that he would have missed these particular injuries th doctor who is trained in emergency room examinations didn't see it and that's in the record i don't think the argument is can be placed that he george pardo would have changed his story otherwise he's saying what he saw it's not it's that doesn't it does contradict what we now know or what i believe we now know to be the facts but i don't see it as engine disingenuous on his part precise point hemet is sixty six thousand people back at that time period it's a small little island of a of a community these people were all of the a little we found them almost immediately after i came onto the case we did the investigation that wasn't done in this case might mr gore wasn't even contacted even though that was the only name that the investigator for the case told of trial counsel contactor but within the wide range of reasonable performance so i was just going to ask you about that we have i was informed and in the record is mr van britt statement that he gave me the entire file in the case in the record is he has no recollection of conducting an investigation in the record the record itself does not show that any investigation ever took place in the record is the statement from the investigator advise you mr trial counsel has been averted to doing so that it's not just that it's absent it's that he states  grand valley which which is the monumentally empty in this case establishing that and that it was to robbie that the child was presented and it was after robbie that the child was in to be injured and i didn't get to change any of i hope i have a few moments to reply thank you very much declaration that the injury or that the time that robbie had custody of the child was on october twentieth the child goes to the hospital on the twenty first there are a couple of problems with  that that being on october twentieth that's the first problem is that means that lots of people missed the injury to the child because on the twenty first we had meghan with a child early in the morning megan's mother with the child shortly after that taking care of her and bathing her we have laura could charo and her friend heather miller then with the child again before ten impossible based on the fresh very fresh recent injuries described by dr murray that folks missed this attack on the child but it's not the first doctor's that was just mentioned right now the that dr murray says that the emergency room doctors are very well trained in examining sex injuries under on small children her testimony but what i would say is that i don't think very much examination took place that suggests they get a c t scan the doctor was on the phone suggested to see you doctor called the other doctor and then they said bring her immediately yes but the medical record specifically says at that that the sex injuries were obvious to someone who can who carefully cleaned the child and not only with the injuries obvious but the child's behavior after those injuries would have been obvious as well dr  clearly that your nation by the child would be painful and dr murray says that the cleaning of a child with wipes with diaper wipes would also have been an indication of pain and no one sees that murray wasn't examined on that too thoroughly and i'll check the record because i think she mentions she responds to a question about the examination there but the she she says that the injuries would have been obvious and there's another injury that would have been obvious a depressant fracture that was still expanding in the afternoon of october twenty first that is this child has a severe skull fracture this injuries were obvious and all of those people said no injuries all those people said no injuries and pardo said repeatedly no injuries and he also said he also examine the child on multiple occasions i think he said that he changed her diaper three times and may have suggested that megan need not look at that at the diaper because he had just recently changer but the so we have we have a defense w defense counsel who is faced with a client who has repeatedly denied that there's been any injury of the child although although he has admitted that he lied about some of the injuries are or you lied about some of  the events with the child that is he was deceptive about there are the head injuries only reluctantly saying that he had bumped her head on the bumper of a truck when he bent down to get a a milk bottle and that and then the next day saying that he had he was horsing around with the child tosser in the air and he dropped her meghan called the father on the way to the hospital or perhaps on the way to the emergency room or on the way the pediatricians and said what's wrong with my child what's happened so far so we have a young man who's being asked to provide information that might be important for the health care treatment of this child and he is misleading from the beginning about what happened with that child but so defense so the defense of some other dude did it before had custody of that child simply could not have been successful small town island in the middle of california somewhere so that everyone could easily be found by trial defense counsel that same island means that miss leighton watched mr of people who had that child and in their care including mr pardo who denied the existence of any problems with the child until until megan first observed problems with the child later that afternoon that is the child's undressed because she spit up what's what spitting up what's throwing up a symptom of a skull fracture that there's no indication that she had that problem before the afternoon of october twenty first dr murray says injuries consistent the attack within fact occurring on the early afternoon of october twenty first megan saying when she returned when she comes to see the child the child is bleeding in the mouth the child has maybe some teething issues but has an obvious injury to her lips as if she's been struck the child has the child has indications that she has been strangled or choked that no one saw any of this until the afternoon of october twenty first so it could not have been harmful not to have an unreliable ms slayton say that the injury occurred on the twentieth and the rabi did it beyond that there is robby is a mystery on the twenty first when his sister has custody of the child with heather miller she says no one else is there contrary to what slayton says that that is that  injuries were reported no indication that robbie is around at that time and further indicating the unreliability of misleading stats to mark that question who says that meghan went from work to get the child laura charles says that on both days on the twentieth and the twenty fourth first she took the child to megan's workplace and on the twenty first took the child inside to drop her off the  quite simply the rabi did it defense could not have been effective particularly in light of the defendant's statements not defending may not have been an experienced childcare provider but the defendant was certainly able to tell that the child had burning and crying in your nation and that never happens that's never by anyone until about four o'clock three or four o'clock in the afternoon of the twenty first when megan caesar  found by us and gave us the full statement and it's amazing to me that there can be a complaint made that trial counsel did everything he could to find witnesses when not one of these witnesses were ever presented or discovered we came on to the case do an investigation and then the and then we find them the it's been fully briefed as to the background of mr be a good person and a kind person that's not the issue it's also been fully briefed as to what he did in this case by his own statement and what he didn't do in this case and how the paucity of his file but that's been presented to the court for  consideration we found these witnesses in these witnesses the question is whether or not these witnesses are critical to final point i don't believe that people can have it or the government can have a both ways to say that the injuries were very obvious but that the emergency room doctors missed it because they weren't that obvious either they were obvious or they weren't i would suggest an emergency room physicians and the hub and all of the people that create those medical records which would include nurses and other people who would have contact with the with child are clearly mandated to be looking for injuries to the child that's their job to look for injuries to the child they were brought in because of injuries to the child how to say that they could it's impossible he could have missed it we don't have to guess oh and one more thing as to as to the timing of the injury it's been fully briefed to all the courts to refresh its recollection for wood because i went through fresh vs very fresh the timing of these injuries when would they be so manifest that nobody would miss them could this have occurred on the twentieth or twenty first in that scene till the twenty second to the record it's very clear that these injuries can get delayed in how they appear to remind me i don't remember did the fact that the e r docs that initially examined the victim here did that come out during the trial now that's the whole point it never got there was mr mr vienna properly argued round if i was to that at all the records the records or be in the file so the records are available but there's but the fact that this was entirely miss and this whole presentation wasn't touched on that my sister vandenberg at all he wasn't ready for he never thought about it he had blinders on when he took this case and he didn't do it the question is is it everybody mr vienna properly argues that nobody said that mr ruff that robbie was the person who committed this offense but that's wrong as to one person this unger said that it happened