thought maybe i was going to you know vacation never the case that is harmless and therefore no harm no foul all of a sudden escalate into something that's cumulative i mean if you start with their own nothing cumulate does it i don't understand that argument well i think what's important to note here i was harmless because there was all this other evidence yesterday that it was harmless because he had told the same thing it was a harmless because of the huge amount of other evidence that could be not specifically relating to that and put himself before the jury and hear what the people did was not the petitioner in front of the jury iranian slee and with great prejudice of the petitioner and the court clearly held was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt which is the chapman versus california standard was outside the realm of plausible credible outcomes and therefore resulted from an hung reasonable application of chapman  well so in answer to your question i don't think that you necessarily need to look at that aspect i think that you need to look at it in conjunction with the e p a and what what thomas talks about to my point really is that that that what the district court failed to do and i think it was really very overbroad in conduct of its discussion on the report and recommendation with the  he did the murder before they should cater he started and therefore it was done tainted what's your response to that that is natural compression peyman before the shooting rate which was overwhelming evidence for lack of a better terminology confession of how we murdered and and got rid of the body that was all enough certainly and then my other point would be if you look at  the the finding of it is that post was prejudiced that came in along with this videotape confession if you will or discussion along with this evidence clearly irrelevantly determined are determined to be irrelevant at the california court of appeals of how frye and the victim were met in jail and which which indicated some sort of prior illegal conduct all of that in conjunction with each other indicates that act has had the  price put all of his eggs into the cumulative their argument and that however snack going to work then he just really knows what the argument really is is that maybe one of these can be harmless but if you get two or testifying so it's harmless because the same information got here and that but i think what the what your adversaries are arguing is that you could have two or three harmless which put them all together they become harmful what's your response to that and that's correct in some cases that may be the case you add up a few errors that in themselves are harmless and there is a harmful error but not in this case in this case when mr pride did concede that his statements on videotape were statements that he had previously made to ministers brown and jackson and that confession does go a long way and the fact that i think the california court did the details graphic details that this regard provided for mr jaffe and the motives for the murder were all provided prior to the result occurring  nobody likes to have any errors in a trial but they do occur and insist case mr drive was retired and that is a fair trial when looked at overall with with some sort of malicious intent but these errors did occur and they did occur purposefully this information did get in the guardian over the objections of the trial attorney and so that's what i mean by purposefully so i think that goes a long way to determine whether or not it was a fair trial and that the videotape alone was a high highly prejudicial because when you show someone i defend it without the benefit of having will to a jury and a videotape as was done in this case i think i think that that