focus the court's attention on three particular fact because they go to this eye witnesses lack of credibility before he even recounted his testimony he was a problematic witness even at the time of the preliminary hearing on the trial having read that again having read through the judge and he made maybe should be more elaborate in his analysis and that may be a fault maybe a problem but to focus in on the current the detectives come into the room obviously under less than ideal situation the guy was on medication been shot four times what is unfair about the judge and the little bit they were saying we know who it is are going to you got to help us go out to get him but you think he was referring back to the first encounter where apparently they just showed up and said you know who it was not head it was right someone being shot to death himself has been shot he's had to run to the hospital in fear one assumes trying to escape from his life he's waiting to go into surgery i don't know how many times he didn't surgery his life but i imagine is a certain level of anxiety the hospital you've got the the judge saying there was no influence fine him up until the conversation when he's in the hospital you're saying there's a possibility that maybe he talked to young record but they're not clear and the court can deduce from the facts that are on the record what i'm saying here is i believe that's what the court's going to have to do in this instance but if you read ten or verses maddux again you will see also then we make fact finding these by default morgan out on the street after he got out of the hospital but it's also you're right i'm using the word possible it's just not clear from the record at what point the shooting addressing most of the relevant evidence before it in making instrument determination regarding the credibility of the recanting witness i would like to address three of the we have ensured areas that's my position as counsel addressed this morning one regarding or inconsistent identification of the second shooter all three of these inconsistences were raised that trial the jury had it before had this evidence before it and clearly resolved in consistenc presented the dish for himself as well as an attorney who the petitioner called shortly after the interview this court in television maddux found that the state court fact findings were no incentive to give misleading testimony and he and his this morning corroborated the convincing and detailed testimony of the petitioner regarding his indication of counsel this court found that the state courts trial comes out that it was not particularly persuasive i don't think that the state crime where he did to address every possible factor that was potentially favorable position or it was contained in the testimony and there was no said he asked for an early interrogation and the other officer that participated in the interrogation was not called as a witness so one of the problem turned against maddox was a total failure proof by the state to to address the specific issue raised by the petitioner which was the timing of the request for a lawyer right and that was why we thought we could get into it you have anything like that years of that now i believe that the focus