these include her family because of the time she now says she was confused about whether the word always station meant and i think it's important to look at the facts of this case as was presented to trial to understand why the families of the should have been allowed we have a thirteen or fourteen year old young lady when the allegations of thousand and five there is no media now are there is no physical evidence there is no medical evidence there's nothing they are corroborate that this happened other then this young lady's testified it is interesting to note that the outcry when it was made many months later was done after she was to be disciplined by all the steps they had to defend in her mom she says on the record she didn't like the fact that he was so disappointing her affair didn't like the fact that the discipline had increased since he  become a member of the household in that is that those are the facts of the case the important thing here is that this is the defendant maintains the evidence apollo her claims against her natural dad which for lack of a better term brought her to the situation she wanted which was to get the male parent out of the residence because that's what happened with the natural stepdad of the natural dad excuse me this when we are agreed to the stipulated bench trial i think the record is clear that there was a rather lengthy argument prior to the commencement of the first trial recess motions in responses were filed in the only thing that we agreed to was that certain testimony would be a list of it not that we were green meaning the defendant was agreeing with that evidence should not have been introduced and i think that that position by the state is a misreading of what what i heard in the leading up to the trial this is the supreme court has clearly held in the past that the credibility of an she lied to or about this so you have a history here also pattern are hot on the part of the claimant of needing allegations that turned the in the past turned out to be unsubstantiate different than here in that case inclusive the complaining mean team that this happened continue to maintain that it happened never said it didn't happen never said that she lied that is exactly what happened in the instant case she said good it was a lie she said she kind of needed ah she said in a kind of self serving way the trial well i really just didn't understand what molestation even though she testifies that she had been involved in classes at school were she had had these issues presented to them she had been the state discussed this with her mom seven or eight it was probably about five or six years before the alleged incident occurred here but the rarely force of the allegations the courts because inclination here though she's a young child and sometimes children it stays in and i don't i don't disagree with that but it certainly should have been something that we could have gone into  in the second trial but once if you get her a judge it wasn't going to allow us to go into it and we weren't going to be able asking questions it was that when there was a stipulation as to what the what the testimony would be in the course in case there is it talks about being able to do something that we did is dealing with particular specific allegations isn't it well it doesn't mean i think it is in a situation that it really wasn't something that was admissible because the person isn't saying it didn't happen some goodness free review panel or board is saying it should be indicated this is  so this was approximately forty five years after the the awaited incident in which occurred sometime between february to june two thousand  however we're suggesting that in this case word is it's merely testimony one individual with nothing else to corroborate any of this we're suggest to the core that the the trial court was an error in not allowing us to go into this during the cross examination of the young lady or through her mom no matter what the what state of the day in terms of when the offense occurred that as long as it's within the statute of limitations the state doesn't have to prove th dead even if it did people didn't prove the day beyond a reasonable doubt which i believe that they did it doesn't matter because the real case which says that the examination she was unable to say whether it happened before or after christmas of that school year she maintains this happens some time in her even worries who we are but i'm crawling says she doesn't know what happens the days of the indictment suggest i understand with you you don't quarrel with the with the stays position in this in other cases it with young children that's why you're given change and who will render a decision in this matter with dispatch