in but the point is you know he believes he was framed there's a reason for it and so his defense has been matthews framed he has to show motive why someone would do that and clear why defense counsel did not ask subpoena jason davis in the first place because clearly there is the statement that jason had made which had been tendered to the state it from from what you tell from the trial record for the first counsel so you know reliable evidence from the trial in fact we had that information before before the trial court so it's not necessarily unusual that they would call her because all she might be doing is repeating that the accurate period he's he's not even there and suddenly you know a curious way that this friend must use the father of her brother right in the south because i find that you know if you talk about you know this is getting into speculation but when i think about it you know access to grant the down had a motive to induce this child and the judge should consider this you know it gets it's  well i i i can't help but wonder then to you jason davis had actually been subpoenaed and was sitting right there for you know i mean his jumpsuit or wherever he was coming from if this wouldn't have been different in is it did just all we do know is what defense counsel from the record his offer of proof is what he expected jason davis to say bands on we do have the fact that there was this fifteen page statement of jason davis in this interview with the investigator that working at this center she interviewed children through this process of the child advocacy process and these were things it as i read her testimony these were things that she had see in other children who did not need to be found abused she wasn't testifying to this child was abused she was testifying against a result of some of these red flags that you know she felt red flag i have seen in other cases of children who have been found either as a matter of law or is a matter of psychology to be found to be abused so how would she be testifying to this actual cinder because i think that your problem you say that she is presenting evidence of this syndrome when she's actually at least if you as you read the whole thing submitting testimony of her experience in this line of work well i know and maybe you can see that the last point which she talks about it's typical for children to disclose after they have spoken with somebody else that might he's something that you can see limited in observation but the whole red flag the way i'm looking at it  appropriate for her to be bolstering the child's credibility valjean for the child's credibility by talking about this is typical of a child spending because well this sort of can stay out of the whole concept of what happens in child advocacy centers i'm not aware that many of the directors reviewers a child advocacy centers are actually psychologists or psychiatrists they are persons who have received certain training and me go on to be a psychiatry stor psychologist but in large part the who do this type of work who have taken courses on interviewing children and who are trained in that regard but there has never been a challenge that i am aware of to their testimony general aided by evidence regarding the pornographic tape in the chocolate sauce the victim consistently described with those assaults inconsistent detail including defending telling her that she did it better than her mother and also your honour's raised the charge comment that the victim described took place between august first two thousand and three in april thirtieth two thousand and six on the conversation which threatened defendant occurred in october or november of two thousand and six and on when the trial court sustained the state's objections to defendants testimony about kenya's alleged threats on the ground that  continuance to get in jason davis's testimony that the defense counsel gave the basis that tenet is relying on appeal then because it was the first person  this your honour's have brought up she wasn't exactly the first person who talked to the victim before the victim talked to police the evidence was relevant to establish any motive kenan may have had to try to influence the victim now of course there was no evidence that the victim had been to make her statements there was no reasonable probability that the trial order in fact by her but find that the victim who was ten years old when she told the teen about defen not again of course we're looking at what the trial for didn't whether that was an abuse of discretion not how the evidence could brought in and out of these circumstances bilbo's to the reasonableness in the end whether or defendant attempts to bring in would be in support of his defense obviously and so the argument can always be made however the courts have found and then it would be true that these are in the dictionary rooms that we're were yes your honor there were there were other ways that this was brought before the trial of fact that the theory that somehow the victim was lying that she had been put up to this i think in closing argument i think the argument was that somehow mueller had influenced earth and as the prosecutor pointed out in his closing argument the details that the victim talked about could not she could not have been coached so the idea that yes that she was influenced in some way it was proper for the trial  with she said that the fact that the victim did not have a name who are of the female genitalia was kind of a red flag that she didn't have a name for the male genitalia raised a red flag that someone told her the name and that she was call never had been displayed little emotion could be just her personality but it was pretty common it wasn't a one time scared to death shot thing those are all things that we're talking about this victim not any syndrome not this is this shows this is typical children who have been something that was wrong but to to put it into this particular syndrome and the cases to talk about you can talk about various behavioral therapy mystic's and that's fine in fact i think it was the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt despite the fish at the trial court is presumed to to be able to make these distinctions and consider the evidence in a proper way then we're going to be ignoring the for the credibility if if it had not been defunct then would that you've been in error or do you do you feel based upon this record that this testimony did in fact match for this  credibility no your honor on this was something where it's it was expert testimony based on the witnesses qualifications and background and experience and to say that somehow extent that the witness talked about a red flag age house of lee but as far as feeding it into any known syndrome and of course the argument is that this was improper under the statute that says that you have to be qualified to give testimony as to a syndrome and that's not what this witness did it would want to turn to generally about other things than you know there's great areas but if the interviewer said i was concerned that she exhibited this tendency because i have seen other children do it and and this was reflecting what's the difference in  statements i think it would be a good a gray area because she's talking about this is what i've seen with other children based on my experience not that there is some syndrome out there giving it the in premature of poor through this procedure forensic interviewing things that are important to where there are at this there has been some sort of criminal activity i mean what's the purpose of th word for female for a meal genitalia but not for a female but for her to say the word red flag that's just mean by the fact that she do this that's a red flag and when you look at that she had a little brother maybe that's why she knew the term so this is a b that's how might feel if it wasn't technical as as church perkins indicated it was red flag is a real common noun common kind of a slang for it i got this got my attention blow the w police officer oftentimes testify about the demeanor of the individual that they're getting the confession they do but they don't necessarily are they supposed to say that it's more likely they're on their line or telling the truth by what the meaning of their demeanor is which is what tracy miller is doing in this case he's giving her opinion of the meaning of deviations of demeanor that this is raising a red crossing over this morning and who she interviewed and how many years she did this interview but it isn't that relevant to her forensic interview ng as well as her purpose in being a part of this process to provide a calming non threatening sort of circumstance for any child whether used or not to come forward and testify or to to tell a story that she's probably  else that would be more in line with turner something that she has observed the way they top the way they presented now it's you know it's kind of like an observation of what has been his experience watching them happen whereas when you talk about red flags knowing the term for the male got the female genitalia or the demeanor is certain certain like this that means they've been abused that's kind different than saying this is what happens when they when they disclose they talk to somebody else if it's it's like the distinction between an observation something objective an invariant interpretation of it what it means that kind of makes