mentioned there was a note at her house well officer tittle didn't go to the ouse and asked to see the note but what came out later in describing this case and what it should have done is gone to the house and see the note what came out molestation is child manipulation her father had to write a note and this was her script and if anybody had done one no one investigation in this case they would have realized that her story was total manipulation and was fabricated and her father put it up to work because her father had her write a note that was her script in this is basically what she's read reporting to people now and not anything specific  boy because what came out is that her father put her up to writing it and her father told her to repeat it to memorize it if you if you know  very well i understand that thing but that was one is one thing to separate them which is what the first to accusing mr guerrero of being a drug user and a drug dealer ok instead of saying he's a child molester her dad says you know i'm out to get this guy you've spen time with him you see him you go tell the police that they you've seen shoot up and he's a drug dealer in a drug user and the police come to mr graham in the interview and he cooperate i'll take any test you want i'll take a polygraph say well because we're more concerned about protecting children from child abuse and molestation than we are from being around drug users that we're going to put the bar difference nothing i respectfully disagree for three reasons this is the testimony of police officers ninety nine out of one hundred times they do not prosecute these cases unless they have something more than just the word of a trial and it is either physical evidence of maybe some something not might be semen it might be some some tears around the vagina if there is some physical evidence that something went on or number two there is a another witness independent witness might be another child in the home might be a neighbor might be the mother might be a relative somebody else in the home has witnessed it we've got another witness or third we're dealing with somebody  got a history of allegations made against him of child molestation and so usually and this is the evidence in this case people are not prosecuted unless in addition to the report of a child you don't have something else well but if i concede it wasn't a perfect investigation that doesn't mean it was a constitutional violation and you had three separate statements made by the minor to three separate people saying that there was improper touching how is that not probable cause or what is improper touching touching the buttocks touching the vagina touching the chest area that's that is not that is not with three independent people said number one necessarily it was more vague than that and number two what you had was a situation where where these allegations are made in the context of a custody battle any investigator worth his salt and tell you even admitted he was aware of the phenomenon of sexual assault incident to divorce the it did they make an arrest or prosecution no the other experts in this case all talk to this girl all looked at all of the other factors in evidence in this case and decided not to  submit to you if we're going to rely on other people other experts what why and then they do the same investigation they basically have the same information t and they decide not to refer it not to make an arrest and refer prosecution i submit supports my point that you need more and why do you need more because children are manipulated and that is the basis of the crime dealing and child molestation on the one hand they're factually different types of crimes as the court pointed out but it leads us to the my point which is that the charging statutes are very different and that's something that the pouncers seems to not want to talk about penal code two eighty eight point five which is what mr grove was charged with it's designed under california law to deal persuasively the situation of the police officers faced here and under the state cases that we cited to you  that statute is designed to prosecute a resident abuser or someone that has access to the show to a child and where the child cannot come up with precise descriptions of the conduct and persuasive dates and times and exactly what happened when it is a course of conduct statute and the cases that we quoted you as it's it covers generic testimony of abuse from young victims and it does not put on a realistic precision demands on a child witnesses and that's built law into the statute which is all that's required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt so it takes into account that a child may tell different stories to different people digitally penetrated her vagina it's the word often that was the mistake she explicitly told him in her interview of penetration so penetrated digital penetration of her vagina she did tell him there was no discussion of how often that took place so the word often is the incorrect part and i refer you to those facts two to tiddles interview and i was excerpts of record one fifty one fifty  last questions all the way down at the bottom of the page oh so and judge henderson found that you've either clearly talked about being touched inside her privates and then there are parts of the record where he asked her what did he used to she talks about a course of conduct and things happen so it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to infer that these things happened often it was incorrect for him to say that you've said digital penetration happened often and that that was that was the point and judge henderson when he left out he said that that i attempted to contact guerrero with negative results plaintiffs or so that infers that he was unable to contact mr guerrero it could mean any contact mr bear on his on pleased with the results we do probably agree the client was entitled to an inference if you were if if a jury could infer that i tempted to contact guerrero with a negative result means that he was unable to attempted to find him i had negative results i wasn't able to find him if you're going to take the inference that there was no interview conducted and that's a false statement we would concede that  that there's a custody dispute with that's what he was aware of at the time i was there was a custody dispute everyone was aware of it so if that fact appeared in his affidavit the question is will that change probable cause and asters clearly know what we already have in the affidavit statement the letter that she wrote to uva and which she said you have described and proper touching on her bottom and her buttocks that these were not nice touches that these happened over a long period of time so if you take all that information and you the case stark notes added and in the case mark is the expert interview that was done the case certain no it's correct you did not describe penetration but in the case dark no she described explicitly improper touching in her that with a magistrate knowing the statements you made to the therapist euler she would have known the statements that you'd be amazed to settle and would have known the statements that you made to the case stark interview or all three times describing conduct that is lewd and lascivious under the statute under california law even knowing that there was a custody dispute and even knowing the guerrero has submitted to an interview there's still probable cause and as a matter of fact there's still evidence to convict of beyond a reasonable doubt based on all of that if we have a trial in the jury heard euler tittle and mary slaughter the case acknowledged testified and also heard the facts the plant which was included in the war the jury s and that's the all the elements of the crime have been met by substantial evidence under california law and that conviction wouldn't have been reversed so it's hard to see how a warrant containing all of that information would be an improper warrants  three of the record here the first time yasser did he ever touch you on the inside of your privates her answer is no so he started singing reviewing her and now he tries to leader down the primrose path and start putting words in her mouth to try to make it sound like she's saying yes he touched me on the inside there's a real question here did he did she even understand what he was talking about and when he first asked or did he touch you on the inside of your privates her initial answer was no thank you drugs you know shooting drugs ok and first you said no and then she said yes and it turns out he's a diabetic