sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and there are several reasons for that the first of which is that the trial words finding of fact cannot be reconciled with itself essential previous occasions and then said his father told him to say it and there are too logical outcomes from the first one is that mr io was in fact coached and it should make the rest of his testimony statement on his own his mother is the one that puts the question to him specifically did he touch your p d and he says yes but beyond that i was mother also testified that she didn't prevent that into the river statement when she talked to so this was all after the fact and not something that she moralized that  brings me to the the fact that ailes testimony is itself a logical and you have to believe multiple versions of events essentially in order to believe him and what i mean by that is he says the touching happened in the morning it happened up stairs it happened it happened the first thing that happened when they walk in the front door but he provides no consistency for these and he provide he doesn't say one days that one day this happened they're all just one in the same in terms of his testimony and the only detail he ever gives is he touched my peepee and i keep using that phrase because he never actually identifies he as being penis when he's interviewed by the c f s he's asked to identify the growing area on a male and female drawing find that he would know the opinions and that might be true but he also doesn't ever describe it even without knowing the correct and comical terms on top of that the only was something else that's the only detail he'd ever gives beyond the flat assertion he touched maybe but beyond that there are also a number of other versions of this story where he says his clothes were off when he left the house just those were on the beaches only when they tried to go the beach was closed and on top of that he says a few things that i think are there concerning in terms of his reliability for the said girl and one of those it is he's asked very straightforwardly about one of these times when someone tell him what to say and his response is to count how loud from one  whenever value a child's mentality psyche level no there is nothing there is nothing in the record to reflect what if anything is is there but i don't know that the conclusion is important or what is important is it seems that this trial has strong sort of problem relating to questions that are posed to him or they're relating to what's going on around him what's happening to him events that are happening near him last point which is the intent element of this and that is that this crime requires sexual contact for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal and not just incidental touching or accidental touching and this goes back to you miles difficulty ever describing any of the context here there is nothing that delineates this or takes it out of the realm of accidental or incidental and puts it into the realm of criminal conduct and for example if we take his statement that it happened in the bath that could be easily be something accidental determine when this is credibility and resolve the conflicts that it finds in the evidence on appeal these natural findings are entitled to great deference because the fact finder is in a far superior position to resolve these natural matters indeed our supreme court has long held the reviewing court will not substitutes judgment for that of the back line or on issues involving the weight to be accorded to evidence with the credibility of the witnesses instead when considering a child to be completely nude under these circumstances or for defendant to be wearing only his underwear this is not they were not in the bathroom he was not giving the child about at the time and despite  isolated event and it certainly does not show it habitual desire to be naked so taking these together it's there's not really any other inference to draw other than  sexual gratification and then turning to the the other element of aggravated criminal sexual abuse that is at issue in this appeal  clearly his attention was waning during the testimony and it reading the record it becomes clear that the longer that he testified the less he was paying attention to the questions and started doing these bizarre o the detail in which the not the detail details surrounding the touching bit more specific details were not necessary to allow the finder back to determine i know was telling the truth when he said that they've been in appropriately touch them wanted to find that defendant actually did touch i now given the fact that i was only five years old at the time it is not unreasonable to believe that he may not have known the words nasa terry to sufficiently describe how the the question of whether he was told what to say on the record makes clear that at that point the child's attention was was waning this was occurring at the end of his testimony and is new to the trial appropriately touched him in some these arguments simply raise issues relating to ailes credibility and i was credibility was discussed at length by the trial court and the conduct and in this case that would be any touching involving i o for the purpose of sexual gratification and i'll defer to my previous argument with respect to sexual gratification because they're the same for both conviction case though even if i held didn't testify and it was just his hearsay statements coming in i still think it makes a difference one way or the other i still think the evidence is insufficient because all of his hearsay statements where just as the lacking in substance as his own testimony and that all is hearsay statements never go beyond he touched my p p anyway so i don't think that changes the the how come i would write and talk about the situation where syrians he comes up to the bedroom and one important thing to know is that i will never offers any testimony about anything that happened in this new york he has no testimony to say and then my mom walked in the room he never testified as to anything specific about that time in the room and so we can s instance where this child's behavior is it's slightly odd she testifies that he takes off his clothes in the mall scene spontaneously and jumps in the film and her explanation was they had gone to the day before and he didn't understand the difference between a swimming pool and a mall and i think that's just one more thing on the pile that indicates that maybe we had we should have some concerns about i  with respect to the idea that his bizarre statements can be attributed to the fact that he was bored or his attention was waning i don't think that helps the state because if he was so bored or he was so tired that he's now just giving answers in whatever manner he lays that's no less of a reason to treat him as credible it's simply more reason to doubt what he's saying and i want to go back real briefly to this idea of it but simply believing everything i also says we find ourselves in this awkward position where he says a number of things that are bizarre he says a number of things that are conflicting is being consistencies the bizarre statements the fact that i'll say he was coached you have to ignore all that and just go i'm going to believe the things that support a finding of guilt and that's why th