because the statements are only admissible after the state show that the tiring content and circumstance of the statements provided sufficient safeguards every liability during these factors together they fail to provide such reliability as to the time and circumstances of these statements first or honors the acts which were less have been committed were less to have been committed in january between january first of two thousand and seven and november october of two thousand and five which is he then lived with shane shane still paid him five hundred dollars a month for child support not court order or anything even though she lived with change primarily peter for a few months indiana in attendance in this resort nearby they also babysat casey on occasion now november of zero six he was the subject of the d c s investigation regarding allegations involving her boyfriend and casey began rolling their according to ken began rolling their tops out underneath their breasts saying things like they look sexy they returned home that next day and had dinner can claim that before pc's bad time they had this absurd certain cases say that delay there while there is a delay that's not dispositive of whether or not this is reliable so we're set afire with delay was too much considering the other factors and adult manipulation that was present and i think that similar to this case approach the subject about good touches and bad touches and proceed in the towel they see that there are fake people in the world they like to touch kids on their bottoms she then you proceeded to tell her that someone touched money when she was little and it wasn't ok and she told her this before she asked her if she hadn't touched the court recognize that these things were not so i'm taking as they were only garnered from the mother's questioning in addition to the timing insanity maybe problems he sees statements lacked consistent repetition from one telling to the next and this one time to the next your honour's are only two days apart the statements tomorrow and then sta they say these things whether or not they have now or two of sexual activity beyond their age but that's not what happened here she doesn't say that he did anything was hand that he rather moved in any way affect mary jane esther ok so there's a parallel to him is this what he he doesn't say anything he didn't say anything why any of this is going on again the savings are just two days apart furthermore very importantly in the vs side casey repeatedly at least four times repeatedly denying telling her mother how can the mother her motive to fail is clear in the record and i think i discussed much of that but another factor is whether these statements were a cry at the end of the interview she's asked where she wants to live the most she says and i did it because no one can reasonably conclude this to be a cry for help and it's not consistent with common experience in life due to the circumstance provided sufficient safeguards reliability in the decision to admit those things should be overturned act while crimes complaint may be sufficient corroboration or how to be corroboration again there's no one here there's no way for us to tell how this complaint was because it's unclear when any abuse when the last time first been a few days prior to the statement to mom kim claims she asked why didn't you tell me before he she said daddy would get angry and go to jail that's the only spot on record that you ever find any kind of alleged threat or anything coming from daddy for her that it's wrong or not to tell anybody because i would go to jail or get angry casey never testified that defendant said any of these threats or to keep quiet didn't know what that to tell my mom do you remember when it was you told mom no do you remember the first time you told mom i don't know the question ok you know understand what i'm asking for the answer is no i don't know the answer i'm cross k c remember going on vacation this summer with mom and dad she said she had a farm when a vacation did you tell your mommy about these things these bad touches about day yes you told her th and trial casey ask was asked what happened after you and danny were on the bad with no clothes and nothing else happened did you guys do anything no did you see anything happen no even though the court now is casey lied previously in front of another judge say she never saw another boy subpoenas and told another judge that mom told her dad was saying she was untruthful about these things the judge gave little weight because he said she wasn't under reasonable to infer that the only way she fired this knowledge was through experience is our dispute that she was exposed to this book called facts about sex with graphic pictures talking about sex and sexuality it discusses soo many ejaculation is being a whit in the winter months where people were wearing clothes which she cannot be sure she see other people naked because she was not with her  hospital for a while like five days before her statements were made to her mother and the reason the court kept her statements out were because they thought she might learn the un usual turns and sort of what happened from the by other people and heard them this that's not what happened in this case this victim talked to her mother next person she talks to his mary jane clues there is no allegation here that there's a big laugh sometimes between her talking to him out and mary jane or that anybody influenced her ability to say what happened and when he talks about the book facts about sex it's clear in the record the child didn't see that until after all this was reported in her state at the nature mary jane sloot so that could not have fifty seven when she told her mother this happened before and after filming there so i think that's where all that time turning up the time and the contents of the statement i would just ask you to look at the statements themselves it's clear in both the statements said to her mother and what she said to mary jane luke and if you look at mary jane police questioning mary jane is a qualified exam distances sensitive interviewer she does great stew to great background for doing this and she says was it hard was it soft and that's when she's attempting to narrow down exactly what happened she has more direct questions and the judge in particular was somewhat persuaded by the victim's testimony that when the water comes out what happens that's what mary jane's question was and she says here don and that was not a leading question and the judge said that somebody in this little girl's age would not have winter and there is some testimony from there at about the little girl having told him that she had seen her relatives her around her grandma's boyfriend in the hot tub and that's why they had the order of protection to keep the kid away from any nudity i had all but there's nothing from the kid the kids never testified to that was just hearsay from the father it's in the record the other thing i wanted to address was the fact that she had made a prior statement to the other to the other  judge who was in the divorce proceedings apparently i think that in that i would ask you to read their entire record it's clear the victim is reluctant to talk to the judge and he perhaps didn't do a good job he's not a victim sensitive there was no physical evidence to cooperate the little girl never said there was anything an iteration so you wouldn't expect him to have physical evidence to find physical evidence of penetration when the little girl said it was not the victim never said it was penetration and the victim did taal the doctor that why she was there was because of what danny had done to her so i think next quantity of rather than against the state's case if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer them know what happened actually on this weekend or lazy incidents of this outcry because she was found not to be believable so what was she actually doing with casey prior to taking her this freedom since an interview prior reporting your visit to the police now the state contends it's clear in the record that casey had not seen these books this facts about sex book until after the outcry the only thing in the record that says that is again the one who leave the whole testimony of tim carn self serving statement that all i showed of this book you know the outcry was in early november but i showed her in late november or early december if you look at the writer visit they share she had this book prior to that and i believe that it not been able to prove an amazing honest to a carefully look carefully at the record watched the videotape look at the evidence and i'm confident you'll find that you will not share in a trial where his confidence in the complainants testimony it's too unreasonable is too contrary to human experience and is insufficient to support a fine in the field and the alternative evidence was clearly improperly emitted and i asked the court to overturn