always it's in your file but i was not allowed a copy of it there are two hundred seventeen reports i got to look at this was one of those reports but i was unable to make a copy of it question is wasn't his action of the state the author was present show that the mom told her that the psychologist said that it's in her head and it's not is it based on your difference here is that it was actually testimony that the prosecutor told that the so the question is should wait or should we forgive the waiver and consider this report here because of the ineffectiveness of your claim of ineffective assistance of counsel yes please but you did credibility is credibility that you're putting you're putting the burden on the victim for clearing to been seeing evidence ursus this efficiency of the evidence by saying you have to have something  testimony of victim understood and agreed in this instance the whole where we have very specific findings the police should have gotten out of their chairs and gone from the suppressed evidence they need to do more investigation would otherwise it sticks the trial judge with a seventeen medical pages of medical records to remove him from the core file remove the powerhouse court house remove him from the county and didn't move records back until judge mark her order that he return those records there's writers and cour and the last witness and you were trying to argue that because he made this because he made this statement regarding the last witness then he'd already made up his mind befor of the record appears to show the judge angles more made up his mind there's a lot of pressure on trial for judges to convict us from a charge of predatory criminal sexual assault which is why it's very hopeful that we have an appellate court when they take away from the locals the locals are afraid to not convict because you're going to be accused of being we want to limit the indictments they have they could have done that did happen but they did a man they chose to get into and i think i understand your point but they could have done it they should have done right but they didn't do that well they showed on after a prosecutor standpoint that the problem was  arguments are kind of related you're the due process predicted to live is kind of related but at the end of the day how is he going to find alibi witnesses anyway well understood eight years i can answer specifically other corporate during that period of time his business partner cassidy was the guy that showed his house his mother in law father in law little even live next door and they came into the house any time they wanted because it was a  were without and i can get it for you in america minutes but there are those there's an order from judge marker which specifically says hey i just received two hundred seventeen pages of medical records they came from judge angles mother were held outside of court file outside the court second indictment in way to the reading of the indictment brant correct and at that point was there requirement for his client to withdraw the jury waiver or specific alibi witness what doc knew what was not available to him as a result of the delayed recording and again i would argue too late for him not to treat indictment delay totally separate issue and and then lost a crucial witness that the evidence showed could have demonstrated that it was someone else or the case where there was an individual that had left to florida people just dropped the case and then just general well there are so many charges we didn't know exactly what we could have shown therefore we could have come out with more alibi witnesses there is no evidence that you have an eyewitness would have been any more specific or come considering all of that you have not demonstrated prejudice you have not shown me anything though who changed the outcome and specifically said i was sitting astride a fact so i can very specifically say now let's talk about that report i don't know all there then counsel's representation exactly what the report contains the judge in the two thousand and three police report two thousand three hundred forty is not already vacillation consistent nor the sang with a friend of hers with a stranger and we don't even know who the age of the stranger and all we have it most from that statement is the dad the stranger said well there might be a problem because if you're a we don't know if that stranger was a seven year old guy with a thirteen year old girl we don't know if it was a thirty year old individual on but again to the extent that defendant also argues that that would have somehow imputed the argument the prosecution made which was this conflict was so typical and so routine well it was and it is consistent with the testimony the complaining witness said all along i really didn't know any different this was my life this is what happened to the extent that the family wants to get a cold conflate the concern with a delayed reporting that's really reasonable that defendant doesn't raise reasonable doubt he goes around the average this a lot of his concerns imply well the evidence was so weak people disagree call it that is or not he had tested in missions by the defendant when the defendant was confronted by both the mother his wife and her brother his son why did you do this he that he didn't wait and that he prejudged anything he also specifically stated that i considered all the evidence i considered argument i've considered the arguments again have post trial including you know up until your affidavit from an attorney saying while i found that counsel was in a factor so he's clearly stated that he saw everything reviewed everything considered everything and that current clearly in cont i think that the defendant tries to say well looking at the literal interpretation we don't care we have to look at all the comments in context in context it was claire davis making a comment about his credibility findings no more no less is it any different in a bench trial it would be a jury trial certainly i needed to do well i mean some of the cases it obviously would have less impact on finder of fact if the judge is making going into this trial still did it up until the final witness frankly i'm too hypothetical again i suppose if we have we are actually review interview  not they are not supposed to fly towards making credibility determinations as the trial is progressing and looking at there's a presumption of innocence there's also a presumption of the judge does who is supposed to do and there certainly is nothing in this case from this where is saying that we need other cooperation from a victim of the sex acts certainly that is not the law you know i mean i don't know what else to say sex crimes are the same as every other crime the law that anything further now thank you very much in how six years later are they supposed to remember that interview of the same officers who investigated both cases