of things this could be and my shot this student bureau down based upon observation based upon the testing is based upon if these things can all be observed then someone else should be able to come in and say well those observations were not accurate so there is a way to test her opinions or anyone's opinions by having someone look at the same factors except the problem with the science has shown is  didn't you i don't remember hundreds but but i think the point is this is not a scientific study which is relying on we don't know whether any of those babies have preexisting conditions of prior chronic leads the way this child t or shaken baby syndrome not that case i don't believe said that you can't have evidence of those things and there can be opinion about it we just can't call it something isn't that  actual witnesses testifying and you only need basically it's a kind of occasion in the sense of fry in the sense that you only need to lay that kind of a foundation where or you don't need easily angered that night or that day or whatever by seemingly little things and i thought i also did he actually does corroborate to some degree right if he was in a bad experience and reasonable degree of medical certainty they are well they didn't use the word they said this is not consistent in some of the other cases the doctor will say that this is my opinion not supposed to define reasonable doubt to a jury and the judge isn't supposed to define reasonable doubt necessarily in an opinion or in a decision but if you have x really saying in my experience this is not consistent with this and i have seen this before the judge is not supposed to consider that well and i have seen this before i think that baby with the testimony was in this case is that and this was also addressed in the ohio is that in the testimony in this case was the intracranial bleeding can cause a raise in pressure can you get to beyond reasonable doubt or all the experts say this is consistent or the fall that is not consistent with the following course with what i've seen here the other thing that i would point out and i think is very important in this case is that all  and relieve the pressure based on this report the witnesses were were concerned however there was a nd reality where from the next day it was actually eight hours later and it showed that the bleeding has stopped and in fact it was a  strongly and i actually when i went back and looked at the record and looked and i read i didn't accurately describe this testimony i'm peach and i apologize that i paid seventeen of our brief it says that he had only or the trial the nd time did not incorporate that by reference in their post trial motions they choose the trial jury of ineffective assistance of counsel how can a choose that and they still didn't raise this when they had the opportunity in their reply to do so but they did we don't like that but they do have that opportunity and we don't like that but now they didn't do it i'll be happy to point out that they did not do it and have for was rushing there and this and none of them actually ever got the point said the defendant's testimony was that people tried to impeach him didn't find it was this testimony was particularly inconsistent but the court then  and then they started it and so when she does this she takes all the available information interview and appearance on people and on the child records whatever and comes to a conclusion if the mother didn't come in and testify fall on the part of the mother because the child injury but she but she was saying in this particular case you don't have that type of information being presented to her and the conclusion that they bring therefor was there any evidence that indeed if the child had the had problems from the vacuum extraction and had problems from the methadone from at birth did he would be more susceptible or more likely to suffer harm like this if an accident occurred to anybody testify as to that i don't recall hearing because the only people who really i mean the child remained in ruling that we weren't going to have any diagnosis concerning h t or shaken baby and it wasn't even to be mentioned but yet one doctor mentioned it so there was an issue that came up at trial and i don't even think there was an objection to it that you know i mean the judge's order is somewhat confusing he said i don't want to absence of a diagnosis but you can give your opinion and i'm not going to accept your horrible or with no from at all that allegedly that's not why she was called she was called to show that i should have been there at kake so to take that evidence into account would have been inappropriate their point work at the time of diagnosis these doctors did not happen medical records of this infant but at the time of the trial prior to trial they would have had access to those medical records correct  or which was basically just his st emergency room scans showed cranial bleeding only knew that raises concerns and they simply went with that and i would argue made a misguided gnosis because we and i think you know i think what's critical here about the ineffective assistance argument is that we have in a case that turned completely on radiology and these two scans and i think defendant is entitled to a new trial that there should be a fine of it ineffective assistance that he wasn't titled will fry hearing however we also argue that it's not necessary in this case i mean this is the rear face what's