however of the fact that the record itself is not clear enough to give an accurate opinion of whether the issue had merit or not given the issue for example  whether or not the defense counsel failed to investigate these witnesses the record is unclear what the witnesses would have said because counsel never spoke to the witnesses never contacted them but but based upon what was represented wasn't allowed to have any contact under the order protection so one of his convictions was that he called her on the phone so those witnesses would go to that town he would it is a good sign clear because it all didn't come out  the idea being that the witnesses would be able to state that she called him and not that he called her and all we have for the evidence that he called her was the cop nazis officer saying that he looked at the phone but he didn't didn't get in touch with him because they couldn't have shown he was in the house or something like that with them if he had stepped down or something what was your reason for not contacting her not contacting those two witnesses oh i'm amounts of participation in order to save the child if this was giving explanations for why defendant may have done something this is giving explanations for why defense counsel may have done something this was this was this was the prosecutor giving her opinion on things her this was argument there is no specific i think there was discussed in fields there is no real specific procedure that's been set out for this preliminary it's in a lot of ways very subject to the judge's  discretion what questions but isn't the idea of the preliminary examination that the defendant the pro se defendant should come forward and say these are my problems and then sit now well if if it happened correctly then that would have been the situation and i think that the judge should have found you know showing issues that he had and he was able to get our all these claims on you know it was more of a fair thing you know a fair and impartial judge in that case where even here the judge was really long relying on the things that the state was saying i'm also defendant are you know but the defendant never asked the attorneys just the trial strategy with them and there's no case law that that would have been a viable claim here we have a showing of possible neglect for failing to investigate in at the record and you think about how to have the judge have just the claims and not all of this extra participation is enough of a showing this court could determine that that is enough of a showing that it should have moved on i mean it's been very easy if th testified that he looked at the defendant's phone and the defendant's own had two phone calls on there one from the defendant to the victim which was the first call and one from the victim to the defendant which was the second call and  the protected party to the the defendant are often used to show that there was an invitation shouldn't have been an invitation but there was it goes to credibility be protected party so why wouldn't that be important here well that would be important here because that i've been and it was clear and decisive that he called the picked on and that's a violation order of protection regardless of what she did regardless of whether there was an invitation or not he did violate the order of protection and that and there's no inquiry was going on i read based upon what he told me it wasn't going to do any good doesn't a defense attorney have more of a responsibility to at least talk to those people and figure out what exactly they would say well in th and he called her and there's no defense that would have made him found not guilty of those two but if he called her in response to one of the kids in visiting with one of the kids who said oh mom wants you to and she was right to do it that way because nothing was going to be accomplished by that isn't that moment if not an adventure in hearing didn't we have an adversarial hearing where it was two against one two attorneys against the defendant  that this is a matter of trial strategy and to defer to the defense counsel chose to keep her three forty three on due to an argument that was about to happen between him mail off of his phone from her calling him i really don't know because like i said it's not in the record and it's not there but based upon the timeline that we have of the two phone calls it is likely didn't happen on the same day correct and it could have happened earlier that day i really i have no idea what day it is we have any idea when the police officer looked at the on the phone did that police officer just look at the time that was any issue or did i  trial strategy again i would just argue that we couldn't be trial strategy because it was not one decision because she didn't speak to these people at all she had no idea actually what they would say what they heard what they were testify the wife called him which would have what gone to the credibility of both the police officer and the ex wife as to whether or not she she called her and i mean i don't think there is she would they would have known they had any