is seen that were found on tissues or napkins that were also found near the victim's body in the basement as supported by the never been easy to condition your client to the tissues correct that's right and clothing and about the literature which is we need to get a profile that can go into codice from those items we may also get an unknown profile and if there are significant amounts of unknown profile but d n a evidence on both of those items that point strongly to someone having very clear requirement that the testing has to have the scientific potential to not just produce results but we're told results that are material to the question of actual innocence and that's that's not going to be true in every case in here here it is true because of the specific evidence about believes that under profile is going to be anything i mean in situations in which they're a piece of evidence that a number of people have handled well where there's not evidence that the way that this evidence was handled by the assailant is going to necessarily leave their doesn't mean anything because that's obviously what the assumption of the court was at the time so that also wasn't in the court is being material those are the specific issues that the court was looking at in two thousand and three when this court issued its rule twenty three order and that's very different from what mr kinds of seeking now it's difficult because he's asking for different kinds of testing because he's asking to take advantage of testing that has developed exponentially over the last twelve years and because he's seeking different different kinds of tests on the on these pieces of evidence and we're not even talking about the parents here because and that's not the same questions that are before this court you also you can't really put yourself back in time and ask what that court done because that court was not faced with the same scientific potential that this court has part of it now as supported by the record here and so that it was doing a very different an because of the advances in science first of all it's much easier to get into profile from a small a smaller amount of d n a and we also know that coolness itself has expanded significantly since two thousand to there are many many more profiles for this and so the chance that  purposes of one sixteen three for a person who has never ha what this current petition that we're talking about compass but that said there were three items if we if we get a d n a sample after that it shows us you know those pieces of another person will impeach his statements i suppose that his statement was that we went in with regard to what happened in the basement they saw mr kindness or george mr barry take the defense take them into from the apartment into the basement and he went down and saw those three people in the basement with the victim and then went back upstairs so there's any and no point has there been any mr kinds is not convicted of the sexual assault which was of course and we can argue good because we have to because we can who get maybe we would get an independent hit on both of those things that would show that would that potentially show that somebody else was involved i guess nails one story that an unknown person was involved and it wasn't and then this two kinds could argue he wasn't telling the truth would cheat on you before but he used different reason now he's ten now you know he's arguing for a different reason that he's lying which is much more powerful than he's a child that he was scared that to be compelling but i think that even the question is is that the kind of material relatives that one sixty three is looking for and i think that what one sixty then if you say that the case then are going to be seeing these by using you know by getting a testing of something that would show that his d n a was in the sound awfully that situation makes sense this situation i would have to i does not and again i think that i have to come back to the didn't mention the third party perpetrator appear that he felt that you know he was wanting to place blame on those two people but it certainly could save time and he didn't choose to do that so  advances we have to go back and do the same thing because now we've had a slight advancement so i don't think that can certainly be the test and the same goes for that the enlargement of code is our new course is bigger every single day every time someone at the very least the courts should be thinking about this issue and the issue of race judicata along the same lines which is what is different today as what is different today compared to what was addressed before and this court can read the rule twenty three order that was entered in two thousand and three it is very clear as sixty three that we've seen over time even the recent events of the end of last year to open this up to people who pled guilty to emphasize in the statute itself that you don't have to prove that they were sure that the evidence would be completely exonerated all of that history the present around victim was addressed in the way that she was killed and the way the body was disposed of and that is not true in every case this is this is not a situation where this is going to open the door to people in all different kinds of cases because of the specific allegations about what happened to the victim here most  time if there is evidence that was available to be tested and so people they come here asking for additional d n a testing are all the people looking at it to a section one sixteen three they're going to have to show that additional testing can be done using a method that was not scientifically