somebody you knew a guest with somebody he knew to know which was accurately reflected verified they had found about a woman who lived in the building who mr miller was interested in who didn't do it mr miller who just observed her and spoken with woman lives and in fact he did so then we're left with the question of how mr slade was convicted of this murder in the face of this evidence and in part he was convicted because the prosecution or a lot that he had suffered a head injury that he had required twenty stitches on the top of her head she demonstrated where on the head it was and it was precisely this evidence that the state relied upon in its closing argument to the state argues that this rule or doctrine needs to be narrowly construed or it becomes completely a perversion of justice i think in the words of this court is used and that's what we see here in that there's no reason why the state could not have prevented it case occurred there are cases where only a portion of what occurred has become charged conduct but you can't tell the rest of the story without that other evidence in one of the cases they relied upon there was a man who for a burglary and that the courts explanation was that you couldn't explain why this man would have had a gun without the story of the burglary this is a completely different situation and the state was allowed to present testimony about the bite and it's just a question about the extent nature of injuries that's an issue on this appeal to the ruling that was made based upon i think it's impossible for us to nail look at the same ruling and say it would be the theme without knowing it later the fact that the court never considered it it's and i don't see despite the fact that mr silly brief the issue was clearly presented and there was no discussion of it either in the statement of facts or in the discussion of that particular place to him on the third or the twenty fifth but i think there was certainly the communication later after the two years had passed that he told him if you have anything further to say i see it i'm almost out of time i'd like injuries to the son in law and regarding that claim this court did hold in alberni versus mcdaniel there is no clearly established supreme court precedent regarding propensity evidence and i did appropriately reflects the way that mr soul couched his claim in his state court briefing his brief lead was a discussion of the officers testimony there are not stating the stars name is no evidence that they ignored it the decisions wording is general enough to that it reflects that it isn't limited to the officer's testimony state court evidence cherry rulings are state law issues they are not subject to review unless they rendered a trial fundamentally unfair there could be no fundamental unfairness in this case because the evidence came in on proper ground instance in oregon versus else dad the court stated that a procedural miranda violation differs in significant respects from violations of the fourth amendment which have traditionally mandated a broad application of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in contrast the fifth amendment is not so expansive that's the difference in this case it would be like and inmate calling up the writing a letter to a detective and saying the things that he said there are no miranda warnings there are it would be absurd to impose a requirement to mirandize someone calling a police department they would have to screen every single call that they get saying but i'm asking why why we regard this is as a as something different than simply reiterating something that had already been says what was the point of not saying it again and it already been said and you saying it's seems to me to be somewhat different from elves jet and super where at least there was another intervening miranda warning which at least in some circumstances you might say well now you know was he doesn't have to say that's why those were hard cases because  what he said earlier is is not operative your honor it is an interesting concept but it would be an extension of the law for this court to make such a rule we are in the context of a hades petition here and twenty to fifty four and that the turner case is not to the contrary and i think it's important to recognize that mr miranda rights were never indicated they were never recognized until he went to