and we will hear argument in jackson versus opinions up to this point they seem to lump harmless error into a big basically single alice's and they don't split out between the rape and murder  his interviews and of course that mr jackson cut off any communication with talking to the police after the second interview and he found that with the third interview that at tape by the way so that the trial court was able to hear the demeanor of both parties to this conversation but one way to look at it and then i don't know if it's in the record is a recovery lodged in the heaviest proceedings finding is this if you look at that whole conversation that you might call it with the sergeant is continuing to talk to him and i've met this is at the very least a close call in a miranda issue but what's interesting is that mosley in those cases is you know you can't keep throwing it out there he is then you know how can you talk no sir you want to talk to me and then he says now i couldn't tell you any more you have nothing to think i have nothing to say nothing to statement as being the equivalent of interrogation the district court looked at the whole conversation but i think the reason that the state court looked at that last statement is because it was of the opinion that it was simply the art it wasn't all of this wearing down that got him to talk it was manages to weave then his silence into the closing like well you know only guilty people will do something like this two or three times they weave in the fact of how he ended the interviews and doesn't want to say why isn't the combination of these things put you in a situation that's not harmless error with respect to at least the crucial fact of his pres state court of appeal if you should review applying i guess state law harris case but nevertheless when we look at the good standard does this fit within the rule this is not inconsistent with supreme court law i would argue that it does i would i would do more than just a mid on that i would state that obviously it's a very deferential standard and the way that i explained the facts which i think is a reasonable interpretation of them that perhaps there was an improper belong to questioning but that long questioning didn't actually result in any statement coming from m went to the right already here the application again if you view the facts in the way that it started which i think is a reasonable view not necessarily the only view but a reasonable view of the facts here that under rhode island versus beat the victim severely before the four suspects occurred and that's consistent with finding that the defendant knocked her unconscious and that's logical and easy to understand but the interesting thing is that when the body was taken to the ditch and shot she still unconscious and that and we know that for a couple reasons we know that not only because roland said so but we also know that because there's only one set of footprints going down to the ditch from the car and it's the ninety's that mr saturday night was out of a car they're not going to resist are not going to struggle they're never once going to plant their feet on the ground you're going to put her still unclosed completely nude from the waist actually from the breast down or put her face up on the ground and there's no resistance to her then being shot three times in the head i think it's fair i think it's overwhelming that she was still unconscious at the time that all this happened and that suggests that these events happened within a fairly recent timeframe from when the rape occurred when the global conflict that apparently before the rape and that tends to link it and furthermore we've got mr ross testimony and again placing him there and again he has reasons to impeach him her statement to a diff to a prosecutor's investigator that they talked about it and that they said he picked up this girl on seventh street fred who was the defendant mr jackson raped her and then she ended up dead on who did what in the murder and furthermore we have the institution ers own statements in that second interview not the one that has a miranda issue but the second one where he says that  crime there remains an important question did he nevertheless have anything to do with the murder of the house that the woman was going to be shot after he raped her even if he did rape her absolutely this statement goes neither here nor there as far as i think it actually cuts again the statement was you know i didn't shoot her you know i just happened to be there you know what wasn't planned if the jury trying to figure out ok well maybe he great therm he was there at the scene undercuts i think the impact of the statement there were any other do you want to say something about the  prison that he met mr rollins before in jail that he's currently on parole out of his own mouth assumed there was never at least nothing in the record suggests there was ever any attempts to keep all of that out just this one statement and i don't know on that and even to comment on the cut off because i'm a can a statement that was presented and evidence that the prosecutor commented on was simply a statement i don't want to talk i don't want to implicate or to incriminate anybody else in th there arrived on the scene after that statement what is your position with respect to his saying was it inspired by something that the police officer said is