testimony that both mr and mrs molina were kind of flailing their arms in they were emotionally talking about this issue a very serious one for their family but the police officer noted although it was not able to take pictures of a blackened eye or a swollen eye it wasn't black it was just swollen how is this going to happen from just flailing of hands well so it's it's it's the the factual issue that the jury resolved in the state's favor shouldn't that be something that we consider well there's no it doesn't have to be anger it has to be knowing or intentional right and but i at that goes back to my question i can do this to just a shot stick if i want to get her attention and it's not likely i'm going to c i'm too puff or even where i touch or to puff how did this how did mrs molina's i get to it's circumstance that the officer saw well he don't know  to her tonight about what happened which was day adds position or weight let everybody sleep on it let's all calm down and talk to her tomorrow which apparently was mom's position so there is i disagree meant that's ongoing she stayed with her parents to make sure they were separated and told him needed to call the police right i mean that circumstantial evidence that would tend to indicate that the other inference would be that my dad just hit my mum and so called the police which which is what amanda then tells the police but knowingly is the element here so as the state said right larry why would you call the police if it's not knowing if just because you think it's but you keep talking about anger anger is not an element on battery it no he's not he stated it can be a disagreement it can be and there was one here we know that it can be dramatic reading of a transcript it as you're addressing the jury this is what was said and listening to that tape other than it's it you know it's still they can both still be very emotional and it is still ok to do that or give the transcript if the jury asks for it it can go back to the jury under appropriate circumstances why isn't didn't appropriate circumstance here i guess well my understanding of law  that's different then it is more important than then direct evidence because direct evidence can be boring can be just they are can be physical it's not as powerful and the wor surrounding this was concern and because of their emotional situation it was just an out of expression of concern and everybody was heightened because if i remember the facts correctly this young girl was when the judge at the trial judge says i think they've one way or other got to find that amanda was either lying on the stand or lying in there and i think it's the tone of the voice of the nine eleven that's important to them they they have heard her on the stand and i assume we don't have any real record that she was upset when she testified although i suspect there was some element of that being in front of the jury and her father being accused of something but there's school there was importance on this particular piece of evidence by letting the jury hear it three times i understand the significance of it but isn't there the danger of the jury emphasizing it then because they've heard it three different where where mr lying indicates that you're kind of lucky in that state one to all victims of domestic abuse into the same category i mean i know that above the fact that there are some bias with these family members and he the prosecutor are use that that's because of the word domestic the victim in the with this is have a family member they love and they care about him all that stuff seems like it's fair game but when he starts saying that they're not cooperated with the state's attorney's office and whether or not most witnesses in domestic violence cases cooperate with the state's attorney's office isn't that all outside the record me where does it come from how can he make a claim this the prosecutor that own witness is in these kinds of cases you know folks they're not going to cooperate it just seems like it's very much outside of what should have been argued about the evidence in the well part of the problem as i indicated with mr levin is direct evidence is often physical it's this is this law and it was this far for the you know the the offender to want to get to this is that's really it's kind of boring when you think about it but here we have a very emotional day and it it might be it it might be good it might be bad but it's certainly more powerful just listening to something like that or seeing the young women a very well the judge's position was especially for that third time for letting them tear it out during deliberation is their job is to determine who is telling the truth and who is not telling the truth and they have two situations with reference to amanda one on the tape where she was clearly not under oath and one in a courtroom where she was and his position was they have the right to review that to determine who was telling the truth what's the abus