that they had standard was not adhere to in this case there was no physical evidence i know there doesn't have to be there was none there were no admissions by the defendant what we have here is a link the pretrial videotape statements out of court statements and some brief trial testimony and when this court refused this case they sit your honor sit in a little different position than most i believe because you can watch the videos yourself process the beauty of the trial how we identify the truth is the truth doesn't change but here the truth changed and i submit to you because it wasn't the truth at all it was false i don't buy anything i say i mean attack these children we believe they were pons who knows if they believed what they said but the stories they told and not by any reasonable finder of fact have be concluded to be what happen and i'd like to compare just briefly the child advocacy center videos to the trial testimony to point out and highlight a bit what the changes were there were numerous minor changes in some major ones between what was said he put his pee pee in my mouth he put his pee pee in my butt of very very traumatic i think we can all agree the situation episode and then by the time we get to trial there's another one that can't be to all of a sudden after years there's now another predatory criminal sexual assault she in the cases i believe children don't hold them to any standard we don't hold them to any specificity i understand the reality of a man is sitting doing his life in prison based on something where these children could not get any degree any detail anything that says you got this really have so she said it happened once at trial she said she she was years older i don't know exactly how much but the the other thing she said the child that is the center she said it happened in the afternoon she initially said that it trial she said it happened in the morning there should be a vision no matter how young there must be a vision when something as awful as one can imagine happens they should be able to picture it if it is so he said when he was done he said be quiet were done that's what she said of the child that it's at the trial she said he said go to the bathroom at child at the center when asked where was your mother when this happened she said mom was at work at the trial she said i don't know where mom was just two more at the child advocacy center when i asked if there was blood anywhere and i will get briefly to the physical evidence but which there was none i believe there was physical evidence of innocence but when i asked if the child had the center was there blood she said i don't know it hurt so much when i tried to look i couldn't bend over it her for a long time she didn't know if there was life by the time she got to trial there was no bleeding whatsoever she asked and she was said twice for sure there was no blood and that fit real nicely with the state's theory and then most importantly at the child advocacy center everything is up in smoke for the state at the end when that joanne cites says now when did it happen and she says after michael in amanda proca that's it right there it can't that can't be true because the whole story was that back in two thousand and eight and two thousand  nine i michael daddy molested me and manda me and i confronted michael and he said it didn't happen now so he is telling the examiner it happened after michael and amanda broke up they weren't living together well that can't be the she's talking about the second today not she's talking about the first one i think it's very clear with the insight she is talking about the first incident and you can see it on joe and syces face she is grocer she's a professional not a lot closer but you can look at her and she thinks well wait a minute in her language and then for the next four or five it's a cross examination she says are you telling me it happened after  the what was argued by the state was that they were consistent the stories were consistent it's not true well we haven't experienced trial judge reasons i chose in my limited time here to point these things out is because i don't think it was done it has to be a systematic analysis of this of the video to the trial testimony before we didn't know reasonable trier of fact could say these are consistent and i will also with all due respect to the trial court i don't believe that the reasoning process that was engaged in here was reasonable at all and i think it was it's like one of the comments made just like no comment i've ever seen before thankfully appreciate i certainly appreciate it i think all defense attorneys do when they see the reasoning that said their reasoning is flawed and i'll start with the flawed reasoning with regard to the third issue we raised and that's shifting up the burden and it makes me think about how the law used to be recognized this is the easiest accusation to make and the hardest accusation to defend against and how it used to be when you have a complaint and i believe it has to be clear and convincing a different  he assaulted lacy so when he proves that in october of two thousand and ten he did not have the media the court says i recognize the defendant tested negative for the disease in october of two thousand and ten but there was no evidence to suggest that he could not have had it earlier in the year when the alleged sexual assault occurred could we see a more blatant statement of you mr defendant have to prove to me your innocence that is a burden ship at all during that time that could have cleared it up he doesn't have a burden to say to prove provide anything he chose to do he had basically what i would suggest is an alibi by some definitions he is saying it could not have been  he had this ship she is saying prove to me you're innocent and it's consistent with the other things with regard to the trial court's reasoning that she did throughout the trial for instance with regard to the defense argument ok you see that's because at the child advocacy center it would contain greater detail than trial testimony because the cac interview was closer in time to the abuse and this is referenced on page seven but more importantly a look at the trial judge's reasoning which is fraught she shifted the burden and as i was going to point out with regard to so we explored explains here's why i believe so it appears let's listen to how if i could how the court now said lacy the defense argued well with regard to lacy she added an allegation of anal intercourse at trial the court said and is one other example of why this court should look very closely and engage in a review look at these videos look at this testimony because the court i'm not talking about other cases i'm not talking about the judge before reveries and this was an extremely flawed reasoning process how about here again in this type of case the course is not a material element of the charge i know that the state cannot be charged with saying yes well our victim will get up to her age of six and tell you that she was abused at one or maple lane at seven o'clock at night right after dinner in the bedroom just after we whatever we did nothing but there has to be something and this trial court when all was said and done didn't have a clue about when this occurred couldn't put any kind of detail on that or golf was confused because here's what the court said at one point in the long lengthy ruling which we're very thankful for because it after the evidence but whatever the court was doing it was not reasonably evaluate the evidence it happened here i'm going to find this gentleman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it happened a few months before august eleventh and then in the same a few pages later before it happened earlier in the year two thousand and ten i mean this was not a case where he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt this is a case where he wasn't given any benefit of the doubt the physical evidence i understand the expert sparred with each other we had and we had a man who had been eighty two years old fifty years experience testified in states all over the and then we had someone who for the state who i guess said had gotten a degree a few years earlier and who was clearly and maybe the defense someone could say well your defense of could be id hired gun i don't know but clearly the state's expert was a prosecution minded that's where we're paging came from in any event they got into a discussion about penetration and what it means and we all know penetration however slight is sufficient for this charge i understand and so the state argued well see penetration however slight could make him guilty of protecting a sexual assault and with that you're not going to see any damage to the six year old child evidence i was stating these children said the male penis was inside me so the argument about whether it was penetration could be however slight he says children said male  inside me and lacey's case several times these are little girls if you look at the expert testimony both seem to agree little girls with no estrogen would certainly this defense expert would show evidence of damage and it's almost common sense an  his inside meet lots of times we're going to see something or there would be blood but there was none of that so the argument about however penetrations like that isn't it these girls said it was very painful it was inside me and it hurt is simply nothing here but inconsistent statements and where the court trial court found that these statements are consistent that is just simply wrong and we can see how it got there because of the trial court's lengthy discourse patsy didn't e to be credible and saw no red flags of coaching and also found that mother amanda was credible and then also found that the defendant not to be credible so this case contains many credibility determination and the specificity of those gestures and demonstrations like credibility to the statements in other words the trial court took the view that this was not a situation where amanda could feasibly imparted all the information about sexual it before the break up so it's not a situation where a man that an engineer that and also with respect to the one fifteen dash ten issue the circumstances in which this came out was the amanda did not zoe's initial complaints about sexual abuse hands and then years went by and when lacy started showing behavioral problems not all of which were sexual in nature but was sent to a psychiatr and then became referred because of dealing masturbation decided well there was question as to whether she had that the mother thought that the girl had been sexually abused and there was a mile but then because of that sexualized contact there was a referral made for lisa to go see a sexual abuse counselor and then as that is the moment then she goes back to the mother amanda goes back to zoe who had made the outcry earlier the older child and says do you remember what you said before and then the  consistent statement is made again by solely repeating what she had said years earlier and then consistently again and fish how that makes the center so there is consistency there's age appropriate language and there's no suggestive recognized the limitations of the stipulation the stipulation was that on october sixteenth two thousand and ten defendant tested negative for clemente is one of the tests that was tested for so that it showed  was a strong indication that lacey had in fact been sexually abused so knowing all that the trial court then surmised is that while there is no evidence that that he the defendant could not have had the committee infection before october sixteenth two thousand and ten or had taken some antibiotics that would have cleared up so in that context there is not the same as the trial court asking where's the evidence defendant is is innocent because that is twenty fifth two thousand and eleven so it does not say the role was the status the test was october sixteenth two thousand and ten which is about a little less than two months into that period so the defense says that that means that the he tested negative during the time period but that's not really what the test showed that showed that on one day during an entire year he did not have detectable infection so this is not like an alibi and if it were an alibi when the crime was the charge crime pertains to something that could happen over span of one year and the defendant shows where he was for example if there were an alibi use corded defense analogy if he shows where he was at any one moment in time during that entire here that's that's a sufficient alibi that's a defendant specific and that's not like an alibi but then she also shipped her head negatively when she was asked if it was this summer meaning the summer of two thousand and eleven which means because she was six years old in the summer of two thousand and ten after she turned six years old on august twenty sixth two thousand ten that means her abuse would have been in that summer of two thousand and ten which was before the negative test for a committee for the defendant with respect to zoe there was some confusion as well in her child as the center interview at the end of the interview as to with respect to when the offense occurred but realizing she had initially made this outcry to her brother really soon after the events but was disbelieved because the mother thought that there could be some confusion as to when this actually happened because so are you speaking after the fact about by a couple years after she was abused and so looking back again even a trial the development of her story go both ways there is a situation where a child keeps talking the more the child talks the more details come out and it's also the case where the child is going to be more clear about something that happened recently during their earlier interviews so the fence think that's a kind of inconsistency but it's actually both concepts apply a child who talks more is going to come up with more detail in a child who talks earlier is going to perhaps remember better then testimony during the trial years after th highly unlikely the child got if it was transmitted like through birth it could have cleared up by the time they reached out six because that's not ever really been observed in any case trauma of which there was none so therefore dr harrington's testimony for close the possibility of penetration inside the hymen tracks not an element of the proof that's required so that's why dr and that the end that the victim still could have experienced pain and describes penetration inside of them and still not have any observable evidence of trauma after facts so the fact is that ben says that the truth changed and that there was some inconsistency s it's not the case that the only reasonable inference from those inconsistency is that the these girls were manipulated into lying or telling stories about things that never actually happens i'm that has to be the case in order for this court to overrule the trial court's finding and reverse on the ground sufficiency of evidence because this court has to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the state which means taking all inferences in favor of the state so it reasoning that's not a basis for this court to have to overrule the trial for its judgment if the evidence that was admitted sufficient so i just want to make a few more with regard to the last point about barring questioning of amanda about the money she may have owed miss conner is my understanding a lot of cross examination is a fundamental concept of our system and i see no reason whatsoever to bar that inquiry this would show bias the defense theory the whole time was that amanda did this engineer this and i do want to make a few comments about amanda made it clear in the stand i like it came in and said she had talked to amanda and amanda said i will do anything i can to keep him from seeing the children i think those are pretty intense words and especially when we find ourselves where michael exchanged text messages michael says i'm not let me take my kids out of state with louis and amanda said he gets mad about it and then finally amanda calls the police on my after these threats back and forth this is in this house ex love this has custody disputes and this has money and property disputes they even had a meeting in june of two thousand and eleven it was so heated with the parents involved i think it is common sense that divorces i wanted to say about him and that is that this was no small dispute between these people and also use alessi did occur allegedly after the break up when amanda was with us and i wanted to point out something else the court can see from the videos during the interview of lacey there's a reference to dad and lazy mentions louis as dad and she says she denies that anyone else had ever touched her inappropriately but then she said then she mentions louis and says he hurt my stomach and he said my feet were dirty he hurt my stomach i had to take off all my i think it's possible but i from the record i don't know that i can infer that but if this court is saying he had she had clemente and that reference to lewis is intense and is also intense and telling i guess is a better word reason lacy was taken to the psychiatry is it was learned at the trial was there was one she excessively masturbates there was one she was having ridiculous thoughts but the one i would like this court to pay attention to is why was psychiatric because she wanted to kill louis and i think that too is another piece of the puzzle that should be considered there is no dispute about that she wanted to kill lewis i had to take all my clothes o i don't know why he hurt my stomach amanda even if we believe amanda would protect michael even if we believe which i don't but that's only complaint that was given was that was listen to years later even  we believe that amanda was willing to not explorers always complaint because she wanted to protect michael and we believe that it seems like she would stop at nothing to protect louis and we know she would do anything to keep michael