examination of the alleged victim in this cause even though by striking the ball over testimony as to events outside of the time period of may first two thousand and seven to august twenty third two thousand and seven is listed introduction of the one fifteen ten statement to the professional interviewer with activities in our state in looking at the evidence in this case it's undisputed that cory rose from this family lived in the hotel the homes this weeks of with a relevant time period of july seventh of two thousand and seven to august twenty third two thousand the a period of forty eight days upon a hidden life the alleged victim's courtroom testimony  see what was left for consideration after the testimony outside the tired perp was stricken there was really no testimony at all from the alleged victim left for the jury to consider when this list was a jury to fit through an attempt to not remove the time of year or whether she was in school when inappropriate touching occur she was asked do you remember the time of year she said no she was asked was it toward the end or beginning of the year she was not sure about that she was asked were you in school she said i don't think slow too fast are you going to break from school she said i don't think so that was followed by well you would have had to have been in school because you said you were not going to last time this happened to which she answered the affirmative which was followed do you recall if you would have been in school when she answered no i don't she also testified that there was an incident reported back to intercourse which happened in the summer but she never established over she asked with the phone or that they and there's no details given as to what happened in the third she testified as to the vented allegedly happened in the basement but didn't remember that this happened during the summer time so that an instructor and also her description be left baseness it was contrary to the mission of a she does mention at one point that she was certain that something happened in the house it's unclear of the timeframe as to whether or not it was before august twenty third that she never really at any point really clarified as to when it was and disappeared she also gave very contrary testimony then on cross examination what i asked her specifically with the t august twenty third two thousand so that knowing that they did not live there up until july seventh i asked her about may first two july fourth she said that there may have been one instant it happened then when i asked you specifically remember anything happening after july fourth to be in the summer and i specifically referenced august twenty third and she said that she could not speak to any particular incident that happened during that timeframe the trial court in stating that any mention by the left and what might have occurred outside the bill of indictment time frame and to call is minimal it was without any detail and that's why it was stricken totally misconstrued and distorted the evidence presented there's no motion made by the people or any ruling by the court to allow any other crimes of an insight into this case other and then the one fifteen  right to a fair trial by the court knowing my continuous ongoing objections to the lack of foundation not ruling out these objections and thus allowing the jury to hear the testimony by the alleged victim about evidence was material factor in the defendant's conviction the you know the divert the likely scuse me the verdict likely would have been different and i think it would be hard pressed to say that the alleged victim's testimony here would immaterial factor in the the jury's determination and we also must be mindful of the fact in this case that we had a situation where there was no physical or medical people in their brief seem to concede there are some in adequacy of the alleged victims trial testimony and therefore tend to rely on the one fifteen ten statement to the professional interviewer to sustain the jury's verdict they specifically argued that the jury could have found the one fifteen ten state with more complete and trustworthy than the trial testimony however when we read visited the issue of the one fifteen ten statement to the professional interviewer who was clearly operating is an agent for the prompted only after a pointed question by the alleged victim's father specifically referencing the appellant coupled with no significant details of lesley provided to the father followed by according to the father's testimony mig conversations that took place in their home between his wife the child step mom his daughter and the lunch victim and himself which leads the to be less victims one fifteen statement where one fifteen ten three houses and an examination of the statements to the professional vendor reveals other issues as well such as when was the last time the where the poets house she says i don't know after reliability we also have the alternative of course then you would take a look at the one fifteen this point three where we think that allowing that testimony was extremely prejudicial when you to reverse the convictions on the multiple basis stated and also if the alternative to reconsider thank you young in this case the victim was ten years old when her father became aware that something had perhaps happened the time frame chose and for the indictment was may first two august twenty third of two thousand and seven because the information that he had and that she had wasn't occurred during the summer during the summer are the ten year old would live with her mother and then go to her aunt's house to play with her cousin and the defendant of course the aunt's husband and then once school would have started which must have been around august twenty third or she would no longer have gone to her aunt's house no longer had been living with her mother and no longer having been over there so when her father became aware of her concern and he spoke with with a ten year old and she initially denied it and then she started crying and told him what happened and he stopped asking questions and then turned it over to the children's advocacy center that at that time that they took a statement for the purpose of having her interviewed only once and that occurred within a few weeks of the end of the assault and therefore the ten year old's memory at that time and all the details at that time would have been better than it was two and a half years later when she's in court transcript you can see that they're physically extant out if the court reviews the d v d you can see that they've been excised from the wells smoothly without those questions now without those answers without the information that the judge felt was improper when the d v d then was played in open court all of that been all contact her mouth with his penis and one other time in the basement in that home that summer where he had entered both what she considered her her front private and also her to call her by there for the evidence certainly in the in the d v d established all three offenses charged by the people that evidence was properly before the judge and susan for the jury the judge tonight of users question in her ruling on the reliability of that statement and the people would stand when it had occurred in the police report she had apparently told him that she had come up here to visit her mother her mother when she was ten and that would have been the summer of two thousand but when they had the proffer hearing for some if she had gone back she'd consulted her picture book she had taken and verified that that in fact it was the summer of two thousand she was ten years old she had not yet had her birthday or she'd come up with her brother and the police the people pointed out that the police report that had been given to the defendant at all times had said she was ten years old in the summer of two thousand so with that information that people continue to submit that the judge's determination that there was something that a six to seven year gap in time w not too remote that there was more than a threshold similarity between the offenses that was a very factual similarity both girls were ten years old both girls were asked to come up to the bathroom help the folding laundry both girls were unable to evidence but the plain and simple fact was that what we look at is once the court rules that in fact after disregarding my continued foundation objections to the point where then she's going to rule on everything all at once the trial court created the scenario where then all of this comes up before the jury without proper foundation and then it at that point the jury is left to sort this out after they've heard all this highly inflammatory information and for the state to rely and he would say no you should not rule in favor of the upon this appeal because we think you would have not been improper for the jury to disregard the court's instructions i think that that's a very tenuous ground for the state to be relying on in order to try to  position here in the bottom line is when you look at the one fifteen ten there was the same issues there when she talks about when there was clearly these three said there was so leading questions that