police case he was calling the police because his work nathan was wrongfully removing property from the house made his living in casey's home with his mother and brothers he was seventeen years old at the time he'd been living with  by officer baker if there was anything in the home that might help prove the allegations nathan directed officer baker to a night stand you know bedroom where evidence that has been described as anal beads was collected casey was charged with  getting seven years on each of the five counts she gives ten years on this count three of the reason for the additional time on count three the able beads count i believe it was because of the additional in that case there was a foreign object and said nothing and just the thirty years i didn't push it to yourself i think my argument becomes more difficult would be and let me also ask you this is there something inherently wrong end of basis cannot be used in hands and i think that again the second factor that somehow the use of the beads creates an additional peril there's nothing in there that in the record and here and we urge you to review this and it is whether or not it should be something that should come into evidence and as we review this issue for purposes of arguing this appeal you know it all starts with  as to what those factors were and the save itself well i'll get to stay in a moment but she testified right after the policeman testified and then she testified there is the syndrome i never met nathan i'm not familiar with the fix of the case but here's the syndrome and then nathan is going to testify now the problem with this syndrome is that with all due respect to d seven twenty five i also yes five slash one fifteen or seven point two in a prosecution for illegal sexual acts perpetrated upon a victim including but not limited to prosecutions for violations of sections twelve thirteen through twelve sixteen of the criminal code one hundred sixty one testimony by an expert relating to any recognized and accepted form of post traumatic stress syndrome shall be miserable as evidence so it seems like there justification in statute for admitting relevant and essentially design fair to defend it so that this kind of case be viewed in the context of these five factors as well because when you take a look at the five factors for themselves secrecy  delayed its exposure recantation and then you learn that not all factors need apply the defendant doesn't have a chance when he testifies it didn't happen because on each of those factors which child kept it in either case the defendant is the who is a child abuser one justifying why he didn't tell and the other will be told it's ok not one of the characteristics or factors of of first of all it's interesting also when you look at the d s m four they don't call it a syndrome promise stress is a disorder not a syndrome we use language very loosely and i don't think we should really talk about a person's liberty as we're talking about here for the limited purpose for which it was published but i think he would say this is a test and if we give you some of what he himself said this this isn't a test that should be used in this way to gauge credibility of sexual abuse by those that are going to testify so i'm here i am standing before matters making i think maybe one of the hardest arguments that you can make the supreme court has not dealt with the issue although he is in the supreme court basically gasping us to go back to prevail soon and saying just because everyone is accepted it because other states accepted it we never did a scientific analysis we never step back and say is there a basically asking us to do it or that other cases have accepted it because it's been accepted elsewhere in stepping in and do a fry analysis well something like that yes i'm saying also to you that you know  s on too much expert testimony and i think this is exactly the example i think that this is it's not bad science for a doctor to sit down and say you know i've interviewed these people and i see these characteristics that's not there it's science but when other scientists are saying don't use it this way in other states are saying don't use it this way and then you have this snowball effect that i think that there are now also i think it's fair for your honour's to say well let's review th nonsensical and this court should defer to the court's judgment the lower court having seen objects used i think the use of the object in this case was the minimum required by this bomb there sounds that you judge apparently viewed the