complete medical record they never heard dr innes's deficiency diagnosis this diagnosis explain why the child died the medical basis for her death that she was not killed at the come up with this theory at the time it was you mean the trial record john or any record i was there any record is there anything in the record that shows that counsel was not being reasonably competent by himself not thinking up the innocence theory at the time of trial i think if you think cumulatively that council did not know certain things that were going on with th declaration in the record from some counsel which says you know this lawyer was really off in not pursuing this line of inquiry are words containing and they were provided to the court in support of this you don't even need to analyze the data the blood lasts which were not seem by anyone not the prosecution experts not the defense experts the prosecution's experts reach their opinion without having this important medical data in front of them and the words  sought stab at trial yes this can be a cause of what the type of bleeding that killed this child yet neither one of the knew of this method in now i don't think that when he was when his expert and their expert were testifying what do you say about this this is a cost with his experts didn't tell him then was he supposed to just divine it i believe if he had seen just the sheer numbers of pages which i know is is somewhat of a fallback argument but sixty five grosses three hundred sixty three he was provided by the district attorney sixty five pages from children's hospital there were in fact three hundred sixty three pages and those were the pages that held all that medical information if the child had a spinal tap if the child had to spinal taps we kno his main key medical expert didn't have the cat scans he had asked for those how foolish he must have felt in front of the jury not even having the cat scans now i think your question was how do we know that he should have known these things we don't know what turner had whatever he had he certainly wasn't using it back to the doctor who was report this held after lefty showed a liver dysfunction showed blood in the spinal tap if you get blood in the spinal tap you know there's got to be labs for that what did he do he didn't ask for any map he didn't look he declared under penalty of perjury that he had to clean it these records he did not this was an unfair trial the jury reached their decision without the complete medical record they heard the prosecution again and again the mantra shaken baby shaken baby and find the prosecution reach this without the whole medical record there is no foundation than for their opinion if you read dr iness diagnosis it's been used and and backed by each thing in the medical record it's there just me and i've only gone three district court conducted a thorough and complete examination of the entire record judge judge sithens supplemental report and recommendation is thirty pages long  fails to undermine the confidence in the outcome of this case because as both district court judge and a magistrate judge now district court judge recognized there was clear evidence of fresh injury at least cells not a chronic long term brain bleed but fresh injury including a massive injury that occurred august tenth just a couple of hours before the mission dr alexander testified about that quite clearly pines and the un clear evidence about whether there was a fracture callous or some indication of the loss of injury right like right after birth dr hilton says to the three weeks before admission and it wasn't just a it was the characteristic rip fracture of her child of youth this movement squeezing the child about the thorax heart as a predicate to shaking the baby and causing the brain injury there was other evidence clear evidence of abuse very importantly it was the subject of the defendant's why when he was first asked about it when the child was taken on august seventh the first admission or the admission on august seventh and was taken to children's hospital and the was asked he was caught and he lied beyond that the documents testimony does not explain in any way the fact that we had that with them we had a defendant who was with the baby alone shortly before the injury on august seventh shortly before the acute injury on august tenth we have a father who was violent and who was dishonest brain believe that begins ad on your the time of birth but doesn't explain in any way the acute and massive brain believed that occurred on two or three separate incidents just shortly before this child died in august so there can be no one effective assistance of counsel beyond that it is a complete mystery what records now the defense believes were not available to defense counsel or what records were not presented to experts but what we  complete mystery but what we do know well we can't know that and as you can see from just ivan so our supplemental report recommendation he just can't conclude i would say that that establishes clearly that the that that appellant has not met the burden of establishing deficient counsel performance we are invited simply to speculate and although there are some that although there are some questions about the number of the documents that are provided from the hospital at various times and that this is a hades corpus matter and the question is whether the state court determination was contrary to or non reasonable application of federal law or was based on an unreasonable to terminations the facts only was that able to obtain some documents after he exercised the use of the subpoena in two thousand and three i'm relatively new to this case and i've been relatively new i was not involved into a lot after the district court decision fact finding in the state court the state court determination is based on the record before and that that determination is completely reasonable because the only claim there was that the lewis report had not been provided and as a and they as judged with regard to being able to get a record simply by asking for them i refer the court to the excerpts of record of page one hundred forty seven and one hundred forty three that show that the defense didn't have any difficulty getting those records from the hospital just fine asking for them even there isn't even any there isn't even a sort of identification in his report that we have no way to assess whether this is valuable or not but even if it and there's no way to assess whether it was available to anyone in one thousand nine hundred but what we do know was that at least six experts examined the records three defense experts and at least three prosecution expert examined the records of the health care of this child and not one of them in  lots of things when you talk about having all the records the parents have the ability to get certain records only from a hospital they are not privy to the entire medical records we found this out by trying to request the records back in ninety eight receiving one hundred eleven pages from children's hospital under subpoena when we finally had it when the government answered we received three hundred sixty three pages from children's hospital the show that the child had had transfusions none of the prosecution's experts had the numbers they could reach their unified opinion as to what was going on that they hadn't seen the entire medical record i'm reminded of the blind men and the elephant were each put his hand on a different part of the elephant  to say what it was each of them was partly right shaken baby was partly right for what they saw but all completely wrong none of them saw the entire net a competitor than the only doctor in his and he is the one and only the matal it just this is the bleeding case the child had bleeding problems from birth she had a traumatic tap taken immediately after she was born she had hepatitis an infection this was a stick maybe she had an unexplained anemia all the way through this is not a simple case of ok all of a sudden someone's going to shake or she went to the hospital after being fed by her mother cared for exclusively by her mother we've seen years when she was a little over two weeks old no one talks about that this is a child who was diagnosed as having had epilepsy the attorney did not bring out this testimony at court he claimed he declared that he had talked this over with his experts and they decided not to that this wasn't a good idea dr to is not oh so bad in declaration epilepsy is one of the most grave urgent critical symptoms of this bleeding in the brain yet they didn't bring without a trial even without dr diagnosis they could have hunted holes in the shaken baby they didn't talk about the child being in the care only of her mother and the child had seizures this was a child who had been hospitalized three different times and i'm not a call records case no one saw him shake the baby and his attorney did not know the records thank you i think we understand the