thirteen then there was a significant delay between the date of arrest and the trial which is in two thousand and sixteen a review of the record would indicate that there were  in reviewing the the record is for it is the testimony form the arresting officers they arrested solely based upon the fact that there was d n a in the form of semen they testif his conviction right i think it has to do with the weaknesses in the state's evidence and the sense that again maybe they did and there's no indication in the record that they could not be excluded and again there were some statistics offered as far as better occurring in running two thousand and one in twenty hate iran in two thousand and african american running twenty eight unrelated caucasian males and one i whether or not that math calculation was appropriate in this case there was no foundation in there it was just that that expert says here's really did i combine the two and here's what my math  this and again that is the the strong evidence that then the state offered to support this conviction and i'm stuck with the record here  counsel argument or on based upon evidence that is not before us when it comes to the the d n a however in reviewing the record there doesn't seem to be any explanation of how you can combine these two testing methods to come up with a stronger number to convict jimmy dunlap so we're are you kind of equating this statistical probability or blank a bit with a reasonable have to but if if that is then used to impeach him then it just cancels out his testimony and it doesn't you know strengthen the state's case against him the thing that concerns me about not accepting that explanation is if you look at the the the records are little he denied he was st approached with this issue in two thousand and twelve june of two thousand and twelve and he was questioned by the instant police department in this c will i think good the court can always look at circumstantial evidence and put those pieces together coincidentally when it comes to the knife dana dawson testified and again dana bash's and this is twenty on the knife in that case again we're going to put things to rather circumstantial but the judge did better so in coming up with this decision what i can but getting back to the to the lie though the law is that false the court strong physical and circumstantial evidence established that the defendant had sex with the victim that slashed her throat and stabbed her to death the defendant's d n a was on the murder weapon this in this case taken together only establishes the defendant has sex with the victim and that's basically he just said so the question this and what they're saying what they just said is it with that's how so you're saying we should accept that the judge didn't the trial court rejected that testimony that as as completely unbelievable and coincidental that the defendant testified that he happened to have sex with the victim three days before or she was murdered i want to get back to the fact that his d n a was on the murder weapon and i'm going to address some of the concerns that goes in said it was possible but where and she said that out of five hundred dollars cases involving semen and a handful that had in text in her experience and the trial court rejected the claim of the defendant that he had sex three days ago and fou that that testimony from the expert was the more believable testimony and the fact that time and worth mention would have damaged this spiral and prevented it from being intent the trial court found that that related to the fact that the victim was the more than eighty nice rooms thanks to the fact that this crime was personal and not simply that a burglary gone wrong after she had sex with someone else and  t her best friend tell you on about every man that she had i remained to relationship with this was the st time that she refused to tell her best friend who was coming over and she treated her best and the reason she wrote it tell the name of the person who was coming over was because kelly knew him because kelly young the best friend knew the person who was kind of there that night and we know from an tell us try a testimony that she knew the defendant at that point of friend of another woman it's also important to point out bed in that conversation the victim or mary mentioned expecting that run visitor that night of forced entry in this case with regard to the defendant's counsel consciousness of guilt is absolutely clear that if the defendant barely had sex with the victim he had no reason to lie about it in this case trial finally admitted to these constant lies to be told about not having sex with the victim and also never even being alone with the victim which was not a lie about sex it was a lie about his opportunity to commit this murder that a person counsel is referring to on is d n a going to one basically it comes down to this the frequency of two matters appearing together in a single individual is calculated by matt supplying the frequency of the st matter a specific frequency and if you want to find out what the heck we heard of somebody having birth of those markers would be you have to have a frequency it's like taking the eye suggesting a straight in poker in the eyes of getting a whose picture he wasn't sharing at the time was the defend it because the defendant's relationship with the victim was a secret so he wasn't given an opportunity to identify him the way that he was given an opportunity to identify the other people who are the other males who are associated with the victim but it's also important to keep in mind that there's there's really no basis to place sets in to wait on those prior statements the police  purposes through a tactic who interviewed him at the time and i want to make sure to make absolutely clear that just because those statements were made close to the time of the crime  reliable because that you know if you was not a friends again or if it was not a victim a sensitive interview it was not conducted by a someone who is trained in child psychology to ask open ended questions to ensure that roads are being put into testimony is exactly right the traffic going to fight the trial to consider those prior statements considered his testimony at trial and said that he was giving weight to those things that were consistent across all of his statements and that dress that he was with his meadow that night that he was put to bed that he broke up he came out there was a man there and they was taken back to bed and told not to come out those are the key facts with regard to his testimony that the reliable it isn't even a reasonable hypothesis of innocence not that that would even be sufficient if it meant for the questions your honour's the physical and circumstantial evidence in this case prove the defendant it was only used for impeachment purposes there for us not substantive evidence but i don't think the record ever differentiated on any of that i don't think there were any objections to any of the information that was found in the and and the person who would end up killing deon dancing naked dead that he was asked to go back to bed that the individual or the maid actually pushed him back to bed and  witness testifies as to the right chromosome testing and then she just goes straight through a calculation so there is no explanation as to whether or not that is appropriate to do or not of evidence they can rely upon certain things and coming up with their opinion sort of obviously hearsay documents and they can rely on their education experience and coming back with their opinion and that again i think it was just such a great week to go from point a to point b without any explanation that the screw should should question that calculation