was not who worsted it wasn't against his will this is correct that can relate back to what the court thought or the or the concession state made that they were they were given they were needed whenever a juvenile probation right yes wouldn't was not clear from the record of i mean so we know he's going to court system before we know he can identify a prosecutor and a public defender at least in the abstract i don't believe there was a it's a minute that he was  he could be the smartest member of the game he could be one of the you know we were once intellectually i mean i don't know that i don't know that it would be fair to make that difference i mean if i think it's certainly important oh no i don't think anything speaks to one about the detective statement defending the defendant says that mike if you get like a state's attorney or something now the detective said well fax that saying that before we talk to you he can be with you while we're the transcript is one thing we all draw different from you know looking at the transcript of it but looking at the interview itself i mean this was a very quick back and forth exchange i don't think it i room with him and that he could be appointed for the purpose of being present in the room with him as well like i said less than our full permit usage but i don't think any of that was enough to prevent the different from understanding his i think having the record sufficiently presented to you hugh can take a look at work her both in detective process testimony in the defendant's testimony and then also take a look at the videotape itself the trial court basically what happened in this basically i think would be the third time i think it was a bit the start of the second one because i believe this started second when he comes back in the interview room he puts his head down and cracked he cries for a little bit about thirty forty five seconds or so that's true but to the extent the trial court said well something had to have happened to cause this change in demeanor i think it's incumbent upon us to look at whether or not there was an actual change in meter so if there was no significant change in the defendant's demeanor the trial court to counsel doesn't really mean anything unless you're aware if you're going to have a point to counsel i think it shows there that you didn't know that he was entitled to counsel more than just whether or not that person is called a state's attorney for you decided on later cases in the supreme court we didn't there were issues now let's find out how they really know and have them read them and ask them questions are we carried to torture should we be worried about the ambiguity of the answer as where they are and ask questions about them and not merely boring questions or statements that are given during that time i think tutored to reverse this to say well there are serious concerns about whether or not this  different people coming in to do the interviews isn't it and having courts in the past basically relied on what happened the first time around if everybody said ok you know and worse to make it between interview teams are saying we got the morning through either a lawyer or your own choosing or if you can't afford another war i don't think it's really you know i ask you go out whether there's a question perhaps not every business for the least when there's a question like this you know as a matter of law he would have to have an attorney in his juvenile case because i me ask you off the bat yes we can look at the tapes the three tapes but we have no tape of the defendant testifying and that's something that the court took into account how do we how do we balance dance and then look at the regarding the defendant's testimony the defendant in the crucible of the moment in that interview clearly given this from his behavior from his demeanor from his statements and understanding of what was said to  what was said to him and that was sufficient i mean it's it's simply put it's not a question about foam well if the defendant says something really offers up a bad example and then the police offer a bad explanation that to prevent police coercion it is designed to prevent us from taking the word the state of the police who are from taking advantage of suspects the defendant was practically an adult in this case he had no difficulties in cognition he didn't suffer from any apparently