boyhood and so it was recovered actually was some of his blood evidence as well so i think so more of a lot of it i think was not necessarily his abuse towards her but i think it could be characterized as marital discord we really don't know and that's part of the let me ask you this it was pretty clear from the evidence on and from the hearing on the motion limited that the trial court kept on and excluded all of the hearsay statements to police in the said that was part of mr bufs domestic violence and was physical there was if you will be state ok in the evidence was that banal had no injuries prior no bleeding injuries prior to her disappearance came forward after the police have asked once and in some cases years after they heard this but i think you've got situations like that where you have to complain maybe statements or other people claiming they saw police the second a second conviction for this battery would have been a felony he had he already had a prior sobriety so he escaped the felony by plead guilty and reaching some kind of agreement for th for the two domestic betters against britain all correct they were right is that correct from doesn't fit cater to says it wasn't in order for the jury to hear what that relationship was like all the way up  bat where they actually did call the police but none of the other times the police were call off a prince of nothing called the police and many of the situations so these are these are statements which were made at the time which was that there may be more oh more core value because there's more why don't we use them because they're somewhat contemporaneous with the event that occurred these are things that came out afterwards after the state where around interviewing people tempting to piece this fact together to what may have happened at sometime around the last week time you have a situation like that i think it becomes more incumbent on the court to be a little more cautious in providing any possible for the show evidence from calling it you wouldn't necessarily just because you occurred at a later date and keep that evidence out i think in a allowed in britain's own statements to the police and own statements of the order of protection and the divorce filing the one defendant question correct any question about what the relationship was at the front it th on probation for two domestic batteries there be the logical argument that there was a motive to keep her from going to the police and all the hearsay statements would come in but then i was never made so the fun benefited from the testified one of these things occurred that they didn't want to go to the police because all them have been smoking crack or something to that effect and so how is any evidence that but for the defendant children great britain is going to go to the going to the police she did go to the police she did the titian orders of protection she did tell family members she did speak to police officers she had her body photographed so there was a history that she would report to the police despite her status of family and friends that she didn't want to get into trouble she didn't want to go to the police but it's still something of a state where it demonstrated the time and he didn't so i don't think because the stated chooses not to proceed  day of course ours position is that it does demonstrate just these points to counsel the point was the volume not what the eve just recited to us what they all testified to the point is and what was i think trying to point out is that you had multiple witnesses talking over and over about the same events ten even the cumulative effect of that prejudicial disagree with the fed defense position the jury of the jury concluded that because he did these events he must have killed her i thought the defense argument helped make our case that you needed these things in order to demonstrate just that fact that  what about the defendant's argument that many of these statements were unreliable because they were sole dated the wilsons for example they weren't interviewed for five years i hate and fear any law that the defendant presented or that i found that the indicated that these were unacceptable bookings only no there is no case law either that says that they don't become stale so to simply say there's no case thought either way i think we're asking you and relevant evidence if the defense is how does it remain relevant we need is so stale i mean you keep going around the same question and you are not answering the question i don't see how recollection is becomes different when this who has been tested by cross examination says i remember this and cross examination doesn't shake that statement that i do remember this is good evidence you remember events from your past because they've they happened a long time ago doesn't mean that if you recounted them they're stable or that they're unreliable if they're firmly fixed in your mind and or our common knowledge of the relationship between that and when that in their relationship is sometimes that women are abused that they they sometimes complain sometimes they don't you know it may seem grab the victim pulled her back into the apartment you recall that when there's another witness saw her out or pull her back to the apartments will there was a witness the there were a number of witnesses the state it's over the statement made no mention of the prior arrest of the must be found and in your closing argument just a few pages where they discussed that they did not do well in either the rule cleaning or their closing arguments on prior acts of domestic abuse the simply used those incidents to set the stage and to show the jury that this was a violent and turbulent marriage