there are two hundred thirty five instances in the transcriptions from spanish tape recordings that are either unintelligible inaudible or in comprehensible and then my client also painstakingly went through the transcriptions to translations and cost unless you listen to the tune in which something said you can't tell where the border gate is and two i think two were declarative or something else and in this case because there were so many gaps in the translation were should have been done in your view given what should have been done in your view are you suggesting that the appropriate procedure would have been to play the tape and have it simultaneously translated for the jury just have a few comments to make first of all counsel for petitioner has i mentioned the apparently several or many inaudible or unintelligible but immediately thereafter heard a shot which was also consistent with her with her other statements and again the officers testified consistently w the even and the district court made this clear even if you were to assume that petitioners competing translation of the interviews were correct or was correct there deny the fact that these statements were made during the interviews they recanted their statements which was the basis for the prior inconsistent statements from the interview being admitted at all  in other words there's nothing about the interview statements themselves that they are it's not the interview statements that brings up the prior inconsistent statement aspect is that the witnesses at trial well the the real the recantation was done a trial not during the interview but it but if but i see your honor if if in fact this case if in fact the witnesses had said something completely different than what was purported in that translates well a court appointed translator and and again looking at the competing translation the petitioner offered there's nothing of the material nature in opposing counsel talked about was the matter of one of the photo identifications that petitioners photograph was circle however and if you look at page forty nine of the at least brief you'll see mr were no no one else opposing counsel also made was referring to the point that the jurors were not listening to the tape itself that they they were somehow focused on the translation well because the jurors were not you know because the language used in the trial was that of the english and there was no showing that the jurors were fluent spanish speakers it doesn't it's not surprising that they would rely on the english translation however x y l the tape was heard and to the extent that you're just wanted to consider the transcripts in their deliberations there was certainly three to listen to the tapes again but in their opinion which is certainly there are there right and purview they didn't feel the need to listen to the tapes again another point that should be mentioned here your honor is out the defen attorney at trial hired an investigator after the translations were made that investigator interviewed the witnesses and that and there was no showing that they disputed accuracy of the translation in fact the witness was a trial never disputed the accuracy of the translation of the police interview and to the extent petitioner who is a spanish speaker was sitting in  stablish ing ineffective assistance of counsel and to the extent that he didn't complain at the time showed that it impacts his credibility as to the accuracy of his competing translation or at least in the sense that there is no material error that occurred in the translation itself as your honour's pointed out also to the extent that there were some errors some of those  benefited petitioner and those were brought up by defense counsel  saying it's this one tell me which one it is because shadow i tell you is this one shot above where is my client's nickname but in this to benefit is competing translation which was interpreted directly from the spanish language paper and not