mr cox me please the court i wanted to thank you first for hearing me because i've been on this case for about seven and a half years and from the day that i got on i knew it was going to be a tough battle and one when i look at the court of appeals reasoning there doesn't seem to be anything that showed mr cox had anything to do with what happened he lived in the house he knew mr cox a mr mendoza he worked with me at least interrogations and were they watching a movie together the two of them afterwards well at two am or whenever the mother came home or afterwards all right so he was watching a movie off all right so how does that go to his can't well it's inconsistent with an assertion that he hung out primarily in his room with the door shut well apparently they did that was part of the first money saver said that he jury it was not it's not for us to determine is whether or not that evidence was communicated to the jury if the jury that knew him culpability were michael i think this is they were easy that the two of them looked at each other well i think it shows that they looked at each other because i think i think i don't think there's any question that mr cox knew what was going on ok he knew what was going on mendoza made talk to him but there's no showing that he had anything to do with aiding and abetting the killing aiding and abetting the beating that occurred on that night i mean the ample evidence the court finds ok cox was well even if he were simply there yes watched it all ok wouldn't that conceivably be sufficient to establish reading about it you know because he didn't have a duty to intervene as i thought he was it we're in the he had care custody did you know in fact his the mother never gave him caring cause that's not the question the question is whether he assumed here in custody because he testified he hit cut a blister office but that he tripped him once when he took a picture and that he's thanked him so that's so means according to the court of appeal and i'm not sure that that's unreasonable that was an assumption of care and custody if you take the if you take the initiative of providing care or discipline i don't know i'm thinking because if i live in a house and somebody brings their child there and at some point i give them some medical aid or some i don't know because this was all part of subsequent interrogations after so i give the child some discipline or whatever i'm assuming for the rest of the child's life with the rest of the child any time the child visits and this was not that long period of time that this occurred over months i isn't is that true wasn't it wasn't like years and years i mean if it was a three month period right was when the blister just a few weeks or a few days prior to this had been the cutting off of the list of the blister came it was about a week ago he came back and had a blister from a bird when he was with his grandparents so my my my problem is that you know which which i have is that look i mean the police interrogated him and talk about off i know the responses of the things about alternative scenarios and putting together an alternative scenario here they thought they interrogated him and at some point in some context he said something like that i clearly couldn't do but i so i agree there was some testimony about what happened afterwards there was testimony that he lived in the house that he was friends and mentors and he knew mendoza he didn't tell anybody knew about it he lived in the house but he didn't do anything about it and that is not aiding and abetting under the california statute that so you've got about a minute and a half council save you may do so what's your response to opposing counsel's position that the fact that her client knew that the torture was going on does not implicate him in terms of his intent what's your that he working together they cut the blister emma does they used a torch to burn it at the same oh no there was no evidence of that there was no evidence the blister was cut on a different day there was no evidence of bli was cut on the day of the that he tortured and killed him so it's not on the day that the blister was cut that i honestly i mean if the jury could have believed them even if there was testimony match but not the force that's not that i recall so i don't see anything about the facts to say anything about that and i understand what the jury may have to leave but the test is whether the cox torture murder according to the their findings there was no showing on that night that he had anything to do with it and i think what he was working in tandem with he was just there because he