against four other women to show propensity pursuant to section one fifteen dish seven point three of the criminal code now this was a typical case the facts in the charge case and the four other crimes cases were disturbing and would tend to this meaningful assessment of probative versus prejudicial value the problem here is because defense counsel didn't object or in any way trying to limit the evidence at the time the quote was engaged in that balancing process i think dead it does become the use of discretion because the court really only considered the probative value of those factors that you were talking about the factual similarities the proximate time but not the he went through the list of how all of this evidence was proximate and factually similar and he in detail he listed those factors as to why and then he had he did it he concluded th voluntarily for one purpose and then it changed into something entirely different she didn't serve that purpose another witness testified bit by years earlier she  she was clearing the state even trying to insinuate she was a absolutely not a prostitute so those two witnesses certainly didn't serve a purpose one of those witnesses one witness in this case with these kind of right you could make that argument but you could i guess for the purpose of this was offered for to propensity and to prove lack of consigning and because of the details of this particular france these are the nature of the details i don't know i don't know how i guess i don't see the poet in this of having these it i guess it just comes issue factors that still the way into the back are the nature of the other finances and the amount and that's what weighs makes it prejudicial and in this case again i think because the details were so graphic they were so repetitive some of the witnesses testified to even you know worse acts of abuse then allegedly used then even artie i think the focus of the jury that's the prejudice and i guess i would yeah i would have to come to back to the fact that the volume of the evidence was so prejudicial of the details of the evidence on it was emotional this wasn't just you know a summary if there was just one what do i think regional probability would have been that there would have been any difference in the verdict in my opinion if there is one other witness testify testifying the way they did and you can pick any one of the four it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever he's going to jail period so how well does it affect our judgement in so far as how are we a breakdown in the system if in fact the system would have come up with the same decision and i think that's the other part of the strickland analysis i think we're looking at what the trial fundamentally fair but the trial fundamentally fair and  confidence they had the sister produced i just resolved that they had been there's also that language and stricklin and i do think it is it is a tale city integrity of the system i guess the testimony in this case evidence in there really what are the chances that you know it's so she'll it if it's so prejudicial it's so graphic i can see there's a reasonable strategy to take maybe one of the jurors went looking at all this and these women testifying to these you know graphic emotional details maybe i'll get one if i can compute the jury enough to acquit i just don't see that as respond i think the second part of it is ok let's clear the state is let's say who you know we can somehow construe that to be reasonable strategy it please the court and victory of just a fanatic represents the people of the state of illinois and list there are any questions on the other issues in the case people also respond to the other kinds of witnesses there were in that case but in this case we have very very substantially similar occurrences that house been with each of these women but it was a i believe the facts in this case show a closer similarity and this was a case in which there were additional women who were sexually assaulted or allegedly sexually assaulted by the defendant at the sentencing hearing three additional women and there were testimony about three different women so this was a case where every single women one man who was assaulted by th defendant was brought forward in this motion and lemonade there were four that were brought forward and i think it end the circumstances as as justice the circumstances of this case are unique in the victim and she were the four at the time who were working as prostitutes at the moment they were approached by the defendant and it changed from a consensual matter and she was nonconsensual matter and because well if i am not sure if he which ones he was actually if he was charged with all of five at once that they don't actually remember which ones he was actually he explicitly recognized the discretionary standard provided in donahoe saying that he had to determine whether the probative value out of the prejudicial effect on the output and so he was aware he had to conduct this balancing test he found nine specific allegations that were in favor of admitting the advents he listed just similarities and factual circumstances he then found the other essential proximate in time and the degree of factual similarity to the charge to facts and he remarks there was sufficient similarity in the charge conduct because of the specifically of the testimony not consensual in this case i believe your honour's we're talking about is one and not if you have another prosecute come in saying you know i was i was raped i was assaulted i was recruited by this man supporters the details of the very unusual and bizarre details in this case and then defense counsel talks about the graphic details well unfortunately the details were graphic that's what the defendant did to these women and and he did a lot of very graphic things to the instant think to him and it was the other testimony of the details that supported the fact this was not a consensual encounter and because he was using the defens victim herself it was one of the other witnesses testifying to the fact that when it became violent there was no longer consent so it's going to take radiation and when it turned into the physical speak the defendant didn't the people assert that the if this was not more then it wasn't even an allegation it was showing he was upset with his for the people that the people will maintain that he was given the opportunity to make a further statement but he didn't actually make a claim requir something specifically stated to enquire into and here he was making on the specific  prejudice against probative value i mean when you look at other cases like william this is a case cited in the in the states brief period when defense counsel of jacks and specifically argues prejudice and the court makes a similar ruling at least there you can assume that he considered those factors because defense counsel objected and prop up those prejudicial factor so you can assume that the court made the boy in those prejudicial factors and this idea that an objection by counsel would have told the state you think you can proceed with your other kinds of witnesses but pick your best to you know two or three incidents as to those witnesses and so and i'm jackson it wouldn't be futile the time time again when counsel objects to th would i i guess i would say it's the same thing as to precious why you wouldn't want all those cases tried together because then they would be other crimes that you could use against the defendant thing i would say is that you know since the purpose is to promote consideration of the procedure back to the since claim i don't know why and what the purpose what purpose would be served by hamstringing the trial judge from asking about all the bases  appeal tried to argue was she when she made a general statement she was referring to what's already been looked into and this court found the you couldn't you couldn't there was nothing really to link that they heard general