anti social personality disorder by way of this appeal then what if the doctors came to this conclusion but could not on the parent feel it could not plug the la factor in which is time but they did in their own basic process to come to their conclusion that he should not that he was extremely dangerous and why is it doctor some information about his inclinations record snus and maybe not looking for victims but there was one of the just that piece of evidence th around us and because of that the toys r us was tied into what is it the need stamps for and i can't remember the names of those you know all of those things were were part of this process and so are you saying to thirteen g requires that they specifically say this issue toys r us is where we're getting this from is it really this testimony in the record and apparently the jury heard specifically wasn't there already sufficient evidence of the defendant's high risk to re offend based on the testing that justice hutchinson referred to a couple minutes ago the respondent scores on these tests and the tools that the doctors performed there demonstrated that the respondent had could potentially sexually refashioned against adult women as well and both experts testified that even though it was only a provisional diagnosis the jury was made perfectly clear about the limitations of this provisional diagnosis were also made aware that it was relevant to that turn element as to whether or not he was substantially likely to section re offend there where the people were not presenting the provisional diagnosis to show that he said actually actually suffered from par personality disorders and those mental disorders could be the qualifying mental disorders under the act ok but what about the language of the statute that counsel referred to earlier that says that jenna and two is dangerous because there are other things that we have considered but not appropriate at this time i mean it's clear that this state pulled this diagnosis out of me it wasn't what they were going to talk about why did it have to be there but i'm not sure that the state pull it out of the experts when dr levinson did his initial evaluation of the response to that in his own independent neutral evaluation if you looked at all the documents you look at the respondents master file and based but what i'm saying is the state knows the law the doctors will pursue the doctors don't know what to thirteen after g e or whatever choirs or the what the statute for for confinement requires particularly the state does why then did the state go there maybe not pull it out then why did the state go there in terms of this testimony when you had kind of feel you know and have anti social personality disorder i agree your honor may have been extravagance that was not needed but this court is now and said that the people here are entitled to introduce all relevant evidence that is material to their burden of proof and here the people have to prove all three elements they have to prove in particular that the respondent was substantially likely t paraphilia they couldn't definitively confirm that because they didn't have sufficient information as to the six month requirement but they did testify that to a reasonable degree of science to fix certainty that he'd likely suffer from going to prove that is whether she's suffering from a mental disorder here the people presented evidence showing that the respondent saturday suffered from the qualifying mental disorder of pedophilia and that one of the many factors and there were many criminal history including his not sexually violent criminal history because those arrests any history of criminal activity is relevant to antisocial personality disorder and we're also going to that third element of whether he is substantially likely t people who presented evidence that had a feeling it was a mental disorder that could be a qualifying mental disorder under the act and that also antisocial personality disorder could be a qualifying mental disorder and at the moment clear during the closing arguments that they were mainly relying on  feeling as the qualifying mental disorder but as your honest question regarding the non sexually violent criminal history that is relevant as to whether he suffered from an antisocial personality disorder and  was a factual basis upon which the experts relied and arriving at their diagnosis and because it was a factual basis and not an opinion that the people were not required to disclose that i nursed cream portal to thirteen a included in the derogatory answers it just didn't make sense to you or this is this is a very serious proceedings why are you going to leave something like that out on a technicality because that's what we're talking about h to testify and the opinion that is expected to be elicited and here the people disclose all of the experts opinions they disclose the opinion that the respondent was substantially likely to sexually resent and they disclose their opinion that he was sexually violent person each of the separate factual bases upon which the experts rely was not required to disclose on their supreme court ruled two thirteen f to the responders fully aware that he was employed at toys r us and it was a response employment at toys r us is one of the accompanying facts and defense agreed to but now what you take from there that it was reckless is that a how is that is that a factor in opinion it was a logical it's actually a perfectly commonsense kind of inference that respondent who has been previously convicted of sexual offenses against children would want to work at toys r us we were he would be surrounded by children and because it actually is a fairly common sense  type of information would be regularly relied upon by x rays in the field now the fact that the respondent was engaged in a mortgage scam while he was on amazon from this sex offender would demonstrate that he's not able to comply with the of the law he was suppose it was your point about the policies is is the given but where is it just victims of that type of offense and if so why is it the fact that the doctors consider testified to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty that he suffers from those without taking into consideration the should appear feeling and i think that's what she said and basically that in their an is in their interview in their review of documents in review of history they believe that this is working there too and that polls for them their opinion and you're simply offering it as what i think relied upon to