well the police obviously didn't take these matters seriously otherwise investigate now if we had gone if we'd known that there had been in fact a forensic detail examination we're not sure what the complete statement would have contained we know this much that mr gandy on the defendant stated in the pretrial hearing that there were discrepancies and disagreements recall specific disagreements so yes the power of the statement that the jury or injured was permitted to hear was obviously a confession that's true here if the recording device and then we're now you know again i mean there's no question about it nothing is testimony between the video and what he testified to the court was contradictory on several key points which lead to some issues that we've raised here concerning the incidence or non incidence of sex for example but you know the last thing that we want to do this have the jury see him again well let's talk about the specific this is when it happened be cautious this was the last day of school and i remember or put even some reference isn't the case law pretty clear is that the honor of ballot is exactly that on or about it is the best  other crimes now you have other crimes are done and it's hard to do that if you do it after the fact and missed the whole purpose of this so the jury understands there is a difference that the defendant is not a trial for one charge to  was about ten five times trying to influence late in his eleventh year or actually twelve years old piece of strategy is not really to call the sympathetic witness back right but in light i think his words were attractive sympathetic witness didn't break down is is there a risk that we bring him back and that could happen to great darkie happening off the problem well i suppose he could but there was certainly nothing on this record indicate that this child was you know the demeanor of the child was such that that he would not do so in fact we also have the recorded statement of the child to the investigator investigator easton and again you can see the composure that this child has  what the problem is that that again they can you know not say that it's not a problem but it's certainly i think under these circumstances where he was allowed to call the victim the victim seems very composed and was able to answer these questions  i don't think there was any true harm or prejudice such that it would be of a fundamentally unfair and and you know would actually be the use of discretion here that a mistrial is not granted will consequently it would have gotten easton and the defendant himself that this happened two or three times so we're not talking about a great amount of times we're talking about somebody who supposedly was laying on his back in the room and then i think  answer to the extent that they could have brought in their own expert who would have said that you know yes or that their own experiment even the person who did this test and yes we tested you know in this area that's not the only difference that could have been made in this case i mean they did get totally different case and i'm not talking about just in terms of numbers of incidents i'm talking terms of instead of a continuous course of trying to type with other crimes evidence that we have here where we say instead of having two times it make a promise that will record it what does that mean well i'll make a promise which didn't happen here and that's the more chance if you say to begin with before this statement is made i'm going to be recording this event better record it but the first date and th take another statement with the recording and they at least it did not turn out but it has no effect on the first how do you know this is this is chicken egg thing how do we know it's not a complete statement or how do we know we is a not but an act of oral sex but again we we are not stuck with june seventh we are looking at on or about we have instances where we know that in fact during this course of content the finger at officer eastern and say you're a bad cop or you dropped the ball or you didn't do what you were supposed to do but that led to guilt or innocence that didn't solve problem that the premise we were going on it wasn't sloppy police work it was it was an inference to be drawn if they were crediting the complainants description of what happened they would have investigated the crime scene that's the distinction that we were making you didn't the jury to consider that the police didn't follow didn't take the allegations seriously did not do what you would expect normally some of them were to be which would be to go to the scene of the alleged occurrence and see if there's any evidence for mention something about the statement issued because it's of concern to all of us i home you know immediately before the defendant was arrested there was an over here conducted by complainants father who was my client's on the go and pursuant to a court order in which my client was asked certain questions of mediately before the search warrant was executed is referred to in the people's brief and during that conversation and you see that the dates are way down you know when we look at the indictment if you will need one incident of touching slash to claim that would be a problem but again don't we have alleged nanny yes