statement that the doctor was referring to that's not exist that is the statement which is incredible it's i ask you how did these two x friends come up with the same fabrication i am not in any way part of the it's not intuitive with big so i'm thinking there must be some expert witness who explained this you perfectly tell me no no what did i and that circumstance does not exist anymore then that diagnosis is not based on facts it's not based on the data let me ask the question the jury here heard all the evidence and after hearing the evidence found the testimony of the peoples experts to be more credible than that of the respondents expert i find was found to be a sexually violent person they implicitly credit the people's expert testimony over sexual assault and then he was asked where he learned the certain information he said he reviewed the documents that were in the master file these included police reports probation records mental health records and things that are usually included within those types reports or victim statements and he probably learned that the victim exercise for her respondent exercise for spent looking at all these documents and the parties later stipulated that there were in fact no victim statements included in any of the documents that the doctor here this point was made to the jury the jury heard this and then the doctor later on redirect examination testified that even though there were no victim statements the fact of the conviction the fact that the respondent had been convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault which by its nature involves the use of force and the lack of consent here heard the from the fact that the conviction from the prosecution of the respondent that the respondent had exercised force against the victim and that she did not consent to the sexual intercourse w was not engender to some degree by the come on the victim towards how did that affect the psychometric nature of their evaluations because these are big picket like a box of of thirty or so little little tests that they go through and check boxes and add up the scores and their opinion is driven by the scores that they get on these little taps ok so if they had in their mind all this twenty two year old girl was completely blameless there was and this was just like this it came up on dumped on they hadn't had sex with her that's one kind of a crock but if there was dalliance going on and he as to whether or not he suffers from a mental disorder the doctors looked at the documents that were in the master file and that they looked at the facts of the conviction and the respondents victims prosecution of the respondent for that offense they also looked at the interview with the respondent where they responded  both doctors that his actions were crime that he knew that his actions for crime and that also when he came on to this woman and the woman sexually rejected him that enraged him and that well but there isn't the question take i didn't see the terrible word used in this context but isn't there a qualitative difference between forcing yourself on a woman who had been rejecting sexual was it generated by the victim or was it generated internally by the response and when we're talking about whether or not you're sexually violent person we're not talking about the victim that means he's a really bad guy and these get locked up but if they were right on that essential point because they believe if they had read something in a phantom they did not ask explicitly link the non consent to the person whether or not it was internal within their spine or whether or not it was the rejection of the respond is that what you're getting at that link well to the extent exercise here and that the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse those facts were fully explored at trial and to the extent that the respondent takes issue with where the information came from she was fully able to explore that issue before the jury the jury was given a stipulation to this effect this was argued to the jury during closing arguments numerous times throughout the course of closing arguments and also the jury was again given another instruction before they began to deliberate that the they could consider a witness's memory exactly which evidence they have well yeah but it's stimulated by both sides that the evidence that this piece of evidence that they built light on there even exist that over a six month period the individual has to experience sexual urges fantasies or behaviors and has to then act on those sexual urges fantasies behaviors and the doctors testified that the respondent experience issues to the jury during closing arguments and on cross examination and didn't fact acknowledge that he was able to explore these issues and asked to ask doctors here about these statements was able to ask dr swearin dr great about th whether to respond in a substantial likely to sexual reinvent and to the extent that he takes issue with the doctor's definition of not sexual violence or whether or not he met any of the criteria of whether or not he was substantially likely this actually your friend was able to begin to explore those issues taking into consideration testified what they told me based on the facts they can make reasonable prices based on the facts but when they start well leaving and facts and making up facts then especially violent person here's what i mean here from a peer to point of view you're better off with them having raised their included in their opinion the fictitious reports first  from not capable of being believe what i mean if the jury says well you know that was a mistake and we're going to disregard which to do what about the remaining part of the testimony was he said she came on to me yes i operate doctors and there are reports something to that a fact that this is his his recollection of what