So what kind of struck you when you looked over some of this?

Yeah, I think kind of at large of what we've already been discussing is the court's treatment of Chester's exculpatory witnesses in the 2025 proceeding at large.

But I think specifically it's treatment of the state's own witness, Alice Boehm.

I think the court's handling of Ms. Boehm's testimony is truly mind boggling to me and truly demonstrates that.

Something else, right? Not the law, not logic, not some like philosophical conception of justice was like motivating the court's ruling and handling the case in its entirety.

Because the leaps that the court has to take to justify its discrediting of Ms. Boehm's testimony are... illogical and also just pretty astounding in and of themselves and i've never seen anything like it and so as i was like kind of going back through just filtering through my thoughts it was very clear that to discredit her the court had to do two separate things right first it's those illogical leaps that i had just mentioned and there are like two aspects of that it was first on the law right uh in in the judge's order he actually specifically identifies her test her testimony as hearsay uh when and then just Full case stop period right there doesn't engage in any analysis or, you know, review of that because it's very clear that it's a statement against interest, which is an exception to hearsay and would be allowed to actually factor into the court's ruling.

That's something that we fully highlighted actually in the brief when, you know, related to that and fully outlining how it is a statement against interest.

Johan, what are your thoughts on this?