*1 Before E ASTERBROOK W ILLIAMS , S YKES , Circuit Judges. W ILLIAMS Circuit Judge . While he only adult room napping children daycare where he worked, Ali pulled back underwear one young girl pictures. He claimed he did she injured herself his watch while she playing his lap checking injury. believe him convicted him making attempting make child pornography. He appeals convictions. Several his *2 ‐ arguments concern evidence the jury heard Al ‐ Awadi also digitally penetrated the young girl, act he was charged in case. Although he argues the jury re ‐ ceived the wrong standard when was instructed to deter mine was “more likely than not” Al ‐ Awadi had molested girl, pattern jury given to jury accurately told jury how assess evidence acts other than charged crimes. was also instructed prove elements crimes beyond reasonable doubt Al ‐ Awadi be found guilty. Al ‐ Awadi heard too much ev idence molestation. However, evidence was permis sible he placed his intent in taking pictures sue, molestation evidence was relevant his intent, government’s was unduly repetitive. Finally, sufficient supports jury’s conclusion Al Awadi used young girl engage sexually explicit con duct purpose producing visual depiction conduct.

I. BACKGROUND

Soon after began working daycare, teachers expressed concern about twenty ‐ year ‐ old Ali ‐ teractions young female children there. cautioned about sitting children lap classroom, picking up children who could walk, taking female chil dren into bathroom. took particular interest one young girl kindergarten room, four year old Child Victim One

(“CV1”). On August daycare shorthanded staff, advantage. sent cover kindergarten room during substitute teacher’s *3 ‐ lunch. While he was only adult room and was darkened children to nap, he sat down next to CV1. When she fell asleep, Al ‐ Awadi opened her pants and pulled her underwear away from her. He then took two pictures her vagina. He thought quality pictures was poor he two more. Al ‐ Awadi then placed his finger vagina. This woke up young girl.

When teacher returned to classroom, Al Awadi went his car about thirty minutes. At some point, he deleted pictures his cellphone.

While still out room, CV1 told teacher, “It hurts down there,” while pointing her vagina. When teacher asked why, CV1 responded, “It hurts down there Mr. Ali touched it.” The teacher reported school secretary, who some reason asked return kindergarten room. teacher asked CV1 repeat what she had said, she did. then picked CV1 up, sat her on his lap, and said, “no, thank you.” CV1 left his lap. secretary informed daycare’s assistant direc

tor, who then spoke with Awadi. He claimed he CV1 had been playing, she jumped his lap wrapped her legs around his arm, when pushed her off, she pinched her vagina watch.

After daycare, CV1 told her mother she had pain her vagina later informed her what done. At hospital, nurse who examined CV1 noted swelling several areas redness were consistent digital penetration. A pediatrician who later examined said unlikely her injury caused by watch. *4 ‐

Law enforcement recovered deleted images Al Awadi’s phone, and DNA test concluded Al ‐ Awadi’s DNA consistent with found on underwear. Law enforcement discovered Al ‐ Awadi viewed child pornography in past.

A second superseding indictment Al ‐ Awadi with four counts of sexual exploitation of minor through pro duction of child pornography, violation of U.S.C. § 2251(a), four counts of attempted production of child pornography, violation of U.S.C. § 2251(e). Before trial, government filed notice its intent use Al molestation CV1, district court admitted under Federal Rules Evidence 404(b) 414(a).

Multiple witnesses testified trial, cluding who then six years old. Al Awadi testified own defense. A convicted Awadi on three counts exploitation by producing child pornogra phy all four attempt counts. court vacated three attempt convictions they were lesser included offenses completed offenses. judge sentenced concurrent terms months’ im prisonment fifteen years supervised release each count. appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

A. No Error Jury Instructions first should re ceived reads as follows, with our under line added words especially takes issue: *5 ‐

You heard testimony evidence that the Defendant committed crimes, acts and/or wrongs other than ones charged In ‐ dictment. Before using this evidence, you must decide is more likely than not that Defendant did crimes, acts, and/or wrongs that are not charged Indictment. If you de ‐ cide that did, then you may consider this ev idence to help you decide Defendant’s intent produce or attempt produce child pornog raphy, absence mistake dealing with al leged victim or opportunity. You may not con sider any other purpose. Keep mind Defendant is trial here sexual exploi tation attempted exploitation child, crimes, acts, or wrongs. This instruction is our Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Jury Instruction 3.11, “Evidence Other Acts by Defendant,” case specific information added. main tains “more likely than not” language instruc tion improperly directed apply preponderance evidence standard intent, element charged offenses. Especially molesta tion been admitted as direct charged crimes, maintains result could intent element crimes satisfied by preponderance standard rather than by constitutionally required standard beyond reasonable doubt. object instruction. first contends waived right

6 16 2643 our review of instruction. “The touchstone of waiver a knowing intentional decision.” United States v. Jaimes ‐ Jaimes , F.3d 845, (7th Cir. 2005). transcript re flects a discussion between court counsel out side presence before closing arguments judge stated, “earlier morning we talked about final instructions,” then asked government Awadi’s counsel each “had any objections any final instructions.” counsel responded, “No objection final instructions, Your Honor.”

In arguing counsel’s response constitutes waiver review instruction at issue, government points cases including our decision United States v. Natale , F.3d (7th Cir. But even Natale recognized harsh ness a waiver result cases where defense counsel simply says “no objection” during rote colloquy judge, we further noted there we may review even waived ar guments when “the interests justice” require it. Id. at 730– 31. More recent cases follow same vein. Ajayi , F.3 1121–22 (7th 2015) (reviewing chal lenged instruction plain error even though counsel stated “no objection” during rote colloquy where stated pattern instruction but dis close language missing); Pust 2015) (reviewing admission chal lenged statements plain error where counsel times said “no objection” or “no” when asked if objection admission). Waiver is, after all, an intentional relinquishment known right, while merely “negligently bypassing” argument al lows our review appeal, albeit under demanding standard plain error review. Pust 602. Here, contents discussion earlier morning regarding *7 No. instructions are not the transcript; had they been and

depending on their content we might have more comfort finding that intentionally relinquished his review Instruction No. 12.

In event, at the least, it is clear that forfeited contest the instruction by failing object before the dis trict court, our review forfeited arguments is for plain error. Christian (7th 2012). That means we will grant relief only if there er ror; the error plain, meaning clear or obvious; the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights that probably would not been convicted absent error; error seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation judicial proceedings. Id.

Because it is pattern instruction, instruction at issue is presumed accurately state law. Marr While cer tainly burden proving beyond reasonable doubt committed charged crimes, its face In struction is directed acts “other than ones charged Indictment” repeats again end instruction “Defendant is here sexual ex ploitation attempted exploitation child, not crimes, acts, or wrongs.” sentence takes issue only speaks preponderance standard uncharged conduct, as it states:“ … you must decide it is more likely than not De fendant crimes, acts, and/or wrongs are charged Indictment.” So makes clear about crimes or elements fense, only directs “more likely than not” standard *8 No. 2643 apply to the jury’s determination of mo lested CV1. See Gomez (7th 2014) (en banc).

For the elements of the charged crimes including intent, the hand, the jury instructed that the standard it must apply that of beyond a reasonable doubt. That is important we review challenges jury instructions like challenge Instruction No. by examining jury instructions as a whole context of entire proceeding. Fiedeke When it came crimes, instruc tions were clear that government’s burden of proof that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The elements instruction stated that find defendant guilty of sexual exploitation a minor, “the Government must prove each follow ing elements beyond a reasonable doubt” then listed elements. instruction directed if jury found proved “elements beyond a reasonable doubt,” should defendant guilty, but if it found “the Government has failed prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt,” should return guilty verdict. next instruction gave identical directions crime tempted exploitation minor.

Non elements instructions reminded constitutionally required burden proof. Instruction stated defendant is presumed innocent each charges, presumption is overcome unless is “convinced beyond reasonable doubt De fendant guilty as charged.” This same further stated “Government has burden proving *9 9 No. 16 2643 Defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” The penulti mate included direction, “Your sole interest is determine whether Government has proved its case be yond reasonable doubt.” The instructions also told government prove beyond reasonable doubt defendant is person who committed charged crime. The instructions correctly informed of standard of proof for elements, which higher stand ard than for non crimes, acts, or wrongs. We no error, plain or otherwise, jury’s receipt Instruction No. 12. ^[1]

B. Admission Evidence Molestation makes several arguments on appeal regarding admission evidence alleged digital molesta tion CV1. At trial, objected cumulative ef fect testimony multiple witnesses about molesta tion. He repeats argument now, so we review district court’s decision allow all evidence molestation did abuse discretion. United States v. Fifer 863 F.3d 759, (7th Cir. 2017). He also makes several new argu ments appeal raise before court, those our review is plain error. Schrode, 545, (7th

We address first alleged mo lestation admissible all trial. government *10 ‐ needed prove as an element the charged crime making child pornography that Al ‐ Awadi took the photographs with the requisite intent. See U.S.C. § 2251(a). And trial, Al ‐ Awadi’s intent was the principal dispute. He not con test that he had taken photographs. Instead, his position throughout trial was that he had not taken pictures with sexually motivated intent. His counsel argued opening statements Al ‐ Awadi had another valid reason take pictures, albeit “stupid reason,” Al ‐ Awadi took stand testified he was worried he had hurt CV1 so he took pictures check injury. While saying was “dumbest thing” he had ever done, Al maintained he taken four photographs with intent. therefore placed intent issue. The district court allowed evidence molestation as direct ev idence charged crimes, introduced evidence molestation was within seconds when photographs as evidence Awadi’s intent taking pictures was sexually motivated one. molestation made criminal intent taking photographs more probable than would been without evidence molestation, molestation was relevant. Fed. R. Evid.401, 402.

Repeating argument he made before court, too much molestation admitted. He emphasizes with mak ing child pornography, crime child molesta tion. heard molestation sub stitute kindergarten teacher, who first person told; daycare’s assistant director, who interviewed both *11 11 16 2643 CV1 and Awadi; CV1’s parents, who uncovered mo lestation and to hospital; and from people who investigated allegations—the nurse who examined CV1, lead detective, pediatrician who follow up ex amination, and two forensic scientists who examined CV1’s clothing DNA bodily fluids. We do not an abuse discretion district court’s decision to admit testi mony multiple witnesses. witnesses added dif ferent meaningful pieces to account, we do not see here improper “drum beat repetition” victim’s story, cf. Stone v. State , 536 N.E.2d 534, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), or admission “gruesome unnecessary details,” Ostrowsky (7th 1974), as cases points, especially light defense trial. district court failed con duct proper Rule analysis balanced evidence’s probative value its potential unfair prejudice. Fed. R. Evid. (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value substantially outweighed by danger … unfair prejudice … .”); Loughry 2011) (finding district court erred by failing explain how it balanced Rule considerations). We disagree. court first stated why it found evi dence admissible: was direct guilt, if not, it admissible under Rule subject Rule 403’s balancing test. It then explained why concluded molestation evi dence not unfairly prejudicial, stating objected most it, details were probative demonstrate credibility, graphic its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.

Al Awadi makes other arguments regarding admissibility issues, all we review plain error because they are raised first time on appeal. He argues that govern ‐ ment failed establish temporal connection between CV1’s reports pain and alleged molestation. For example, substitute kindergarten teacher testified that day at ‐ sue, CV1 told her Al Awadi had touched her “all way down there and really hurts. And Mommy said that I can’t take bubble bath no more it’s going hurt worse.” Because CV1’s mother was not at day care that day, ‐ argues conversation about bubble bath be ‐ tween CV1 her mother must have taken place before had contact CV1 day at issue.

There no plain error court’s finding sufficient temporal connection between al leged molestation reports pain warrant ad mission molestation evidence. Among evidence, CV1 said she not hurting before inserted finger her, medical supported ference her pain molestation. Discrepancies conflicting testimony about timing go evidence’s weight, not its admissibility. See Mokol attorney op portunity to, did, cross examine witnesses regarding con tradictions timing. We no plain error. videotaped statement CV1 gave law enforcement should been admitted trial place two years after events. testi fied appeared cross examination, Con frontation Clause bar introduction her prior statement. Crawford Washington U.S. n.9 *13 13 16 2643 (2004) (“[W]hen declarant appears cross examination at trial, Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on use of his prior testimonial statements.”). He also seems suggest a due process violation admission videotaped statement, but his argument is difficult dis cern. We no plain error admission statement or challenged evidence.

C. Sufficiency Evidence is clear which body part is depicted pictures he evidence at insufficient support convictions. We will only set aside a guilty verdict basis insufficient “if record contains no reasonable juror could have found defendant guilty.” United States v. Long street , F.3d 911, (7th Cir. 2009).

To sustain convictions under U.S.C. § 2251(a), statute requires must have used engage “sexually explicit conduct purpose pro ducing [a] visual depiction such conduct.” statute de fines “sexually explicit conduct” include “lascivious ex hibition genitals or pubic area,” U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v), but does define “lascivious exhibition.” We said lascivious exhibition “is one calls tention genitals or pubic area purpose eliciting response viewer.” United States v. Russell (7th 2011). More than mere nudity is neces sary. Miller Instead, “the focus image must be genitals or image must be otherwise sexually suggestive.” Id. 524–25 (quotation omitted). Whether pictures reflect lascivious ex hibition “an intensely fact bound question,” *14 14 16 2643 Schuster , F.3d 806 2013), “the question is left factfinder to resolve, facts each case, ap plying common sense.” Russell , F.3d at 843. Awadi does not contest that photographs he took

were CV1’s pubic area. Instead, he that convic tions cannot stand because he contends that is difficult tell only from looking at pictures body part that is de picted.

Sufficient supports convictions here. does dispute that pictures are in fact CV1’s nude genital area, he acknowledged at he pulled back CV1’s clothing focus her genital area when taking pictures . The also heard he had previously shown interest in CV1—the two called each “Little Baby,” for example—and had prior interest in child pornography. Schuster , F.3d at 807. latter facts were relevant assessing images particular de termining images were “for purpose elicit ing sexual response viewer” “disclaimed intent create sexually suggestive image.” Russell , F.3d at 843; see Schuster , F.3d at 806. There sufficient for conclude photographs genital area purpose eliciting response him. Cf. Russell (explaining subjective intent motive creator photographer can be relevant consideration); Schuster 806.

That may be difficult some viewers tell pictures alone which part body depicted does preclude conviction here. pictures convicted making child pornography clearly show *15 CV1’s skin, does dispute pictures are CV1’s genital area. Cf. Levy Fed. App’x n.4 (2d 2010) (unpublished) (declining de cide a blurry image can support a § 2251(a) convic tion making child pornography). The Fourth Circuit has even affirmed § 2251(a) conviction when no visual depiction resulted because videotape stopped before victim un dressed, reasoning crime complete when de fendant induced victim engage sexually explicit con duct “for purpose of” making visual depiction. Buculei 327–28 We need consider scenario, though, pictures genital area were fact taken. justified ing used engage sexually explicit conduct purpose producing visual depiction conduct.

III. CONCLUSION judgment court AFFIRMED .

Notes

[1] points out appeal under Rule (“Similar Crimes Child Molestation Cases”), may be considered “on matter relevant,” which overrides propensity bar Rule Stokes 2013), Instruction may been more favorable than law required.