that opinion, there simply was no such other evidence. 36 M.J. at 881. There is, nevertheless, a line of cases interpreting and applying this aspect of the residual exception, but those decisions, limiting the use of the residual exception because of other, more probative evidence, do not involve child sexual abuse or are otherwise factually dissimilar to the present case. In United States v. Guaglione, 27 M.J. 268 (C.M.A.1988), the Court of Military Appeals held that the pretrial statements of two co-actors, who testified in court inconsistently with those statements, were not admissible as substantive evidence under the residual clause against an officer charged with fraternization with enlisted personnel and use of marijuana partly because the five testimony of another witness 1) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brown, 25 M.J. 867
holding ehildvictims testimony at pretrial investigation admissible under residual exception in addition to doctors testimony under medical treatment exception holding statement by childvictim to teachers aide admissible under residual exception in addition to statements to school nurse and pediatrician under medical treatment exception holding multiple statements by childvictim and childs mother admissible under residual exception holding heroin overdose victims statement to police identifying her source admissible under residual exception in addition to admission by accused that he had supplied victim holding childvictims statement to babysitter admissible un der residual exception in addition to statement to physician under medical treatment exception