the girls’ pornography- Even had Ellis requested the trial court to revisit its rule of completeness determination regarding the pornography discussion, Saxton’s testimony about what V.W. reported to her did not involve a statement by Ellis, and thus did not implicate the rule of completeness. See William A. Schroeder, 22 Missouri Practice, Missouri Evidence, section 106:1 (4th ed. 2012) (noting that the rule of completeness is implicated “when one party introduces evidence of a part of a writing, conversation, statement, or deposition, an opponent has a right to introduce evidence of, or inquire into, other relevant parts of that writing, conversation, statement, recorded statement, or deposition”) (emphasis added); see also State v. Yole, 136 S.W.3d 175, 179 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (<HOLDING>) (citing State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 103
holding that accusers 911 call initial statement to police upon their arrival at the crime scene and statements made to police a short time later were testimonial holding that statement to police made thirtysix hours after a different statement to police was not part of one confession and not admissible under the rule of completeness holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident