I believe I understand the holdings in such cases as Finley, 917 S.W.2d at 125, that "if the State places in evidence only part of a defendant's confession, the defendant may as a general rule introduce the deleted parts of the confession". But, I have four questions. Because of this rule does anyone actually offer a redacted copy of a written confession first as you are clearly permitted to do? See Reese, 772 S.W.2d at 203. If so, do you ever try to argue portions of the confession offered by the defendant are not "on the same subject" or are not "necessary to make [the part the State offered] fully understood"? Because of concern that "to admit such self-serving hearsay into evidence would allow any defendant to place his version of the facts before the jury without being subject to cross examination" (something mentioned in Jones, 963 S.W.2d at 182), has anyone argued that the prosecutor should then be entitled to comment in argument to the jury about the fact that they heard from the defendant without the benefit of any cross-examination? It does not seem to me that a Defendant should have the benefit of Rules 106 and 107 without the State at least being able to point out it had no right to impeach the Defendant's hearsay. Finally, I recently had an assault case where we offered a redacted confession and then when the Defendant offered the entire thing (including the part that supported a defense of third person argument), we raised a hearsay objection. The Court promptly admitted the entire confession. Does not the Defendant at least have to articulate a claim under Rule 107 for this ruling to be proper? See Kroopf, 970 S.W.2d at 629.