specially concurring.
I concur that this conviction should be affirmed. However, I believe the better statement concerning closing argument by the prosecutor provides that the prosecutor is entitled to draw reasonable inferences and make reasonable comments on the interpretations of the evidence. This is the standard most recently utilized by this Court in its decisions on the issue of prose-cutorial conduct. Cobbs v. State, 629 P.2d 368 (Okl.Cr.1981); Watt v. City of Oklahoma City, 628 P.2d 371 (Okl.Cr.1981); and Reeves v. State, 601 P.2d 113 (Okl.Cr.1979). The standard of “liberal freedom of speech” and “wide range of argument” implies to many prosecutors that the door is left wide-open concerning closing argument.