Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Vixen]

Whose braggadoccio braggadocio? Sollecito's or yours?

You made claims about what Sollecito had written. Claims which, had they been accurate, would have been of significant interest to any analysis of the case. But your claims were falsehoods - Sollecito never wrote those things. Does that make things clearer for you, and show you exactly "how it is a problem for you"?

Even Saddam had his avid supporters right to the end.

 

[LondonJohn]

I certainly do! For example, when I was in Israel, outside of the Eurotraveller zone, I am subscribed to, I made sure to set my phone to 'flight mode' as well as switch it off to be absolutely sure I didn't get whacked with charges of up to £15 per text incoming or outgoing. I knew a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient. The mast swivels round from side to side. This can go on for up to fifteen times, before it is registered as a failed SMS.

This is what happened to Raff. He switched off his phone, but his queue of a message from his Papa was still waiting to come through to him at 6:00-is next morning, as well as a notification of his call at 23:00 the night before.

Oops!

This is so extraordinarily wrong and ignorant that I can only assume its an attempt at humour?

But on the offchance that it's a genuine attempt at an explanation..... what actually happens when a text message etc. is sent to a specific phone ID is this: the text goes to the network operation centre of the recipient's home network. If the recipient is travelling abroad, his/her phone will have roamed onto another network in the country in which (s)he is travelling.

If that's the case, then the foreign network then looks to see whether this user's phone's ID is currently in a handshake relationship with any of that network's base stations (i.e. that the phone and the base station have recognised each other, and the base station knows therefore that the phone is registered to it at that point in time). If the foreign network sees that the user's phone is registered to a particular base station, then the home network will send the text message over to the foreign network, and the foreign network will send the text message to that particular base station, and the base station will transmit it wirelessly to the phone.

If, however, the foreign network cannot see that the phone is registered to any of its base stations, then the home network will simply store the text message on its own network servers until the phone next handshakes with a base station - whether that base station is one belonging to a foreign (roaming) network or the home network (i.e. after the user has travelled home).

The notion that "a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient" is arrantly ridiculous and 100% incorrect. As is the notion that "the mast swivels round from side to side. This can go on for up to fifteen times, before it is registered as a failed SMS."

Vixen's post is quite extraordinary in its failure of understanding - and is equally extraordinary in its bold statements of ignorant falsehoods as "truth". Hmmmmm.

 

[Bill Williams]

I cannot even be bothered to address the number of points here which are either distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentations or flat-out falsehoods. Perhaps someone else with the time and inclination would care to pull this list apart and expose it for what it really is....?

Not me. Eventually the game of whack-a-mole gets tiring.

 

[LondonJohn]

Even Saddam had his avid supporters right to the end.

What on Earth has this got to do with anything? Will you or will you not address/acknowledge the fact that you wrote explicit falsehoods in your (mis)representation of what Sollecito wrote?

 

[abaddon]

I certainly do! For example, when I was in Israel, outside of the Eurotraveller zone, I am subscribed to, I made sure to set my phone to 'flight mode' as well as switch it off to be absolutely sure I didn't get whacked with charges of up to £15 per text incoming or outgoing. I knew a text sent whilst a phone is switched off, simply bounces from one phone mast to another until it is picked up by the recipient. The mast swivels round from side to side. This can go on for up to fifteen times, before it is registered as a failed SMS.


This is what happened to Raff. He switched off his phone, but his queue of a message from his Papa was still waiting to come through to him at 6:00-is next morning, as well as a notification of his call at 23:00 the night before.

Oops!

So much wrongness in one short post. You don't know what flight mode is nor it's intended use. You think setting your phone to flight mode AND turning it off is some kind of double protection, equivalent to wearing two condoms. You think that an SMS bounces from mast to mast until you pick it up WTF? You think the mast swivels around and from side to side like a demented WW2 B-17 gunner.

None of that happened to Raff. Of that we can be certain. Why? because it happens to nobody, ever. Where do you think any pending SMS messages are stored? You think they are all bouncing around from swivel-eyed ambulatory mast to swivel-eyed ambulatory mast in the vain hope of maybe being at some nearby mast when you finally switch on your phone?

If you are paying £15 for roaming texts, change supplier, it's no more than 50p. Or use Skype or any other of dozens of cheaper services.

 

[Numbers]

You made three specific claims about Italian law - two claims which happen to have nothing to do with the contents of the sources you quote.

You asserted criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had a principle of "presumption of guilt" and had no principle of "presumption of innocence";
you asserted that criminal law prior to the 1988 reform had no standard "beyond reasonable doubt";
you asserted that the BARD standard was established in jurisprudence doctrine only in the 2000s.

All three claims above are false. They are completely false.

They are made up by 'Numbers' - such assertions are not in the quoted sources, they have nothing to do with theme - those theories are entirely invented. w
On the other hand, I have quoted Supreme Court sentences and scholar literature which explicitly refute Numbers' false theories.

Here are direct quotations from my references. Maybe those will help you understand better. I suggest reading the full references since they are too long to post.

Changes to introduce elements of the adversarial system:

The new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1988 represented a revolution, inspired by the Anglo-American adversarial system. The break with the past was clear: abolition of the investigating judge; preliminary inquiry conducted by both parties; adversarial presentation of evidence and cross-examination at trial; strong reduction of the judge's ability to introduce evidence (limited to the case of absolute necessity, such that he could not otherwise decide in favour of either party). Another primary difference is the strict separation of the trial phase from the preliminary investigation ....

The goal was to prevent judicial prejudice founded on knowledge of the investigations conducted by the prosecutor and by the police. ....

Source: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), Giulio Illuminati; 4 Wash U Glob Stud L Rev 567 - 581 (2005), p 571

Giulio Illuminati, Professor of Criminal Procedure, Head of the Department of Law, University of Bologna

Downloadable sources:
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law...s/vol4/iss3/5/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=827964

Regarding the reforms of 1988 and later:

With regard to the final decision {verdict}, the CPP instead has solely eliminated the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Code only established that the "judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity" {This is the wording of CPP Article 530.2}. It was not clear, however, which was the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform.

Despite this failure, since the Nineties {that is, the 1990's} the Supreme Court {CSC} has made reference to the beyond-any-reasonable-doubt standard (BARD): firstly to differentiate the standard required for conviction from that established to adopt a precautionary measure; then to clarify the evidentiary standard with regard to the issue of medical responsibility. This was the situation until, in a historic decision taken by the Joint Chambers in 2002, the BARD standard was declared to be fundamental as standard of proof for conviction. Hundreds of decisions followed which used the formula in the way indicated by the Joint Chambers. {This Joint Chambers ruling constitutes a guidance, not a precedent, to the courts.}

In 2006 Law no. 46 embodied this evolution and changed Article 533, par. 1, by introducing a norm whereby "the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt". This change has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial {adversarial} viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system.

Source:
Mitja Gialuz, The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide, p. 37 - 38, in:
Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014

Mitja Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure, University of Trieste.

Note that contrary to a claim of an anonymous poster here, Professor Gialuz makes the statement that the inquisitorial system used "a presumption of guilt" as a standard. It is not my "claim".

 

[Numbers]

The Italian judicial system is intended by law - the Italian Constitution - to be fundamentally an adversarial system, but it retains some features of the previous inquisitional system, for example, the fast-track trial.

Here is the clause of the Italian Constitution calling for adversarial trials:

Art. 111
Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position. ....
Source: https://www.senato.it/3801
Link to Constitution of the Italian Republic PDF

 

[Diocletus]

The DNA on the Knife was found through a procedure as for art. 360, indicente probatorio, an unrepeatable event valid as court assessment. Defence experts were summoned, Prof. Potenza attended and was able to document whatever he wanted to, to do it the way he preferred or to decide whether to do it or not.

Well . . . except for the redo (plate no. 365bis) of the original amplification plate (plate no. 365).

 

[christianahannah]

I delay the answer to this because the question is complex.

First I think that I have to mention a context datum.
In 2016 Italy has sunk to the 77° place in freedom of press ranking.
The picture of mainstream media in Italy is now basically catastrophic.
To make an example: a huge trial taking place in Rome has just ended three days ago. It was a trial against a number of South American militaries and government officers who committed atrocities, they killed tortured and made people disappear during the "Condor Operation", an international action notoriously organized by Kissinger, Nixon and the CIA.
The defendants were from Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile. The trial was about the murder of 23 Italian citizens.

The trial ended, 9 defendants were convicted (the masterminds) while 19 were acquitted (the executors), despire crushing evidence, and despite they even admitted and claimed their actions. The reasons why executors were acquitted is not the object of my point (anyway, acquitttals are the scandal of Italian justice system, not wrongful convictions).
The trial is anyway important because - contrarily to LJ's theories - the Italian justice system places a lot of importance on "judicial truth", which is seen as historic achievement. The trial acknowledges the "Condor Operation" as an organized crime and its masterminds.
My point is about the media. Did the Italian television talk about the trial and its conclusion? No. What did they say? Nothing.

The television did not say a word about the Rome trial.
Yet, the consuls of South American countries were there and they cheered to the convictions.
The Italian mainstream television did not report about this international event. The main newspapers reported a page. But they had not reported anything about the trial.

This is the context I am talking from.
I don't know if you underdstaand Italian, I link you this video: Marco Gregoretti is a Journalist who used to write on Il Corriere della Sera & Il Messaggero. In this video he reads snippets of the 2015 Meredith Kercher verdict. His point is basically "why journalist don't report about it?" and says "by reading I can understand why nobody wants to talk about this". By the end what he says "you journalists are cowards", "we put on our gag ourselves", "everybody has a job, everybody has a family".
Journalists don't like to talk about this story. By now at least.
And everybody knows.

To the general publis, the 2015 verdict just says "they are guilty, but they made too many mistakes in the investigation, so we had to release them". This is the common understanding. On a superficial level.
But besides this, and below a first superficial phrase, everyone believes corruption and international maneuver.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NOYOHPtAyM

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand the subject can be complicated especially when explaining one culture to another culture.

When you say freedom of the press is ranking low in Italy is this a self imposed ranking by journalists (they become complacent, lazy, report superficial stories which are easier to compose and involve less work, etc.) or do they fear government interference in their reporting and possibly litigation or jail?

How do the public view the press (Italian)? Do they look to it to investigate and expose corruption from whoever or wherever it may occur? Or do the public view the press with distrust?

I do believe in this judicial truth that the Italian justice strives towards. It is just the process takes so long that the truth sometimes is a casualty (i.e. the Meredith trial, 8 years is a long time to reach a final conclusion and that conclusion is anything but clear as to innocence or guilt with the different verdicts).

And as to the Italian press reporting on corruption in the judiciary - can and do they? Are there repercussions for them doing so or do they lack the ambition for wanting to report? Because if a journalist knows there is more to the truth beyond a superficial level why wouldn't they want to investigate and report that even if it doesn't change the outcome?

 

[Machiavelli]

It's in thread-disputes such as these between you and Numbers that the rest of us look to third parties to see who is right.

I must admit the real problem with your position, Machiavelli, is that between you and the YouTuber you cite, all of Italian journalism is now cowed into silence in exposing the massive judicial fraud you claim is at the heart of this case.

Why then does it even matter this dispute between you and Numbers? There's a more fundamental problem with Italy's judiciary, and only two people in the whole country have the courage to expose it - with what you claim as the Hellmann fraud of 2011 as the canary in the mine.

Has this YouTuber been arrested by the perpetrators of this massive fraud? I mean, your claim is that the fraud can be seen, obviously, simply by reading a few lines (out of context) of the M/B report.

It's right there for all to read. Yet the subsequent Boninsegna court, in acquitting Knox of defamation against the police, continues the fraud by referring to the 2015 ISC action as an "absolution". Boninsegna, then, must be a party to the fraud.

I tend to agree with you. Not only is Italian journalism now quiet about all this, even the YouTuber seems to have gone dark.

Dark times in Italy. Someone should take this to a Florence courtroom to begin the process of righting this massive fraud.

No, Bill. I am saying the verdict says, clearly, Knox was in the murder room when Meredith was killed, and does not allow for any other interpretation of this.
I am also saying that the pro-Knox advocates like you appear to be ready to work hard to any extend to deny this, deflecting on anything else, in order not to admit that the verdict says the things it actually says.

And no, Bill, it is not a few lines. It is actually several paragraphs. Btw the verdict also states that it is incontrovertible that Knox was killed by more than one person. Also because - B/M agree with that - the autopsy findings confirm it would have been mechanically imosspible for a single attacker to commit that murder in that fashion (B/M point out their agreement with lower courts on this finding).

It says Knox washed her hands from Meredith's blood - and the only reason why this is not damning according to B/M verdict, is that this could *also* mean that she did that only to steer away the investigation from someone else (or herself) but not necessarily that she actively took part to the killing action.

And no, Bill, it is not "out of context" - albeit the larger "context" of the whole B/M text is indeed quite inconsistent itself on several aspects - the context actually is a text in which B/M are saying they agree with the lower courts that Knox actually heared Meredith's harrowing scream and she covered her ears. But independently from whatever context, the B/M statements saying that it is a proven fact Knox was on the scene of crime (that are still in the context when she heared the scream) do not allow themselves any other interpretation even if taken alone: those statement do NOT attribute such finding of a proven fact to the PoV of any other court - that would be impossible within the grammar rules of Italian language; to atttribute those findings to a PoV different from the authors of the text it would have required a different verbal tense and a different phrase structure with a different subject.

The B/M verdcit also quite manifestly say Knox is guilty of calunnia, that any ECHR finding would be irrelevant to the effect of her guilt, and re-affirms the previous findings on the point about that her calunnia was a behaviour protracted over time.

All other quotes (like pointing out a word "alleged" that pops up in the English translation in other points) do not disprove and do not change anything of the "context". Claims of the contrary are from people who don't really have any knowledge of the language, they may rely on their own wishful thinking trying to guess the spirit of some approximate translation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Here are direct quotations from my references. Maybe those will help you understand better. I suggest reading the full references since they are too long to post.
(....)

You made the three claims that I mentioned.

Your claims are false.
I have disproven your theories by quoting Supreme Court verdicts and two different essays.

Just admit you make false claims, it'll be quicker.

 

[TruthCalls]

The autodownload of Naruto is well documented in court records. Do read the court records instead of relying on the Friends of Amanda party line.

Nope, sorry, that misdirection isn't going to fly here. I rely on my own research. I have been reading court documents for over six years. In response to this comment of yours I went back and reviewed all relevant court documentation, conceding that it was possible I somehow missed this. But all this did was confirm this never was mentioned.

If it is so well documented then I'm sure you can provide a link to such documentation, or tell me who testified to this, during what proceeding and on what date.

And, given your penchant to move goalposts around, let's be clear here - by AUTODOWNLOAD you mean the cartoon was downloaded by some means of automation, presumably by the computer itself, and NOT by Raffaele. Correct?

 

[TruthCalls]

Why would Raff tell police investigating a murder, rape and mise en scene burglary what he was doing on Halloween, when it is obvious they were asking him about his girlfriend's roommate murder on the night after?

He has never retracted this statement - if indeed, as you and LoJo claim was just an error - and in fact, got Bongiorno to call a press conference jsut before the Nencini appeal to reiterate Raff could not vouch for Amanda's movements on the night of the crime.

Forget about my syntax - concentrate on the lies of the kids.

Obvious misdirection on your part. Stick to the facts. The recollection Raffaele gave to the police could not possibly have occurred the night of the murder. That is the ONLY thing that matters. The statement, however it was obtained, and for whatever purpose, does not in any way impugn their alibi since it's proven impossible to represent events from the evening of the murder. Since the recollection DOES match perfectly events from the evening of Halloween it is reasonable to conclude this is what Raffaele is talking about. That it's proven Raffaele was confused on dates, asked for a calendar and was denied further supports this. But at the end of the day it's irrelevant since the events are provably not from the night of the murder.

 

[Numbers]

You made the three claims that I mentioned.

Your claims are false.
I have disproven your theories by quoting Supreme Court verdicts and two different essays.

Just admit you make false claims, it'll be quicker.

I produced the exact texts of the experts on Italian law - Professors of Criminal Procedure at Italian universities - which back up what I wrote in my posts.

You are distorting my summaries by including words that I did not write. Then you criticize the distorted statements. That is an unfair criticism.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

RE: Raf's private Facebook page.

How sure are we it was actually Raffaele writing those words? It is not exactly difficult to create a Facebook profile under someone else's name. Particularly since it is "private" meaning not many will see it.

Regardless of Raf's character, it would seem extremely unusual for him to joke around in such a tasteless manner. He has spent 9 years fighting this. Why would he risk his reputation like this, even if he didn't care about the ethics of joking in a crass manner?

Alternatively we know there is a group of highly mentally ill narcissistic sociopaths devoted to ruining the lives and smearing the reputations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito. They are highly dedicated, crazy, and growing increasingly desperate to be proven "right", since time after time they have been proven wrong and crazy since the Italian Supreme Court ruling....

Again, how do we know this "private Facebook page" is actually Raffaele? Do we have proof?

 

[Bill Williams]

Nope, sorry, that misdirection isn't going to fly here. I rely on my own research. I have been reading court documents for over six years. In response to this comment of yours I went back and reviewed all relevant court documentation, conceding that it was possible I somehow missed this. But all this did was confirm this never was mentioned.

If it is so well documented then I'm sure you can provide a link to such documentation, or tell me who testified to this, during what proceeding and on what date.

And, given your penchant to move goalposts around, let's be clear here - by AUTODOWNLOAD you mean the cartoon was downloaded by some means of automation, presumably by the computer itself, and NOT by Raffaele. Correct?

Re: the highlighted part.

Either there will be no link provided (probably because the claim was false to begin with), or:

The provided link will deal with another topic all together (probably because the claim was false to begin with), or:

There'll be a retraction claiming that they'd made a typo (probably because the claim was false to begin with).

 

[Diocletus]

You made the three claims that I mentioned.

Your claims are false.
I have disproven your theories by quoting Supreme Court verdicts and two different essays.

Just admit you make false claims, it'll be quicker.

But the thing is, you're always wrong about everything. For example, Knox is sitting at home in Seattle as a famous exonoree, with the ECtHR about to bring down the hammer on Italy.

 

[Bill Williams]

RE: Raf's private Facebook page.

How sure are we it was actually Raffaele writing those words? It is not exactly difficult to create a Facebook profile under someone else's name. Particularly since it is "private" meaning not many will see it.

Regardless of Raf's character, it would seem extremely unusual for him to joke around in such a tasteless manner. He has spent 9 years fighting this. Why would he risk his reputation like this, even if he didn't care about the ethics of joking in a crass manner?

Alternatively we know there is a group of highly mentally ill narcissistic sociopaths devoted to ruining the lives and smearing the reputations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito. They are highly dedicated, crazy, and growing increasingly desperate to be proven "right", since time after time they have been proven wrong and crazy since the Italian Supreme Court ruling....

Again, how do we know this "private Facebook page" is actually Raffaele? Do we have proof?

While by no means defending the behaviour, Raffaele has admitted it. It seems there is in some cultures among some in that culture who engage in rather dark humour, to the point of it being offensive. For heaven's sake, the USA just elected a man president because there's a counter-reaction to "politically correct language" so who knows, maybe the FB page doesn't offend all.

Here many years ago there was a case where a secretly taped jailhouse conversion had a man seemingly confessing to his wife's murder. At trial, the defence called a cultural anthropologist - the conversation had been in an Eastern European language, and in some regions of the country some of the men engage in that sort of offensive talk; meaning it as dark humour. The anthropologist didn't defend the practise, but described it well.....

I find the practice offensive, rather than culturally relative. I find the words spoken by those who participate in it, equally offensive. There's no two ways around it.

It's his life, and he is innocent, and obviously innocent of the horrible events of Nov 1/2, 2007. As unfair as the consequences of that are - attacks by the likes of Machiavelli, Briars, and Vixen - that is the new reality of one's life. He certainly does not need a lecture from me about all of this.....

....... however......

 

[Vixen]

RE: Raf's private Facebook page.

How sure are we it was actually Raffaele writing those words? It is not exactly difficult to create a Facebook profile under someone else's name. Particularly since it is "private" meaning not many will see it.

Regardless of Raf's character, it would seem extremely unusual for him to joke around in such a tasteless manner. He has spent 9 years fighting this. Why would he risk his reputation like this, even if he didn't care about the ethics of joking in a crass manner?

Alternatively we know there is a group of highly mentally ill narcissistic sociopaths devoted to ruining the lives and smearing the reputations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito. They are highly dedicated, crazy, and growing increasingly desperate to be proven "right", since time after time they have been proven wrong and crazy since the Italian Supreme Court ruling....

Again, how do we know this "private Facebook page" is actually Raffaele? Do we have proof?

How do we know? HE HAS ADMITTED IT.

 

[TruthCalls]

yes, it is now a proven fact that Amanda Knox was on the murder scene when Meredith was killed, that Meredith was killed by multiple persons (and Guede was not the one holding the knife) and Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood.
It is also proven that she falsely accused an innocent voluntarily and that false accusation was a prolonged behaviour, and any alleged violation would be irrelevant to the evidence on the point.

It is also obvious that the trial was annulled for political reasons, just like the Andreotti trial, by a judge who was a former politician (and formerly investigated, but "saved"), and was annulled because, after the corruption with a political imprimatur of the Hellmann trial, that would have created a situation in which Sollecito would be the only person who goes to jail (while USA would refuse to extradite Knox), a situation obviously non sustainable on the international leval because in that situation those who "know" would blackmail and destabilize too many people.

So what Mach is claiming as "proven facts" are;

o Amanda Knox was on the murder scene when Meredith was killed
o Meredith was killed by multiple persons
o Guede was not the one holding the knife
o Knox washed her hands of Meredith's blood

IMO, if these were truly proven facts I would find them rather damning, but upon closer inspection of the evidence behind these facts it becomes obvious these are claims without merit and not proven facts. Specifically;

o Amanda's presence at the cottage when Meredith is murdered is based entirely on a signed statement that Amanda claims was coerced. Amanda retracts the statement hours later. The statement is provably false since we know that Lumumba was not there. This is the ONLY evidence cited by M/B. An illegally obtained, false statement that was subsequently retracted is hardly PROOF of her presence.

o M/B accepts the finding of the lower courts that multiple persons were involved. But what did those lower courts base their opinion on? Certainly not the testimony of seven experts who, with only one exception, testified that there was no evidence to prove more than one attacker. In fact, there is no evidence to 'prove' this 'fact', it's just an opinion of the court that is based on circumstantial evidence but which flies in the face of expert testimony.

o This "fact" depends on the presumption that the kitchen knife was the weapon that delivered the fatal wound. But there is overwhelming evidence that proves that the kitchen knife did not make the wound and, more importantly, was not involved in the crime.

o There is NO evidence to support this conclusion. It is based on the fact that Amanda's DNA is found in the sample of Meredith's blood taken from the basin. Of course is it accepted by ALL of the courts that Amanda's DNA should be on the basin and given the broad 'scrubbing' method used by the forensic team when collecting this sample it would have been virtually impossible to not collect Amanda's DNA in the process.

For anyone to claim any of these four "facts" are proven suggests an incredible degree of bias and and complete suspension of critical thought. Not surprisingly we only see this coming from a handful of obsessive PGP.