Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

Maybe the little green frog would have been better than a disgraced Superior Court Judge whose previous ill advised letter writing endeavors on behalf of his neighbors and his daughter's classmate earned him formal charges and professional censure from the Commission of Judicial Conduct State of Washington.

He violated Canons 1, 2(A), and 2(B).
In general, that means Judge Heavey lent the prestige of his judicial office to advance his own private interests, and possibly those of others..

Did the Little Green Frog ever do something as stupid as that.

ETA:
Personally, the 'Little green Frog' would also be preferable to another of the letter's signers, Ms Bremner, Esq.
Her most recent actions and widely criticized reactions to her latest unlawful acts and judicial punishments are easily accessed by the host of rabid Google aficianados here

If Judge Heavey believed Amanda was guilty he would have your praise. Let's be honest here. Judge Heavey made a mistake, a very minor one. He is still Judge Heavey after all.

I think the signature of a judge is slightly more impressive than the signature of a puppet. We are all entitled to our opinion of course.

Why not use the normal cut and paste rant? Something like: "Judge Heavey has been banned from every courthouse in America and every office other than his own". That sounds more like your point of view doesn't it?

 

[LondonJohn]

May I suggest that :

1) You read the full "Statement of Charges" before embarrassing yourself further with the uncharacteristically silly argument and summary you cite. That one liner summary does little other than remind me of IIP's similarly deliberately misleading 'summaries' of the Appeals documents....
www.cjc.state.wa.us/Case Material/.../5975 Heavey SOC.pdf

2) You educate yourself by asking any Lawyer much less any sitting Superior Court Judge how 'vile' (and rare) professional censures/admonishments really are
While you have them on the line, also ask whether "changing the printer's ink" is acceptable/usual punishment.

3) You in the future try not to deliberately ignore how much less honorable (vile) the other Knox letter signer, Ms Bremner's latest offenses also were.
She was sentenced to jail for her actions, (where there are no printers to re-ink as you suggest for adequate punishment for documented professional misconduct.
Based on your frequent insightful posts, I am sure you recall all that, but now *conveniently* choose to ignore in your short, deliberately fact deficient, 'argument' above.

Nice (dead) link you provided there, pilot.

If you read the CJC's judgement and penalty on this matter, as linked to properly here:

http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Case Material/2010/5975 Heavey Final Stip.pdf

you'll see that

1) Heavey reported his behaviour to the CJC himself - and it appears that this was the first the CJC knew about it.

2) The sanction applied was that they basically told him not to do the same thing again. As opposed to, say, oh I don't know, a provisional criminal conviction and associated 16-month prison sentence*, that sort of thing.....

* Subject to the final appeal, of course

 

[LondonJohn]

Nice snip there halides1

Actually I could have won a bet that you would have come back with the comment Dalla Vedova made to a journo outside the courtroom recently.There is no motion in the appeal bar a rehash of the timeliness issue that was discussed months ago. So w.r.t. Italian discovery laws D V is incompetent, just forgot to file or is there another option ?

So can we take it that we will hear no more of this FSA or whatever nonsense & that it will be consigned to the same dump as 'Wasn't sure if she went out when he was asleep' , 'The cops brought up PL's name' and all the other discredited tropes ?

There's another option. It concerns Hellmann's prompt agreement to order a full independent review of all the DNA evidence, including full discovery of all the source data (and we all saw how hard it was for the court to prise this information from Stefanoni's grasp....)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

do the right thing

halides1

Your mendacious argument does you or JREF no credit.

You wont lie directly to your president (very patriotic) merely hedging [ Possibility ] but refuse to show JREF posters the same courtesy.

Scene set in a curved office.

h1: ........ blah blah ..........Possibility.....

Tall Black Guy : What, was the motion filed or not. This is a legal issue not bar talk.

h1 : Can you prove it wasn't .....blah blah

TBG : Get outta here.



EDT It is also an argument made here 6 months ago by an Italian speaker and has aged just fine Unless you are claiming a motion was lodged since, are you ?

platonov,

This is the second time in the course of a very few days that you have referred to my arguments as mendacious. I suggest that you either back up this claim or withdraw it. For the first time in a long time, I am considering reporting one or more posts to the moderators on the basis of a possible violation of the membership agreement.

It is your claim that any particular motion was not filed, and you should back it up or withdraw it, with apologies all around. I have already given my reasons why I have concluded that the forensic files were never released. If the Italian speaker to whom you refer is Machiavelli, then your claim is risible. Machiavelli violated the membership agreement here, and he has been making absurd arguments at IIP in the last few months.

Your use of the phrase "tall black guy" in the middle of this discussion is a not too subtle suggestion that some of Amanda's supporters are racist. That tiresome bit of nonsense was rebutted long ago in one of the ancillary Knox/Sollecito threads. It is more evidence of the paucity of your arguments on the actual facts of the case. I respectfully suggest you give up for today before you do yourself and your cause any more harm.

 

[Kaosium]

May I suggest that :

1) You read the full "Statement of Charges" before embarrassing yourself further with the uncharacteristically silly argument and summary you cite. That one liner summary does little other than remind me of IIP's similarly deliberately misleading 'summaries' of the Appeals documents....
www.cjc.state.wa.us/Case Material/.../5975 Heavey SOC.pdf

Your link gives me the following 'statement of charges:'

"We're sorry, but the requested URL does not exist."

Would that suggest that the toner cartridge has been filled? As a 'first offender' it has been wiped from his 'record?'

2) You educate yourself by asking any Lawyer much less any sitting Superior Court Judge how 'vile' (and rare) professional censures/admonishments really are
While you have them on the line, also ask whether "changing the printer's ink" is acceptable/usual punishment.

Pilot, I am no lawyer, but I do know something about politically motivated 'charges.' Nothing Judge Heavey did by using his stationary to write to the court in Perugia could have any any way constituted an abuse of office, being as there's no power or sway the circuit court of whatever in Seattle could have over anything done in Italy. He had every right to write that letter, some simply think he should have done it on different paper, that's all.

I would be more interested in just why this 'charge' was brought against him. I'd like to know if perhaps an e-mail inbox was bombarded and someone got the impression there was a huge upwelling of outrage at support of Amanda Knox. I think some scrutiny should be brought to bear on whoever decided to actually bring this up, and their judgment and perception should be questioned. I think perhaps that is a far more interesting question than whether the Judge should have used different paper for his letter.

I think perhaps in the end the good judge's 'martyrdom' will be to his benefit and the person or persons responsible for it face nothing but 'shame, eternal shame.' Who was it that beat their chests over this ridiculous 'issue' and caused a ruckus over this? I'd like a name or names, please. Seriously.

3) You in the future try not to deliberately ignore how much less honorable (vile) the other Knox letter signer, Ms Bremner's latest offenses also were.
She was sentenced to jail for her actions, (where there are no printers to re-ink as you suggest for adequate punishment for documented professional misconduct.
Based on your frequent insightful posts, I am sure you recall all that, but now *conveniently* choose to ignore in your short, deliberately fact deficient, 'argument' above.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about, and frankly I don't care. A better testament to her character and wisdom is that she saw way back that this was an obvious railroading and cared enough to do something about it. There are no 'unspotted soldiers' in any undertaking.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a day late and a dollar short is not good enough

There is no motion in the appeal bar a rehash of the timeliness issue that was discussed months ago.

platonov,

I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but Raffaele's appeal notes that the problem of lack of discovery goes back to 2008. If by any chance you are making a "better late than never" argument, to the effect that information was released (but not in a timely fashion), then your argument is only slightly less nonsensical. One can find an instance in which a retrial was granted to a defendant on the basis of the negative results of a presumptive blood test that was released in a tardy fashion to the defense.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think the proper channel would be the State Department personally, I do believe this should be looked into though. The consulate in Italy does not exist for American government officials to enjoy fine wine, food and maybe even 'Bunga-Bunga' parties.

You'd be surprised. My father worked for a British Embassy in the Middle East in the 1990's, and as far as I could tell the Embassy fulfilled virtually no useful function at all

But in a more serious tone, national embassies and consulates have wide-ranging remits. These include promotion of trade between the two countries, day-to-day managementr of diplomatic relations between the countries, and military cooperation. And the embassies and consulates also have a role to play in assisting their countries' citizens when they are travelling or residing in the host country. This assistance usually involves helping people who have lost documents, been robbed, or who need medical care (or even medical evacuation back to the home country). You'd be astonished how busy a consulate can get simply re-issuing loast/stolen passports or arranging for emergency funds or medical assistance.

And embassies/consulates also liaise and monitor when their citizens are accused of criminal activity or civil suits in the host country. But in this area, the role of the embassy/consulate is usually far less "hands-on" - owing to the need not to be seen interfering in the host country's judicial processes. As I've outlined before, their role is usually limited to ensuring that the citizen is being treated in accordance with basic human rights, and that they have been given the right to proper legal representation. The reciprocal agreements whereby embassy/consular officials are permitted to meet with their citizens accused of crimes is enshrined in international diplomacy throughout most of the world - it's a safeguard to ensure that nothing really egregious occurs, and it's usually no more than a formality in westernised countries.

It's also worth restating that even if embassy/consular officials find extreme irregularities in the judicial proocesses applied to one of their citizens, they have no power to do anything other than note it. The only exception to this would be if the basic human or legal rights of the citizen are being violated, in which case the embassy/consular officials can seek to enforce international law.

In Knox's case, my view is that the consular officials who visited her might have understood that certain areas of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures were likely not followed correctly. But the Italian justice system is supposed to have safeguards in place to correct such malpractice - that's why there's a code in the first place, after all. So I don't believe that anyone would have wanted to bring these matters up - even in supposedly confidential cables back to Washington - unless or until the Italian justice system failed to address them itself.

 

[Kaosium]

halides1

Your mendacious argument does you or JREF no credit.

You wont lie directly to your president (very patriotic) merely hedging [ Possibility ] but refuse to show JREF posters the same courtesy.

Scene set in a curved office.

h1: ........ blah blah ..........Possibility.....

Tall Black Guy : What, was the motion filed or not. This is a legal issue not bar talk.

h1 : Can you prove it wasn't .....blah blah

TBG : Get outta here.



EDT It is also an argument made here 6 months ago by an Italian speaker and has aged just fine Unless you are claiming a motion was lodged since, are you ?

Platonov are you completely unaware that Judge Hellmann told Stafanoni to cough up the rest of her files and that the independent experts were non-plussed by her reticence and had to ask for another forty days to complete their analysis?

Halides communicated with the people in question and what they wanted and why, you'd have to say he's been entirely consistent and adamant about this from the beginning. He's been proven right, that there's some still pretending he's wrong should at least start the process of your realizing what I've told you a dozen or more times: you have everything backwards.

 

[platonov]

The burden of proof

platonov,

This is the second time in the course of a very few days that you have referred to my arguments as mendacious. I suggest that you either back up this claim or withdraw it. For the first time in a long time, I am considering reporting one or more posts to the moderators on the basis of a possible violation of the membership agreement.

It is your claim that any particular motion was not filed, and you should back it up or withdraw it, with apologies all around. I have already given my reasons why I have concluded that the forensic files were never released. If the Italian speaker to whom you refer is Machiavelli, then your claim is risible. Machiavelli violated the membership agreement here, and he has been making absurd arguments at IIP in the last few months.

Your use of the phrase "tall black guy" in the middle of this discussion is a not too subtle suggestion that some of Amanda's supporters are racist. That tiresome bit of nonsense was rebutted long ago in one of the ancillary Knox/Sollecito threads. It is more evidence of the paucity of your arguments on the actual facts of the case. I respectfully suggest you give up for today before you do yourself and your cause any more harm.

You now claim a motion was filed, do you ????? [despite the fact that just 2 hours ago you used the word possibility] I say it wasn't for reasons that were discussed here at the end of 2010.
Now you want me to prove the non existence of something that doesn't exist.

That's not how it works here.

You made the claim - now back it up.
We both know you cant so why persist with this.

 

[katy_did]

There is no motion in the appeal bar a rehash of the timeliness issue that was discussed months ago. So w.r.t. Italian discovery laws D V is incompetent, just forgot to file or is there another option ?

Do we know that this particular point could've been addressed in the appeal document, bearing in mind that they'd have needed to link it to a specific legal argument?

With the 'timeliness issue' (a tactful way of referring to it ), the reason the defence objected was because Stefanoni messed up in court and gave away the fact that she had information the defence didn't. If she hadn't done that, the defence would never have objected and asked for the trial to be declared null/the forensic results declared unusable - they'd have had no legal grounds for doing so. In other words, it's not the missing information itself that they were objecting to, but rather the fact information was withheld from them. The fact the defence didn't file a motion prior to Stefanoni's stuff-up asking for the amount of DNA on the bra clasp to be disclosed doesn't mean they already had that information, does it?

I don't think the grounds for objecting to the lack of raw data files would have been as strong (or even a legal point at all) - Stefanoni could have just said the defence had all the information she did, and they couldn't prove any different.

One way or another, it's clear that the defence weren't given the raw data, since the independent experts didn't have access to it either initially. Whether the defence asked for it or not, the fact they didn't have it is pretty much unarguable now, isn't it...?

 

[michellesings]

As surprising as you might find it, I agree with you on both points. He is incorrect in his assertion that Knox (and Sollecito) currently stands convicted: they are not considered convicted until and unless a) they are found guilty in the first appeal trial, and b) the verdicts of both the original trial and the first appeal are upheld in law by the Supreme Court. And if all the above transpires, it is only after the Supreme Court hearing and judgement that they will be considered convicted and start their sentences*.

But on the wider issue of the letter itself, I think it's pointless grandstanding by Judge Heavey and the other signatories. Firstly, there is..... ooh about a 0.001% chance that Obama will ever even get to hear that this letter was sent to him - let alone actually read it himself. Secondly, even if he did read it (or, far more likely, it was passed to a junior official in the White House to deal with), nothing will be done: the letter does not even specify what action Heavey et al want to be taken anyway, apart from Obama "looking into it".

Thirdly, the issues raised in the letter are primarily for the Italian authorities to deal with (apart from the areas where it is alleged that the US Embassy/Consulate failed in its duty of care). The US State Department (and far less the Office of the President) has no business at all intervening. If various articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure were breached by law enforcement during the investigation, then these are issues to be addressed by the Italian courts (chiefly the Supreme Court). The US has no business telling the judiciary of a sovereign nation (a friendly one and a NATO ally) how to operate. If mistakes have been made, it's entirely up to the Italian system to put them right. That's simply the way it works. Countries just do not meddle in the internal workings of another sovereign nation's government (judiciary is a branch of government), even if one of their citizens is involved**.

In short, I think the letter was ill-judged, ill-conceived and pointless (in that its authors have no hope whatsoever of action being taken on its account). The authors of the letter should - in my view - have sat tight and waited for the justice process in Perugia to run its course. And if Knox and Sollecito are found guilty in the first appeal, the Supreme Court in Rome will most likely want to address some of the points raised in the letter anyhow. But in that context, it's worth noting that the Supreme Court already ruled that Knox's 1.45am and 5.45am statements were both inadmissible for exactly the reasons given in this letter (although I believe the Supreme Court would be extremely interested in discussing how the judicial panel got to hear these statements anyhow, thanks to the concurrent Lumumba slander trial).

Just my opinion...


* They are currently actually on remand due to possibility of flight risk and/or risk of re-offending. They are not in prison serving the sentences handed down by the first court, although any final sentence they might be given will allow credit for the 3.5-years-plus that they have already spent in prison.

** Unless it's the US intervening in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, of course....

These kids are grateful to be there regardless of the additional time because the country in investigating their own corruption in Perugia. This will help exonerate. I admire what this judge has done. He's taken risk in full belief of possible change. It's the grass roots effort that most definitely helped in educating the people and who has instigated true change. One tiny person can end up making a difference. No, nothing is a sure thing. Regardless, I respectfully disagree.

 

[platonov]

Do we know that this particular point could've been addressed in the appeal document, bearing in mind that they'd have needed to link it to a specific legal argument?

With the 'timeliness issue' (a tactful way of referring to it ), the reason the defence objected was because Stefanoni messed up in court and gave away the fact that she had information the defence didn't. If she hadn't done that, the defence would never have objected and asked for the trial to be declared null/the forensic results declared unusable - they'd have had no legal grounds for doing so. In other words, it's not the missing information itself that they were objecting to, but rather the fact information was withheld from them. The fact the defence didn't file a motion prior to Stefanoni's stuff-up asking for the amount of DNA on the bra clasp to be disclosed doesn't mean they already had that information, does it?

I don't think the grounds for objecting to the lack of raw data files would have been as strong (or even a legal point at all) - Stefanoni could have just said the defence had all the information she did, and they couldn't prove any different.

One way or another, it's clear that the defence weren't given the raw data, since the independent experts didn't have access to it either initially. Whether the defence asked for it or not, the fact they didn't have it is pretty much unarguable now, isn't it...?

Opinions of posters on this board on how they would rewrite the Italian penal code is not the point under discussion. We have seen that they are many and varied

The Q is has the defence filed a motion to the effect that they still haven't had full discovery under the rules that apply in Italian law [as regards DNA].

From this it appears you accept they haven't - why not just to say so directly ?

ps It's OK - I don't think Obama is a member here or even lurks on this thread.

 

[Kaosium]

In Knox's case, my view is that the consular officials who visited her might have understood that certain areas of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedures were likely not followed correctly. But the Italian justice system is supposed to have safeguards in place to correct such malpractice - that's why there's a code in the first place, after all. So I don't believe that anyone would have wanted to bring these matters up - even in supposedly confidential cables back to Washington - unless or until the Italian justice system failed to address them itself.

Thanks for the overview.

I suppose they are more familiar with the vagaries of Italian justice than most, however I cannot help but think Judge Heavey made some salient points in his letter; whether it should have been done publicly and to the top man himself is another question entirely that does not invalidate his objections in my view.

Whether Italian law was actually followed in this case is a question I think should be looked into by Italian officials, and perhaps it should have been an issue at the time and someone there dropped the ball at the consulate in bringing it to their attention. As for the 'diplomatic cables' I never understood what Vogt and others were getting at there, why wouldn't they just use the telephone if for some reason they needed to communicate with Washington? It's not like anything involving Amanda Knox would have anything to do with diplomatic or state security.

Otherwise we are not that much in disagreement, though I do think perhaps it's about time someone started considering the potential fallout from the Italian Judiciary's attempt to conquer the world.

 

[Mary_H]

It's nothing but a bunch of FOA talking points. It raises nothing new. Obama will never see it. The judge has little understanding of how the executive branch of the United States goverment works, the duties and responsibilites of the Secretary of State, the State Department and the Italian judicial system.

None of these objections matters one bit to the average person, therefore they will be immaterial when the letter hits the media. Bruce Fisher's coverage of it is already at the top of the news about Amanda Knox.

It also matters little whether or not the pair have been convicted, if they're locked up in jail. Not convicted? All the more reason they should be awaiting their essentially-mandatory second trial in freedom.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
Thirdly, the issues raised in the letter are primarily for the Italian authorities to deal with (apart from the areas where it is alleged that the US Embassy/Consulate failed in its duty of care). The US State Department (and far less the Office of the President) has no business at all intervening. If various articles of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure were breached by law enforcement during the investigation, then these are issues to be addressed by the Italian courts (chiefly the Supreme Court). The US has no business telling the judiciary of a sovereign nation (a friendly one and a NATO ally) how to operate. If mistakes have been made, it's entirely up to the Italian system to put them right. That's simply the way it works. Countries just do not meddle in the internal workings of another sovereign nation's government (judiciary is a branch of government), even if one of their citizens is involved**<snip>

** Unless it's the US intervening in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, of course....

Do you think that when German tourists are mugged and murdered in Florida, the German consulate says nothing to Florida Law Enforcement or the US State Department? They make no protest, register no complaint, and just leave it to the American courts to put things right?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

put up or....

You now claim a motion was filed, do you ????? [despite the fact that just 2 hours ago you used the word possibility] I say it wasn't for reasons that were discussed here at the end of 2010.
Now you want me to prove the non existence of something that doesn't exist.

That's not how it works here.

You made the claim - now back it up.
We both know you cant so why persist with this.

Platonov,

You misunderstood the reason why I used the word "possibly." There is no doubt in my mind that the forensic files were not released. What I cannot say with certainty is which (if any) laws were violated. Raffaele's appeal discusses the lack of discovery, and references articles 415 and 416; therefore, I suspect that these statutes are among the critical ones for this discussion. As best I understand your argument it is that the defense failed to file some sort of motion to release the forensic files. That is your claim, not mine. My claim is that the defense asked for these files repeatedly, and I have cited Dan Krane and Carlo dalla Vedova in this regard. Are you saying that they lied?

 

[Kaosium]

Do you think that when German tourists are mugged and murdered in Florida, the German consulate says nothing to Florida Law Enforcement or the US State Department? They make no protest, register no complaint, and just leave it to the American courts to put things right?

Are you saying the British embassy was or should have been involved?

 

[Mary_H]

I agree with everything you've said in principle, and I wholeheartedly agree with your arguments that a whole host of laws and articles of the criminal code were probably breached during this investigation. But there are four important caveats:

1) The trial process is still in progress. The Italian courts (including the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court) still have the opportunity to address all of these concerns. It's not like a US or UK trial where there's essentially only one trial, and where any further judicial process must be based on specific strong points of appeal.

2) The Supreme Court has already essentially addressed points 1-4 of the letter - although it may be subsequently called upon to address the ridiculous situation whereby Knox's inadmissible statements were nonetheless heard in the court where they'd been deemed inadmissible, on account of a frankly baffling (and probably unlawful) ruling from Massei to run the Lumumba slander trial concurrently.

3) As you say, I don't think the US has any power to intervene in any case. The US executive branch has a strange (and in my eyes unlawful) right to intervene in the judicial process of its own citizens (gubernatorial* or presidential pardons or commutations). But this is very much not the norm in modern Westernised democracies. In pretty much every European country (including Italy), the executive branch of government has absolutely no right whatsoever to intervene in the workings or rulings of the judiciary. All it can do is propose changes in the laws, which must then be approved by the legislative branch.

4) As such, the US is utterly powerless to intervene in Knox's judicial case - either directly to the Italian judiciary or via the Italian executive branch. My understanding of the monitoring situation is that if there are egregious breaches of a US citizen's human rights when they are detained in a foreign country (e.g. they are shackled to beds, or denied food for days on end, or denied any legal representation whatsoever), the US consular monitors are supposed to pick this up and can then make international representations under international human rights legislation (including via the UN Human Rights Council). That's not the case here. Knox's basic human rights and basic legal rights have been safeguarded - even though the Italian authorities appear to have acted unlawfully in several areas of her treatment.


* I love that word! I must try to use it more often

These arguments, like those of Alt+4 are valid but irrelevant. Deals are made, things get done. "Diplomatic" does not necessarily mean "by the book" or even "required by law."

 

[Mary_H]

Are you saying the British embassy was or should have been involved?

Huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

These kids are grateful to be there regardless of the additional time because the country in investigating their own corruption in Perugia. This will help exonerate. I admire what this judge has done. He's taken risk in full belief of possible change. It's the grass roots effort that most definitely helped in educating the people and who has instigated true change. One tiny person can end up making a difference. No, nothing is a sure thing. Regardless, I respectfully disagree.

And I absolutely respect your disagreement. FWIW, I can't see that the letter can do any harm to Knox or Sollecito - so in that respect there is only (in my view) potential upside from writing and sending it. But I'd maintain that the chances of any upside arising directly from this letter are between zero and minimal.

And I still firmly believe that Knox and Sollecito will have their destinies determined solely by the Italian criminal justice system. That's not to say that there's not any validity to discussing this case outside of Italian courtrooms - good justice should, after all, survive exposure to the harshest light. My personal view is that Hellmann's appeal court will look at the evidence and arguments in a different manner to that shown by Massei's court in the first trial. And I think that Hellmann's court will consequently arrive at verdicts which are the opposite to those determined by Massei's court.

I therefore think that the time for anyone who believes in Knox's and Sollecito's non-guilt to worry is not right now. But if somehow the appeal court also finds them guilty (assuming that there's no further damning prosecution evidence yet to be introduced that we don't know about), and if the Supreme Court somehow finds no fault with the legal process, then there is scope for worry (and possibly also action). But I truly think that things won't get that far. Maybe I'm being either naive or plain wrong in my assessment here, but I think that this may very well all be over by late Autumn (Fall).