Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

What Mignini quotes is a line, rather than a portion. A line where she says she did not lie, that means she claims that on the night of nov 5th she believed what she told was true, what she remembered (that she had witnessed Patrick coming to her house and kill Meredith while she was in the kitchen).
If you have more from p. 185, just quote it.

The only question to answer anyway is, if this series of claims by Knox can be considered credible or not.

That's not the only question. It is equally important to determine whether the series of claims by the police can be considered credible or not.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>
1. In my opnion this is not correct. And it is not correct if referrrd to both the the main accusation documents, statement of 05:54 and the hand written note of 6th. The 05:54 is not entirely consistent, but definitely unambiguous about accusing Lumumba.

The 5:45 statement was not written by Amanda; it was only signed by her.

About the hand written note, this is possibly even more insidious. It is ambiguous in the degree in which implicates Lumumba, as it is meant to be a kind of uncertain piece of evidence, a piece of evidence that doesn't lead to a conclusion of guilt against him. But it is definitely not ambiguous in its intent of being a piece of false evidence. It is a whole false testimony written voluntarily, which contains elements both against Lumumba and against Sollecito. Its value as false evidence is even more evident. Its value of false accusation is less clear, as to use your wording, but its value of false evidence, voluntarily deceitful, is more clear, which is what matters to the charge of calunnia.

The handwritten note reflects confusion and is mostly a list of questions, not statements. There is no intention whatsoever to provide evidence against Lumumba or Sollecito.

2. The conditions under which it was made are defined by Amanda herself: she wrote the note voluntarily, on her own initiave, and gave it voluntarily to Rita Ficarra. She admitted to not having received pressure nor requests on redactig this memorandum.

She was locked in a prison cell when she wrote it. No one in his right mind would say she was making freely initiated choices. She may have been convinced she was acting voluntarily, but most knowledgeable people would disagree.

3. I think that "when her statements are considered as a whole" is a bit a misleading condition. Her statements inequivocably are a series of false testimonies. The only possible questions in Amanda's defence, at this point, are only two: 1) if she released them voluntarily or not; 2) if she was sincere or she lied.
The 1) is ruled out by the conditions in which the memorandum was written, as she also admits, and by the lack of elements, since there is no report of coercing, no early complaint with clear statement that she lied because of intimidation or coercion (the only factual detail is the hitting twice on the head); and because she kept on claiming she actually still had memories about Patrick being in her home and killing Meredith. 2) the only possibility left to excuse her is that she was sincere and was suffeeing of a false memory syndrome. This, however, goes quite against anything credible for mamy reasons. Among them because she accused Patrick after just two hours of questioning (after she was told that Raffaele had withdrawn her alibi).

As far as I know, there is no documentation of when or in what manner Amanda was told that Raffaele had withdrawn her alibi. Unless you can provide some, of course.

"Only two hours" means nothing (and it was three hours before she signed the first statement, by the way). Amanda had very little reason to disrespect the police or to disagree with them. It would not have taken much to persuade her.

She did not mention only the hits to the back of the head. She also asked the police to stop yelling at her and putting pressure on her.

Her statements should be considered as a whole because the only way not to consider them as a whole is to nitpick them in an attempt to find guilt, which is the opposite of presuming innocence.

I absolutely agree on that the accusation must be knowingly false. A person commits calunnia only if knows the testimony is false.
Here, there is obviously a jurisprudence on what the verb "knows" means when referred to a calunnia. If I falsely accuse a passer by of being a crazy terror bomber, I cannot just bring in my defense the sole argument that I could not be sure for certainity that he was not a crazy terror bomber. The "who knows if...?" defence doesn't work. If by your best knowledge you don't have such incriminating information against a person and you don't relly believe him guilty, this, by jurisprudence, is considered as knowing the person is innocent.

You have Amanda over a barrel. She knew only what the police told her. If she agreed with the police that Lumumba should be a suspect, then she purportedly committed calunnia against Lumumba. If she disagreed with the police and insisted they were forcing her to accuse Lumumba against her will, then she purportedly committed calunnia against the police.

She was put in a position in which either "choice" led to her unknowingly committing not only one crime but two -- she supposedly committed calunnia against Patrick in the Questura, and then supposedly committed calunnia against the police in the courtroom. It's a primitive system.

 

[Dougm]

Of course. And hopefully to see some day the finding of the truth delivered in some official way to the Kerchers.
In other words, my wish is to see Guede's confession, or an equivalent official outcome from the judiciary.

Stop the presses!!

This is the nexus point where we all agree!! Speaking for myself, I also want to get to the point where Guede confesses, or an equivalent finding from the court, so that the Kerchers know what happened. Because it is clear from the facts that what happened is that Guede killed Meredith.

Sad, but true.

 

[Ammonitida]

Here I am not embracing a position about the existence nor the non existence of a memorandum of the 7th. However, I object to your claim that you can say for certain this memorandum exists or that it is likely to exist. Try to understand that to me the first point of start, is that there is no trace of this alleged memorandum in the trial documentation. It is not quoted nor cited by Micheli, nor by Massei's court, not by other preliminary judges, nor by the defences.

Perhaps it just got lost in the shuffle later on. Like the DNA control documents that were eventually found in the garage or garbage, allegedly.

I simply can't assume a document with such date exists on this grounds, merely based on Pacelli's wording about a "nov. 7th" with no quote.

It makes no sense if he's referring to the Nov 6th statement. Pacelli and Mignini both quote a certain text that is not found in any form in her Nov 6th handwritten statement. They are certainly quoting because the wording in the quotes are extremely similar to each other. It's like they're reading from a document.

Nothing in her handwritten statement of Nov 6th has anything resembling, "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick." "I didn't lie when
I said Patrick was the murderer." "I didn't lie when I said the murderer might be Patrick."

Pacelli and Migini can't be referring to her Nov 6th document. It makes no sense, unless your translation and editing is inaccurate.

It is not even true that she choses to mention her nov. 7th memorandum: it's Pacelli the one who mentions the memorandum first.

I don't understand your point here. It's true that Pacelli mentions it first, but so what? Amanda mentions the Nov 7th statement in response to his question about whether or not she told someone else about Patrick's innocence before Nov 10th. Pacelli contested this by again quoting from the Nov 7th text, but omits the later portion that supports her claim.

In her Nov 6th statement she writes, "I see Patrick as the murderer in flashbacks", among other potentially incriminating things against Patrick. Therefore it makes no sense for her to cite it in response to Pacelli's questioning where he asks,

Listen, the first time you ever actually said that Patrick had nothing to do with it, when was it?....Excuse me. Before you told your mother, did you tell anyone else?

Instead, she herself cites a memorandum from the 7th where thanks to Mignini we have a quote that reads;

Now, let's talk
about your memorandum from the 7th, still written in total autonomy, without
anyone around you. You wrote: "I didn't lie when I said that I thought the
murderer was Patrick. At that moment I was very stressed and I really did
think that it was Patrick." Then you add "But now I know that I can't know who the murderer is, because I remember that I didn't go home.

The last part explains why she mentioned a Nov 7th memorandum in response to Pacelli's questioning.

Other basic facts are that Pacelli says she repeates her accusation in it,

That's only true if you ignore the later portion which Mignini kindly provided us with.

and your statement that he is being dishonest is just unsupported, since you don't have a 7th statement, and don't know what is written in this possible document.

We have some knowledge of what is written in this document thanks to the Mignini and it reveals Pacelli to be intellectually dishonest.


Look I understand your skepticism here, but the context (as well as the unlikely scenario that they're all confused about the date) is highly suggestive of another memorandum. I think eventually we'll find it.

Perhaps someone just needs to contact Amanda to clarify things.

 

[Dougm]

Neither do I, in fact that's why I suspend any judgement about the purported nov. 7th memorandum untill I can see it.
I edited these English translations that you see on PMF and wrote verbatim the Italian transcripts btw.

What I know is, from the allegedly quoted line, and by the whole of the statements, that I don't see this changing things.
Knox, basically, keeps claiming on the 6th and then later, that she didn't lie and she actually had memories of Patrick (so she does not claim coercing). She also changes her claim in December and in her interrogation (recorded) she attempts to justify herself in the terms as if she lied because of fear, then seems to make the argument that she thought it could be true and fails to answer, and her lawyer stops the questioning.
In the end, also after her court testimonies, my assessment is her explantions are inconsistent and not credible.

We can all argue about what was said, what each memorale means, etc., but it all comes back to this:

Why in the world would Knox kill Meredith?

Obviously, we disagree on what is contained in Knox's statements. You think they are incriminating, and I don't (I don't want to speak for others, but it is clear that many here agree with me).

My larger question is -- in what world does it make sense that Knox killed Meredith? I am not talking about simply the idea that Knox appears to me to be a nice person who would not do this, obviously you don't agree. And that is subjective anyway.

But why?? Why does this make sense? Althought I don't agree, I can acccept that there are people that see Knox's statements as being the type that only someone involved in the murder would make. But why would she murder Meredith? What line of reasoning makes sense here? The prosecution abandoned every theory they came up with, because none of them made sense. We had:

1) Satanic ritual
2) Trying to force Meredith to participate in an orgy (for some unknown reason -- Knox and Sollecito had never participated in an orgy themselves)
3) Knox was angry at Meredith because Meredith was annoyed at Knox not cleaning the flat (really??? come on, no logical person can believe this)

I am sure there are more options, but none make sense. Just because you don't believe Knox's statements, it is not logical to leap to murder. People don't kill other people, especially people who are nice and are friends, for no reason. Unless they are mentally ill.

I just don't get it. Convicting Knox and Sollecito of Meredith's murder requires us to jump through so many hoops. It simply does not make sense.

 

[Bill Williams]

I believe I've just been banned from posting at the TJMK website! When I try to post I get this message.....

The following errors were encountered
You are not allowed to post comments
Return to Previous Page

For the record, I'd made 7 posts there, all from an AK/RS innocence standpoint. The following is the message I was going to post, when I found out I have (I think) been banned!

Thanks for the thanks, "believing". About me, and I will not be quoting from my guy, everything from this point is what I have figured out, by consulting with people who know far, far more than me, like him, but at the end of the day, we all have to make up our own minds. Besides, give me 5 experts and there'll be six opinions.

In the summer of 2011 I knew about this case only from the media - to me it seemed pretty biased against AK and RS, but even still I figured, DNA is DNA is DNA. I hadn't really looked into it, had no real reason to because I'm not close to anyone in this. Just a schmuck with a computer who has opinions.

But I do have a background doing witness accompaniment with a prosecutors office, accompanying witnesses in support of conviction for crimes to a courthouse for court. That's where I met up with my guy who is involved in homocide evidence collection - to be clear, he's not a detective or analyst, he is a technician, so take that into account. However, that means he knows more than me! Draw your own judgments.

Then 4 months ago I read about the appeal hearing, and how the major incriminating DNA was being discounted. Call me a captive to the CSI effect if you want - your call. I'm not typing any of this to challenge anyone here, change anyone's mind or cause trouble. I mean, I really am just a schmuck with an opinion. (I'm surprised anyone reads it!)

P.Q. pointed to the PowerPoint of the crime as laid out by those who believe in AK and RS's guilt, including the pictures of Guede's entry into the cottage through FR's second storey room. I now rememnber that as one of the first things I found when looking into this in detail. I truly don't wish to be argumentative, however, I see no reason, and it has been confirmed by others who know more than me, that the big deal made by that powerpoint is made - considering the entry into FR's room, that really isn't the difficult thing it's made out to be. If you disagree, that's fine.

I was introduced to the word "compelling" a lot in talking to others off-line about this. There is compelling evidence, there is suspicious evidence, and then there's side evidence which can be (almost) discounted because it has many explanations and also conflicts with the compelling stuff.

For instance, I cannot remember who, when I said it is compelling for me (but maybe not for you) that there is no crime scene clean, no evidence of a clean, and further no evidence that a clean had been masked, one counter point here was, "Well why was no Guede DNA found in FR's room (of entry)?" Short answer, "I really don't have a clue why." Another poster used the phrase "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," when I said there is NO forensic trace of AK in MK's room - however, that can also then be applied to no trace of Guede in FR's room. More importantly, which is more important? An absence of RS and AK's foresic profile (DNA and other stuff) in MK's room, or an absence of RG's profile in FR's room?

Obviously, it is the former.

Given the significance of each competing scenerio, it simply is more compelling to believe RG acted alone. Your mileage may vary.

It is far less compelling to think that RS and AK participated in something and came out of it leaving no forensic trace (DNA or otherwise) including no trace on their persons.

Anyway, I could go on. I actually cannot believe that anyone would read this far. This all began when I said I agreed with a poster above. I am not here to convince anyone I am right, because who the heck am I, really? I once believed in guilt, but when I looked at it, this website being a primary source, I am now convinced that AK and RS could not have been there, even if they had confessed to it.

There's a lot posted here that tries to make AK out to be a very nasty person. Even though I'm tempted to criticize that, the fact is I don't know the woman. She could very well be the she-devil the tabloid media made her out to be way back when. But what's that got to do with not being at the crime scene when the horrible act was commited?

She's accused of telling lies. I am somewhat familiar with the Reid technique of interrogation because of what I do for a living, and I know a bit about so-called "statement analysis". I'll get savaged here for saying it, I know, but for the life of me, I no longer view her as telling lies - her testimony of the interrogation describes the process of the Reid Technique to a 'T'. And she had no way of knowing about "techniques" of intetrogation!

So have at me! Really, if there is a smoking gun out there, let us all know. Please also know, that you really don't need to reverse my opinion, because I have no influence on anything, to repeat, I'm just a schmuck with an opinion. Why should you, who believe in guilt, care?

Lastly, I wish to than people here for being civil, well, all except for the "patronizing" crack aimed at my guy, and perhaps me. If I was patronizing I apologize. That was not my intent. I expected to get savaged here and was not. Challenged, of course, but not the recipient of ad hominem remarks. (Yet!)

Thanks.

 

[Dougm]

I believe I've just been banned from posting at the TJMK website! When I try to post I get this message.....

The following errors were encountered
You are not allowed to post comments
Return to Previous Page

For the record, I'd made 7 posts there, all from an AK/RS innocence standpoint. The following is the message I was going to post, when I found out I have (I think) been banned!

Of course you were banned, because you actually posted an opposing point of view.

Now, just for a minute, let's imagine why it would be necessary for a website to ban someone simply for posting an opposing point of view.

It seems fairly logical to me that, if their position is so strong, that opposing points of view should not matter -- it will be clear that their point of view is the right one, even if others disagree.

Of course, they don't allow opposition, because their points of view cannot withstand scruitiny. That is clear.

 

[Osterwelle]

Neither do I, in fact that's why I suspend any judgement about the purported nov. 7th memorandum untill I can see it.
I edited these English translations that you see on PMF and wrote verbatim the Italian transcripts btw.

But you can read, can you?
If Pacelli says the following: "In the memorandum of the 6th you name Patrick. On the 7th you write another memorandum confirming that Patrick is the assassin.", what else should it mean other than there are two?

What I know is, from the allegedly quoted line, and by the whole of the statements, that I don't see this changing things.

Quite frankly, some things you wouldn't see if they were sitting on your face.

Knox, basically, keeps claiming on the 6th and then later, that she didn't lie and she actually had memories of Patrick (so she does not claim coercing). She also changes her claim in December and in her interrogation (recorded) she attempts to justify herself in the terms as if she lied because of fear, then seems to make the argument that she thought it could be true and fails to answer, and her lawyer stops the questioning.
In the end, also after her court testimonies, my assessment is her explantions are inconsistent and not credible.

This was not the point. I know you don't see her as credible and I'm not going to discuss this with you for several reasons. But we were actually talking about the existence of two memorandums, not about Amanda's explanations, so could we please stay on topic?

-
Osterwelle

 

[Bill Williams]

Of course you were banned, because you actually posted an opposing point of view.

Now, just for a minute, let's imagine why it would be necessary for a website to ban someone simply for posting an opposing point of view.

It seems fairly logical to me that, if their position is so strong, that opposing points of view should not matter -- it will be clear that their point of view is the right one, even if others disagree.

Of course, they don't allow opposition, because their points of view cannot withstand scruitiny. That is clear.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.... could Peter Quennell be that thin skinned? It was particularly silly because he had just asked me to explain things I was posting....

Hi Bill. Your patronising and ill-informed “homocide” technician should please be told that we have many lawyers and other professionals posting who are in in “the business” and many more reading who all deal with crime scene evidence and perps’ behavior on a daily basis.

Your “homocide” technician seems way too infatuated with the “forensic signature” for Guede in the room. Commenters kindly advised you above that full tests on the room were not conducted, and also that Guede’s own traces were quite minimal. Please come to grips with the autopsy and other evidence that caused the Supreme Court to rule that three people were indeed there.

Also please explain to the “homocide” technician that the full crime scene is defined as the whole of the house and, as commenters also kindly advised you above, there was plenty of evidence of “forensic signatures” pointing to AK and RS elsewhere. In fact, this wasn’t even disputed at the appeal. Here are two more key posts which could give your technician a jolt as they are loaded with actual facts.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...ality_of_evidence_suggests_knox_and_sollecit/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...e_seemingly_insuperable_mixed_blood_evidence/

Wherever footprints showed up only under luminol, they suggested a cleanup and wherever footprints were missing, as at least one was on the way to the bathmat, they suggested a cleanup. There was evidence that blood was wiped off the face of the door as some was left on the hidden edge.

Commenters also kindly advised you above that the defence didnt even try to prove that Guede was alone; or that he entered via Filomena’s window. That window is by far the most difficult of SIX ways to break into the house, and it is extremely well lit from above. “Simple” here = back balcony.

Do let the “homocide” technician know that? And you are free to believe whoever you like, though that last post suggests your mind is already occupied by some very woolly facts.

Baaaaa!

In fairness to Peter, yes it was me who misspelled "homocide". Maybe that's why I was banned!

Ok, lessee, what can I do to get banned from this website.....

 

[Malkmus]

Try to understand that to me the first point of start, is that there is no trace of this alleged memorandum in the trial documentation. It is not quoted nor cited by Micheli, nor by Massei's court, not by other preliminary judges, nor by the defences.

This is so backwards, I'm baffled by the logic here. The document exists and it certainly is part of "trial documentation". It was read in court. What more reason do you need? Come on.

 

[Mary_H]

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.... could Peter Quennell be that thin skinned? It was particularly silly because he had just asked me to explain things I was posting....

Baaaaa!

LOL!

In fairness to Peter, yes it was me who misspelled "homocide". Maybe that's why I was banned!

It was lovely of him to remind you four times. What nice manners.

Ok, lessee, what can I do to get banned from this website.....

If he were a member here, you could get banned, or at least warned, by calling him a liar. But he's not, so that won't work. However, I kind of feel like calling him a liar anyway.

Peter Quennell is a liar.

 

[Antony]

Why? I don't think so. I don't think murderers are evil.

I didn't use the word "evil".

My indications are, what they did was quite different than trying to help the police.

If those "indications" are the "staged" break-in and Amanda's alleged "lies", then we're not ever going to see you substantiate them.

 

[davefoc]

What in the world is the evidence of this clean-up? Next to the mixed blood this seems like the most obviously bogus of the claims and yet it doesn't die.

Is there evidence of streaks, or clean-up chemicals? If they found recognizable footprints with luminol isn't that evidence there wasn't a clean up? Was there evidence of clean up tools like brooms, pails, sponges, etc. besides the famous mop. And was there any evidence that the famous mop was used to clean up anything?

I know it's been mentioned numerous times before but I'll ask it again, how in the world does somebody remove biological evidence of RS?AK and leave Guede's untouched.

 

[Mary_H]

What in the world is the evidence of this clean-up? Next to the mixed blood this seems like the most obviously bogus of the claims and yet it doesn't die.

Is there evidence of streaks, or clean-up chemicals? If they found recognizable footprints with luminol isn't that evidence there wasn't a clean up? Was there evidence of clean up tools like brooms, pails, sponges, etc. besides the famous mop. And was there any evidence that the famous mop was used to clean up anything?

I know it's been mentioned numerous times before but I'll ask it again, how in the world does somebody remove biological evidence of RS?AK and leave Guede's untouched.

It would be impossible, dave; of course, there was no clean-up. For some reason, the question is ignored and the debate carried on. I guess people just want to argue about it.

 

[Osterwelle]

Is there evidence of streaks, or clean-up chemicals?

Somebody posted these on IIP:

That's what one would expect to see if luminol is sprayed on cleaned areas.

There are no pictures like that from the crime scene.

-
Osterwelle

 

[geebee2]

I believe I've just been banned from posting at the TJMK website! When I try to post I get this message.....

The following errors were encountered
You are not allowed to post comments
Return to Previous Page

For the record, I'd made 7 posts there, all from an AK/RS innocence standpoint. The following is the message I was going to post, when I found out I have (I think) been banned!

Both TJMK and PMF instantly ban anyone who shows any signs of thinking Amanda Knox might be innocent.

That's the only way these sites can function.

Actually most people get banned after 1 or 2 posts, that's all I managed.
I think I expressed some doubt on the staged break-in theory and was instantly banned.

You were treated pretty leniently by TJMK standards - Peter only called your friend arrogant, rather than attacking you directly.

It's like having a trial where the defence is not allowed to speak at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL!

It was lovely of him to remind you four times. What nice manners.

If he were a member here, you could get banned, or at least warned, by calling him a liar. But he's not, so that won't work. However, I kind of feel like calling him a liar anyway.

Peter Quennell is a liar.

It is a tad embarrassing to be making a point about a murder investigation and misspelling "homocide". If the roles were reversed, I think I would have been far more snarky than P.Q. managed.

Please note to all with the power to ban me, 'twasn't me who called P.Q. a liar! I'd be hard pressed to say that.

If Mary_H gets banned for it, though, I will have to amend my favourtie statement of exasperation to include only Jesus and Joseph.

I can't believe I'm using emoticons. That banning has really shaken me!

 

[Bill Williams]

It also occurs to me that if AK, RS or anyone in MK's family is following this on-line, they'd all have a right to be angry as hell that anonymous on-line shenanigans on going on like this, when they've all had to endure so much in the real world. That perhaps included my complaints about being banned from a website. That all this sideshow melodrama is taking place could be seen as offensive to them.

 

[Bill Williams]

Because of being banned at TJMK, and because there are still questions being asked to me there, and because perhaps no one knows I've been banned, I'll respond to Brmull's question here......

Bill,

There *was* a clean-up in Meredith’s room. Even IJP agrees on that. You can see the streaks on the floor in multiple places.

You asked for one of the following:
(1) How a “complete forensic signature” for one killer could be so obvious, without obvious sign of any others, or
(2) How there could be no sign of a clean, or
(3) How there could be no sign that a clean-up itself had been somehow masked.

If you give your guy bad info of course he’s going to give you wrong answers in return. There was sign of a clean.

Brmull is raising an important point here..... in the sense of finding streaks, there is evidence that someone tried a cursory and "immediate clean", and it failed. Yes, there is evidence of that.

By a "crime-scene clean", I mean a comprehensive clean that, it is alleged, identified and then erased the forensic presence of two of the three alleged attackers, whoever they were.

So Brmull is correct here. But that is not the point being made.

If that kind of cursory attempt at a "wipe" was tried in MK's room, it would have been evident, as he notes it perhaps was. But note, this is not what is meant by a clean in the sense that there is no longer either visually or detected with with luminol no record left of two of the three alleged assailants.

It is also telling that this visually-wiped, streaky area could only have been made by RG, because his is the only forensic presence in the room!!!! (Brmull has inadvertently proved an aspect of this case he never meant to prove!)

As demonstrated at IIP with the photo..... luminol would have detected what is not visual, and a invisably "wiped" area would have looked quite messy and streaky as a result once revealed, even though it was not there visually.

That's what's meant as no evidence that a clean had even been masked.... it simply didn't happen.

With all due respect, brmull, you're misunderstanding the import of the question. And yes, my guy has looked at more than what I've fed him. He now does not want to talk about this because he considers the evidence obvious, and me a bit of a nut for pushing it as far as I have.

 

[Kaosium]

It is a tad embarrassing to be making a point about a murder investigation and misspelling "homocide". If the roles were reversed, I think I would have been far more snarky than P.Q. managed.

Please note to all with the power to ban me, 'twasn't me who called P.Q. a liar! I'd be hard pressed to say that.

If Mary_H gets banned for it, though, I will have to amend my favourtie statement of exasperation to include only Jesus and Joseph.

I can't believe I'm using emoticons. That banning has really shaken me!

You're a bad bad man Bill Williams, it's a good thing PQ put a stop to you when he did!