Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Charlie Wilkes]

Was something mentioned about a journalist pointing this out and accusing RS of call the cops after they arrived?

I have never heard that.

This was a claim made by the police from the time of the arrests. Matteini mentioned it in her ruling where she confirmed the arrests, early in November 2007. It was duly reported by the media. The story was that Amanda and Raffaele were surprised by the arrival of the police, and Raffaele scrambled to cover up for that by calling the emergency number after police were already on the scene.

This never really made sense, because it doesn't square with the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele had indisputably called a number of other people to tell them they found evidence of a break-in at the cottage. But, for those who wanted to believe it, it sounded good. And this claim was important to the prosecution's case throughout the pre-trial and the trial, right up to the point in October 2009 when Bongiorno demolished it with her analysis of the camera output.

The media, outside of Frank's blog and Raffaele's hometown paper, did not report this hearing. Afterward, the prosecution simply dropped the matter. Massei doesn't mention the original claim or the controversy in his report. It's a situation where the truth is defamatory to the police.

 

[yimyammer]

We close Novemver 1st 2007 in Perugia with a Good Night SMS sent to Raffaele by his father. Dad would normally call at this time but from his last call he would have picked up that Raff would have the night alone with Amanda and thoughtfully avoided the call that might have interrupted something. This text however would not be received until 6am because Raff's phone is either turned off or in a location where it does not receive a cell connection.

is it possible to determine where Rafs phone was when this text was received?

If so, was that determined?

I'm not sure if it would prove anything but perhaps it would tighten the timeline

 

[katy_did]

A certain pro-guilt commentator thinks he has sorted out the issue around Stefanoni's qualifications. He has not.

I think said commentator was confusing his dates. According to Wiki it was in 1980 that graduate degrees started being offered in Italy, not 2003 - a long time before Stefanoni graduated.

I agree with your earlier post though that it's not really relevant. The problem isn't her qualifications or her lack of skill, but the way she did everything to support the prosecution case, including withholding information from the defence. She could have five PhDs and it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[acbytesla]

If what you say is true then you're describing the very mechanics of a wrongful conviction. The notion of a judge denying this kind of a defence request for the reason you give is the definition of stupidity, and the destruction of natural justice. Your opinion obviously varies.

In the US the judge would first threaten Stefanoni with "contempt of court" and then if Stefanoni refused, the judge would have Stefanoni arrested for contempt. And he would keep her in jail and fine her $500 dollars a day until she agreed to turn over the data. She'd hand over the files pretty damn fast.

 

[charlatan]

The media, outside of Frank's blog and Raffaele's hometown paper, did not report this hearing. Afterward, the prosecution simply dropped the matter. Massei doesn't mention the original claim or the controversy in his report. It's a situation where the truth is defamatory to the police.

Massei does gently and indirectly reference the controversy over the timing of the 112 call but he comes down on the side of the defense.

 

[Grinder]

No no, the judges perfectly know that there was further documentation, but they also know that a 'disclosure' of such documentation is irrelevant at an advenced stage of the trial, also because the defence experts themselves were not interested in it for years. The judges apply the law.
Stefanoni and the prosecution instead did nothing wrong: they deposited with the court just all information they always deposit. The did what they always do. Stefanoni herself declared she never deposited quantization data an raw data or SALs at the clerk's office, in no previous case. But nothing prevented the defence to request something, since they were offered access to the laboratory (and defence experts know there are and can requst charts, raw data, videos, SALs, templates etc, without needing to be clairvoyants).
At the end of a trial, if a party makes a new request, there must be a compelling reason. It must be something determinant. Or they need to show it was something they could not request before.
The judges only said the defences are wrong: their late request was not admissible.
So you are keeping on spinning it. You are trying and trying again to assert something you know is a lie.
The simple truth is the defence experts did not do their research when they were free to do it, they did not make their requests during the investigation, while everybody knew in advance Stefanoni and the prosecution would never deposit all the existing documentation at the clerk's office, because this never happens (and even the transcripts confirm that the defence experts were aware about this from the very beginning).
The legend of "hiding information" is pretext, good only for press and propaganda, for thse who won't accept to lose at any cost and do not intend to play by the rules, while they only plan to play the "legitimacy card" against the "evil system" (this is Diocletus' position).

So basically you are saying that the prosecution gives as little as they can and if the defense experts don't request information withing a relatively short period of time that's just too bad for the defendants.

Case closed, right?

This case has been going on for 6 years. Each court date is separated by weeks if not months. They close the case for a two month vacation, but they don't have time to get the requested information to the defense. It couldn't be the money because they charge the defense for everything and they had plenty of Do-Re-Mi for the animation.

Why didn't the system see that holding back DNA test file etc. would look bad to the rest of the world and maybe even some Italians?

 

[RoseMontague]

Are you sure Nencini didn't accept the defence computer report, Mach? I thought there was a quote from Bongiorno after the last hearing saying she was satisfied because the court had accepted that report into the case file.

I saw that as well. It was something she referred to as proof he was not involved. I believe Machiavelli is wrong again.

 

[RoseMontague]

I have never heard that.

This was a claim made by the police from the time of the arrests. Matteini mentioned it in her ruling where she confirmed the arrests, early in November 2007. It was duly reported by the media. The story was that Amanda and Raffaele were surprised by the arrival of the police, and Raffaele scrambled to cover up for that by calling the emergency number after police were already on the scene.

This never really made sense, because it doesn't square with the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele had indisputably called a number of other people to tell them they found evidence of a break-in at the cottage. But, for those who wanted to believe it, it sounded good. And this claim was important to the prosecution's case throughout the pre-trial and the trial, right up to the point in October 2009 when Bongiorno demolished it with her analysis of the camera output.

The media, outside of Frank's blog and Raffaele's hometown paper, did not report this hearing. Afterward, the prosecution simply dropped the matter. Massei doesn't mention the original claim or the controversy in his report. It's a situation where the truth is defamatory to the police.

I will check when I get a chance.

 

[moodstream]

Rudy Guede will report to his friend in a Skype call that at this time Meredith's scream is so loud that he is afraid it will be heard in the street. Rudy claims that he himself is on the toilet listening to his iPad. Will Rudy finally come clean 6 years later to the day, perhaps even to the hour, and put an end to the prosecution ruining two more innocent lives.

Is there a transcript of that call available anywhere? Thanks.

 

[Bill Williams]

Is there a transcript of that call available anywhere? Thanks.

It's 2/3 of the way down....

Friend - Ciao Rudy, how are you?

Rudy Hermann Guede - nott too well.

Friend - Where are you?

RHG - I'm in Dusseldorf and I have no money.

Friend - Where are you staying?

RHG - I'm living in a barge on the Rhine and sleeping on trains, without paying for a ticket. It's tough, I can't do this any more.

Friend - Would you like me to send some money?

RHG - Well, that would be useful.

Friend - OK, look, I'll send you 50 Euros through Western Union, then you can pick it up.

RHG - Thanks, but it’s already late in the evening.

Friend - They're talking about you here [in Perugia].

RHG - I know what happened in Perugia, but they're making a mistake. I am not “The Baron”, I'm called Byron after Scott Byron, the famous basketball player.

Friend - But they are saying other things.

RHG - Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before.

Friend - But your photo is everywhere.

RHG - I've seen it, the police were wrong to put my photo around like that. I'm not how they describe me. I have nothing to do with that night.

Friend - But if you have nothing to do with it why don't you come back? I'll help you to find a good lawyer who can clear things up.

RHG - I'm afraid. But I don't want to stay in Germany, I'm black and if the police catch me I don't know what they might do to me. I prefer Italian jails.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

R. In the newspaper they’re writing that I was drunk and slept on the toilet. That’s crap. In that house we were smoking joints, we smoked and so did those girls, everyone did. After that I said to the guys, who are men of their word, "Listen, guys, I'm tired, I can't walk now, can I sleep over here?" So I slept on their sofa. I was only ever at their place twice.
After that, after that I met Amanda, but I didn’t talk to her any more, I just saw her one other time, at that pub with Lumamba whatever his name was –
G. Right, Lumumba –
R. – just one other time, and we talked in that pub, but after that I didn’t see her any more, I mean I'd see her in the street, but just to say “hi”.
R. The girl who was killed, I knew her. The evening before, we talked.... well, I got to know her during a rugby match.
G. Wait - the girl you’re talking about, the one you knew, who was that? This Meredith?
R. Yes, Meredith. I’m talking about her now.
G. You knew her? [talking over each other]
R. Yes. I don’t mean that we hung out together. Up to then, we just saw each other a couple of times, mainly that evening where there was the rugby match between England and South Africa, I was together with a couple of friends at this place, now I can’t remember the name…
G. Wait, I don’t get it, you saw her with her? I didn’t get it.
R. I'm telling you how I met her.
G. Oh, okay.
R. I met her in that place...
G. pub?
R. That Irish pub in the center near the Kurdish place, what’s it called?
G. Oh, the Shamrock?
R. The Shamrock. That’s where they were showing the England-South Africa match, and I was there with a couple of friends, and she was there too.
G. Oh yes?
R. She was there too and we were teasing each other, bantering.
G. Uh-huh.
R. So then...
G. So you were actually trying to…
R. No, because I already knew her, it isn't that...
R. Oh, right, right.

R. So on Halloween, I went out with the Spanish girls, these two girls who live upstairs, two Spanish girls who live upstairs from me, and on Halloween I spent some time with them. Then we went over to some friends of theirs, together, friends of these girls, and then we went to the house of some other Spanish kids, and that’s where I really talked with…
G. This was on Halloween?
R. With Meredith.
G. Right.
R. During that party.
G. Where?
R. She was disguised as a vampire. You probably saw the pictures.
G. Yep. In the newspapers.
R. Well, the next day, we had an appointment to see each other again.
G. I see.
R. I don’t know if you get me. The next day…
G. Yes.
R. Umm, she was there. And I was there. So we're seeing each other…

I think it was about eight-thirty, or eight-twenty, they're saying that she told her friends she was tired and wanted to go home. But in fact no, we were supposed to see each other, we had made an appointment the evening before during the Halloween party, at the Spanish kids' house, and I can also say, well I don't know the street but I can say where it was.
G. What street was it?
R. If I were in Perugia I could say where that house is, and anyway those kids can confirm that I was at that party.
G. Okay.
R. And then, we saw each other at Meredith's house and we started talking...we started talking, and I, well, I tried, I mean I tried and she was willing. But in the end we didn't do anything because...she didn't have any condoms and neither did I.
G. Like...in the newspapers it says that...well, you did something if...
R. Yes but in fact, I'm just telling you we did...oral stuff. No, no penetration, because I didn't have a condom, we didn't do anything. And so it's all crap according to me that they said they found my...sperm...male sperm. Then I, that... it's not mine because we didn't do anything.

R. When we got there, I don't know what happened, but she said "damn" - the money's gone!
G. - something about money you were saying?
R. The money is gone, she said, when's Amanda coming back - I have to talk to her. Because they had quarrelled in the evening, because of problems that...Amanda smokes, she smokes...a lot and they quarrelled.
G. So you think that, like, she took her money for...
R. - no, wait, let me get there, after...
G. - sorry -
R. Let me get you to understand better, well, it's been said...well, okay, so something that hasn't come out yet, it hasn't come out that...Amanda hasn't talked about umm...money, Raffaele hasn't talked about the money. So only I know this, that she told me her money was missing, that was hidden in the drawer where she kept her underwear.
G. I see.
R. She told me this. And after that I went to the bathroom. I really had to go take a ****. And I heard the doorbell. For me, that must have been one of the girls who lived with her. So, I was calmly in the bathroom, like that. And at a certain point -
G. - So you thought it was someone from upstairs?
R. Yes, no, I thought that, well clearly someone rang the doorbell, they rang and she went and opened it -
G. Okay
R. so for me it was...it could have been anyone for me, see?
G. Sure, sure.
R. It could have been Amanda, it could have been... anyone.
G. So you were calmly taking a ****, I get it.
R. I was in the bathroom, so for me, well, I didn't worry about it, because anyway in the end we were going to be seeing each other and...

R. I was in the bathroom, in the bathroom maybe five minutes. So, I really had to take this ****, but then I heard a scream, but let me tell you, a really loud scream, so loud that according to me, if anyone was passing by, nearby, they would have heard this scream, because she screamed so loud...and then, then, I got a bit worried and I got out of the bathroom right away, without even putting my pants back on, they were practically falling down, I was wearing just my underwear and my pants were falling around my...
G. But if I understand, I mean like where was this...I mean, what time do you think this happened, I don't know...
R. Around nine, nine twenty or so, because in the meantime we had gotten to talking about all that stuff.
G. I see.
R. I think nine-twenty, nine-thirty, around then, and then, when I heard the scream, let me tell you she screamed so loud that you could hear it even in the street, Giacomo, she screamed really loud. When I came out, it was in semi-darkness, I came out and I saw him -
G. But who?
R. His back was turned, and I said to myself what the hell is going on?
G. Masked? What the hell was this guy like?
R. Well, firstly this person wasn't bigger than me, I mean taller, physically, in height, he wasn't taller than me. His back was turned, and I saw there...Meredith...I saw Meredith who was bleeding already, she had a slash in her throat, and this guy took a knife and I've got wounds on my hands because I grabbed his hand, he tried to stab me and I still have the wounds on my hands, the signs, that are healing now, but I still have them on my hand...

R. ...I was trying to help her, Giacomo, it's not that...my blood, no, I don't know if there is any or not, because I didn't bleed, I didn't actually bleed, my wounds that I had, the guy just wounded me lightly, it didn't bleed, now I can't tell you...
G. OK, but anyway, I mean, the point is that in my opinion you should [missing word] them, maybe if you have to find some...
R. I tried to help her, and if my prints are in the house, it's obviously because I touched everything, Giacomo.
G. Sure, I believe it if you were there, but listen, this guy, you can't manage to say anything about what the hell he was like? That could be important.

R. Yes but that guy, well, it was almost dark, I didn't see his face, but I say he was Italian because he, we...we insulted each other. I insulted him. And he insulted me and he didn't have a foreign accent, and he wasn't any taller than me, I don't know how tall this Stefano or whoever is, but he certainly wasn't taller than me.
G. So was he, like, blond? What the hell was he like, didn't you manage to see anything?
R. I can't tell you, I think...brown-haired, more brown, not blond because, well you can really see when someone is blond...
G. All right, so not exactly blond, hell do I know, say chestnut?
R. Yes, brown, like brown between...between blond and brown.
G. It's called chestnut.
R. But not light.
G. It's called chestnut, but...
R. In the room it was dark, it was intimate, it was dark.
G. I get it.
R. And it was like my pants were falling down, because I hurried out of the bathroom, I hurried out of the bathroom, so I fell on the ground, and then the guy ran away, he escaped, he went out the door, see? And then I got up, and I tried to help, to staunch the wounds, I took a towel in the bathroom, I tried to...to...
G. Staunch the wound?
R. ...to put it into the wound, see, I was trying, and she was clinging to me hard, very hard. So before anything, I know...it's not that I ran away, but I was scared, I don't know why I didn't call the ambulance, it's because...I was alone there right then, alone, and it was a huge mess of blood, and I was scared that they would blame only me.

R. Listen, Meredith's clothes got put in the washing machine. When the police came to the house it was still full, the girl's clothes were soaked, so if that really did happen, Amanda or Raffaele did it. That must have been them, if it really happened.
G. Why would they have done that?
R. Because when I left she was dressed, see?
G. Meredith? The girl who died?
R. But Meredith was dressed.
G. So they killed her dressed?
R. Yes, but it says here that they were washed in the washing machine, but it's not true, she was dressed, she had a pair of jeans on and a white shirt and a woollen thing. She was dressed.
G. All right, and that...
R. It's obvious that they washed them, Giacomo. I went out, and he'll have gone out of the house, and...
G. But what the hell did Amanda go wash the clothes for?
R. How the hell do I know?
G. But if she's not involved, sorry - I'm reasoning like you would, if I were...
R. Yes but then, after, though, from what I've read, someone else came, because when I left, the window wasn't broken, Giacomo, the window of the house, that window out front, it wasn't broken.
G. And you think it's important about the window and the money that wasn't there any more?
R. Sure, it means someone broke it, and I wasn't there.

 

[LondonJohn]

Huffington Post is reporting that Sky News is reporting that there is now no trace of Meredith Kercher on the Kitchen knife. Apparently, that knife never left Raffaele's until miraculously collected on super instinct by the PLE.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/amanda-knox-trial-knife_n_4194173.html

So.... now they're going to have to acquit and deal with a PLE which hung their futures on that knife. Either that or Italy will ignore this miscarriage of justice and let people life Napoleoni go down over lesser run-ins with the law.

Machiavelli: is Andrea reporting on this news?

No, as far as I'm aware, this is incorrect and misleading reporting from an unsurprisingly-sloppy media.

What appears to have happened is that some reporters have erroneously taken the leaked Carabinieri report to mean that they (the Carabinieri) found none of Meredith's DNA on the entire knife.

Instead, the truth is that the Carabinieri found no DNA from Meredith on sample 36I - the only thing they were given to test. The Carabinieri most certainly never reported on anything outside this one sample, and therefore have nothing to say regarding whose DNA may or may not have been present at other areas on the knife.

So it it almost certainly a case of the media getting it badly wrong here. Having said that, of course, C&V found none of Meredith's DNA on any part of the knife - so all anyone has is Stefanoni's improperly-performed "analysis" to show an alleged minute trace of Meredith's DNA on 36B.

My personal view is that the defence teams should be comfortably able to convince the appeal court that Stefanoni's work was so disgustingly flawed and incompetent that it stands as unreliable, and that there is therefore sufficient doubt generated as to the true original presence of Meredith's DNA on the knife (i.e. that her DNA would have been there at the time the knife was seized from Sollecito's apartment) as to exclude it.

And it probably bears repeating once again that - contrary to the beliefs of some pro-guilt posters - the Carabinieri report most certainly DOES NOT validate or compare itself to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's work: the Carabinieri report validates and compares itself to Vecchiotti's work.

 

[LondonJohn]

I saw that as well. It was something she referred to as proof he was not involved. I believe Machiavelli is wrong again.

Yes, Bongiorno did say that. So, provided she was telling the truth, it appears that Machiavelli is indeed wrong. Again.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, as far as I'm aware, this is incorrect and misleading reporting from an unsurprisingly-sloppy media.
What appears to have happened is that some reporters have erroneously taken the leaked Carabinieri report to mean that they (the Carabinieri) found none of Meredith's DNA on the entire knife.

Instead, the truth is that the Carabinieri found no DNA from Meredith on sample 36I - the only thing they were given to test. The Carabinieri most certainly never reported on anything outside this one sample, and therefore have nothing to say regarding whose DNA may or may not have been present at other areas on the knife.

So it it almost certainly a case of the media getting it badly wrong here. Having said that, of course, C&V found none of Meredith's DNA on any part of the knife - so all anyone has is Stefanoni's improperly-performed "analysis" to show an alleged minute trace of Meredith's DNA on 36B.

My personal view is that the defence teams should be comfortably able to convince the appeal court that Stefanoni's work was so disgustingly flawed and incompetent that it stands as unreliable, and that there is therefore sufficient doubt generated as to the true original presence of Meredith's DNA on the knife (i.e. that her DNA would have been there at the time the knife was seized from Sollecito's apartment) as to exclude it.

And it probably bears repeating once again that - contrary to the beliefs of some pro-guilt posters - the Carabinieri report most certainly DOES NOT validate or compare itself to not-a-real-doctor Stefanoni's work: the Carabinieri report validates and compares itself to Vecchiotti's work.

I get all excited and then there's your post.....

 

[LondonJohn]

I think said commentator was confusing his dates. According to Wiki it was in 1980 that graduate degrees started being offered in Italy, not 2003 - a long time before Stefanoni graduated.

I agree with your earlier post though that it's not really relevant. The problem isn't her qualifications or her lack of skill, but the way she did everything to support the prosecution case, including withholding information from the defence. She could have five PhDs and it wouldn't make any difference.

Yes, it was in 1980. A "laurea" degree in Italy has only ever meant an undergraduate degree. And since 1980, specific new post-graduate qualifications have been introduced. If you don't have one such post-graduate qualification, you're not a doctoral-level academic (as defined by the rest of the academic world).

Stefanoni does not have any post-graduate (i.e. post-laurea) qualifications. Therefore, she's not a PhD equivalent. Therefore, she's not entitled to term herself "doctor" outside of the time-warp that is Italy.

And yes, I think we all agree that her level of qualifications is only a sideshow here - the relevant issue is the fact that she made a very large number of very serious mistakes in collecting and analysing the forensic evidence in the Kercher case. As you say, even if she had the wording "Nobel Laureate" after her name, it wouldn't change the fact that she acted so utterly incompetently (and mendaciously) in this case.

 

[LondonJohn]

I get all excited and then there's your post.....

Sorry

I feel that when the media get things wrong, it needs to be pointed out - regardless of whether the mistake(s) are favourable to the pro-acquittal or pro-guilt point of view.

And remember, after all, that when all the mistakes and misreporting are removed, the facts that remain are still massively on the side of acquittal (and likely total innocence) of Knox and Sollecito. That's all that ultimately matters.

 

[Bill Williams]

A repost from another board, from a friend who speaks Italian, who's cleaned up some Google translate.

LETTER GUEDE - " The same judges that I have wanted to believe - the letter continues , as always anticipates ' Fourth Degree ' - say that I did not kill Meredith , I have not stolen and I have not done any simulation. I want to point out that those who committed this terrible deed and are still at large ', which today unfortunately the truth has not yet been reached and that you never will find if you continue to hear the likes of Mario Alessi and others like him . In these last days - he continues - I did not hear anything but a distorted interpretation of the facts that relate to the story of Perugia , but also a deformation of my person and my character . I have always tried to say what on that tragic night I saw and heard - writes Guede - no slander anyone and without accusing innocent . The truth is ' the must seek justice and not me, there will be no ' but ' truth ' for as long as Meredith ' will be discussed ' of sexual violence , a crime that I never committed and that the coroners rule . " " This is ' a story of pain - finally said - who speaks must never forget it ." ( ANSA ) .

 

[tsig]

I'm not really certain that you want to take on the entire Washington State Delegation. Let's look at the who's who on Amanda Knox's side.

Senator Cantwell
Senator Murray
Former Secretary of State and former First Lady Hillary Clinton

No, I don't think I would go after them.

What she really needs is some judges in Italy on her side.

 

[acbytesla]

What she really needs is some judges in Italy on her side.

Absolutely, I'll give you that, but if it came down to extradition..(let's hope it doesn't) then having US Senators, Congressmen, Secretary of State etc. is a good thing to have in her corner.

 

[acbytesla]

So basically you are saying that the prosecution gives as little as they can and if the defense experts don't request information withing a relatively short period of time that's just too bad for the defendants.

Case closed, right?

This case has been going on for 6 years. Each court date is separated by weeks if not months. They close the case for a two month vacation, but they don't have time to get the requested information to the defense. It couldn't be the money because they charge the defense for everything and they had plenty of Do-Re-Mi for the animation.

Why didn't the system see that holding back DNA test file etc. would look bad to the rest of the world and maybe even some Italians?

It isn't time that is holding the files back. It is the possible scrutiny. Stefanoni has admitted this. She never provides the raw data. The moronic thing is the judges let her get away with it.

 

[Dan O.]

is it possible to determine where Rafs phone was when this text was received?

If so, was that determined?

I'm not sure if it would prove anything but perhaps it would tighten the timeline

Regardless of where the phone was, it doesn't say where Raff was. There is no reason for the phone to be turned off except for privacy. Leaving the phone on and at home would provide a better alibi than turning it off.

I personally don't believe the phone was turned off even though Raffaele's defense might have stipulated that it could have been turned off because the issue is only a distraction. The most probable event is that the phone stayed in Raffaele's pants pocket when the pants were stripped off and tossed into a corner as the two lovers tested the springs on Raff's bed. The phone could not receive a signal until Raff removed it from his pants to put it on the charger before going to bed at 6am.

Raffaele may have a different memory of these events. He has reconstructed his memory of that evening from the scattered facts much as I have assembled my scenario. I wouldn't be able to reconcile our versions without a long personal discussion with Raff and there is no reason to and probably advisable for him not to do that until after this case is sorted legally.