It was quite an extraordinary… it is sort of a landmark case. Because what happened, we did a six-month evidentiary hearing. There were Nobel Prize winners on the prosecution side, we had all these great scientists. And by the end of the hearing, Eric wrote an article about it in Nature. But what happened is he got the prosecution scientists to agree with our scientists about the data and they conceded. They wrote a joint statement at the end of the hearing that you couldn’t match the fragments, you couldn’t make an adequate statement about their significance, and called on the National Academy of Sciences to convene a panel immediately to help with the transfer of this technology from medical and research purposes to the forensic arena. And that was really a great and extraordinary development. That’s really how we began. So we knew immediately that DNA would prove a lot of people innocent.