included minor misdemeanor, but the grand jury failed to indict him on anything to do with camilla willinghamdn't believe her. and the harvard law school, when this case went up on appeal to the law fact ul it i, majority of the faculty decided that there wasn't enough evidence to find him responsible. and she was just not credible in the -- in any point in time. >> hold on one second. i between challenge you on that, mr. zalkind. sheep was credible enough that the first process, the process by which your client was expelled, did go in her favor. first when harvard looked at this case, they believed camilla's story, not your client's then what happened was there was an appeals process. let me finish. appeals process unlike any appeal process we know as americans to be fair, camilla was not alerted there was an appeal happening. the appeals process only heard from your client. they only got his side of the story. she wasn't even part of it. and he was then reinstated at there were two different findings at harvard. >> i don't agree with you because the appeal process is a normal process in sch