A priest showed the way
She thought she might get off with a few Hail Marys. Instead, she got three years in prison.
The 27-year-old New Jersey woman who cried rape and put away an innocent man had no idea what coming clean would cost her when she stepped into a confessional a year ago and told her priest everything.
"She was going to confess this was her sin and that was it," said a source familiar with the shocking recantation of Biurny Peguero Gonzalez, who on Tuesday was sentenced to one to three years in prison for falsely accusing William McCaffrey of a violent sexual assault in 2005.
McCaffrey, whom Gonzalez had accused of raping her on a deserted Inwood street, served nearly four years of a 20-year sentence. The Bronx man, now 33, was exonerated in December after Gonzalez, a mother of two, admitted concocting the tale to gain sympathy from friends.
Although Gonzalez desperately wanted McCaffrey freed, "I don't think she felt that it was going to go beyond that confession. She just happened to pick a priest who said, 'Oh, no, no, no . . .' "
The priest, the Rev. Zeljko Guberovic of St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church in Union City, made it clear to her that her obligation didn't end with admitting the lie.
He told her she had to do everything in her power to get McCaffrey out, said sources familiar with the case.
That eventually put her in the cross hairs of Manhattan prosecutors, who charged her with perjury, but Gonzalez never wavered, they said.
"She's the hero, not me," Guberovic told The Post.
Gonzalez's admission in March 2009 was her first trip to the confession booth since McCaffrey's conviction four years earlier, and it may have been the first in her life, the sources said.
"The priest said, 'The only way you can make this right is to get a lawyer and get this man out of jail,' " said Gonzalez's lawyer, Paul Callan.
She agreed, and Guberovic contacted a lawyer he knew who in turn reached out to Callan.
"It took enormous courage to turn herself in. It was something that was spiritually motivated. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose," Callan said.
Gonzalez was tormented by her lie, Callan said.
"She was having trouble sleeping. She's been haunted by guilt," he said.
Guberovic's active role in the case left Biurny "enormously grateful," Callan said, but it drew criticism from some parishioners who questioned whether he acted appropriately.
And the Newark Archdiocese reminded the reverend he was not to reveal the contents of any confession.
"He's not supposed to say anything," Callan said. "There's a thing called priest-penitent privilege."
brad.hamilton@nypost.com
Link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/rape_liar_confession_booth_to_clink_5QSIBo9DIql5NcPMm11u3H
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
"He's not supposed to say anything," Callan said. "There's a thing called priest-penitent privilege."
There's a thing called HUMAN RIGHTS as well. I think the latter overrules the former. Would these people really have preferred the victim to remain in prison? Disgusting.
I can understand the utility of privileges for priests and us attorneys (who would consult with an attorney if they feared we might go blabbing what we're told?), but I was put off by the fact that the Archdiocense made it a point, apparently, to warn this good priest to keep his mouth shut. He did just fine the way he handled it, but my guess is that it was a real struggle for him.
The other point is that, yes, this woman did a very evil thing, and her delay was evil, too. But she ended up doing the right thing. Sometimes the most heroic thing someone can do is to correct, as best they can, the awful damage they have caused. That had to be difficult for her.
We wouldn't be in this situation where a women has to confess her sins of putting a man away in prison for four years on her rape lie, if the law enforcement would have done there work in the first place to protect the innocent. There are ways to sniff out a lie, but with the gender feminist perversion of our legal system...you can no longer question a lying pig when she falsely accuses someone.
The gender feminist perversion of our legal system has made the law enforcements constitutional duty to "protect the innocent"..very hard to do.
The law enforcement should have done their job to protect the innocent to begin with..
Sometime back, I heard three things from 2 different people with ties to NYPD investigators.
First, was that Gonzalez only want to gain absolution via confessing to the priest. [Seems to be confirmed in this account]
Second, that the priest had to insist that she go to authorities. [this also seems to be confirmed] One of the two people that I heard from indicated that SHE said in one of her interviews with the DA's office that she was only there because the priest told her that if she didn't do it, then he would have. [still to be confirmed, but seems quite likely].
And, third, that it took several such interviews before she came around to actually stating what she had done. from what I have been told [although unconfirmed] was that in the first interview with her and her attorney, the DA's office was give no indication that she intended to confess; but rather that her attorney seemed bent on bargaining for a deal to keep her out of trouble for what was indicated was some possible misinformation that MIGHT have had a bearing on the trial.
In other recent accounts it has become clear that she (and her lawyer) did, indeed, seek a deal first - the matter of McCaffrey's continuing unjust incarceration being only a secondary concern for her.
I had no reason to doubt the two individuals who shared information about this case with me - but it's still nice to find their information being confirmed more and more as the truth continues to come out.
So, despite all efforts to portray Gonzalez as "the hero", based on what I was told - and what is being confirmed - she acted anything but courageously. She was just trying to cover her own ass - both with God, as well as authorities - once she learned that the DNA evidence was being reviewed.
"The other point is that, yes, this woman did a very evil thing, and her delay was evil, too. But she ended up doing the right thing. Sometimes the most heroic thing someone can do is to correct, as best they can, the awful damage they have caused. That had to be difficult for her."
I seem to recall previous posts detailing how she was essentially forced to recant by her priest, as if she hadn't done, he would have told the police.
Snark, I don't know that the priest ever intended to go to the police himself, but even though her motivation was to save her soul, that's an OK motivation in my book. She realized she did something wrong, and she actually went to prison to make things right. Would a non-believer trying to make things right be any more "heroic"?
Because of the degree of perversion in our legal community over the last 20 years concerning rape...ALL CASES SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED!!!
Anonymous - "ALL CASES SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED!!!"
All case where DNA evidence is possible (but, perhaps not utilized at the time) should absolutely be subject to review. The USDOJ, and not the Innocence Project, should be the ones taking the lead on this.
Additionally, going forward, given that rape is largely considered second only to murder as a heinous crime; it should therefore follow that rape cases OUGHT to be given the same level of consideration as murder cases - from the beginning of the investigation, all the way through any possible court trial.
Having seen what prosecutors (here in Colorado, anyway) have to go through in order to ensure that their evidence (especially forensic evidence) can stand up to the scrutiny it will receive; I can only conclude that William McCaffery's defense attorney(s) did one of the poorer jobs in their defense of him.
It seems clear that not only did DNA found on the bite wound not match his, but the bite mark itself NOT fit with McCaffery's teeth. Yet, neither of these two crucial points seem to have been made clear to the jury.
Note that the DA did not have to give his insipid "the DNA could have come from one of her friends tears as she consoled her" until well after the trial had concluded. That's because the lack of a match was not properly challenged in the courtroom.
It's typically quite difficult to get a conviction on the word of the woman alone. Which is why the bite mark was pivotal in this case. It should have been a "slam dunk" for the defense to (properly) cast doubt on that critical evidence.
Unless the court record (which I've not seen) reveals that the defense did act to challenge that evidence, and the jury somehow chose to disregard their refutation, it continues to appear that McCaffrey's legal team failed him badly (which is in no way to excuse the liar nor LE, which also did a piss-poor job for their part).
This sad case should be widely used to demonstrate the many ways the criminal justice system can fail the (falsely) accused. And, by that, should give ample reason for the sort of through review the anonymous poster has suggested.
What kind of a society is this when a false rape accuser sends three innocent men to prison, and is then hailed as a hero just for finally telling the truth? This is what feminism has done to this country.
Even when the liar is busted she's still the "victim"!
"He's not supposed to say anything,"
This actually isn't true. If someone told a priest in confession that she intended to kill someone then he could report it to the police. This man was in prison so in effect the crime was ongoing into the future and the priest could report it.
This woman did not want to come forward now after she discovered she was pregnant again and it took a lot of coaxing by the priest and lawyer. There is really no absolute secrecy anywhere or with anyone and I think a lot of men should be aware of this. Even doctors, counselors etc can(or must) report certain things so it's best never to say anything beyond the bare minimum for medical treatment. And any record anywhere can be subpoened and how much if anything may be redacted depends on the judge.
This false rape story actually isn't complete. This woman actually accused Mccafferty and the 2 men who were with him. I have no idea what happened to the other two. Perhaps they could not be identified and McCafferty in true male fashion would not give up their names so as not to get them involved.
"If someone told a priest in confession that she intended to kill someone then he could report it to the police."
True for lawyers, but is that the case under Church law? Do you have a cite to the Cathechism or other authority for that.
P.S. We've reported on this at least 12-15 times -- the other two did not go to prison. I will do a summary of the case for posting because I can't recall all the details.
I once negotiated a contract for a client with the Vatican and the Vatican insisted that governing law was the Law of Vatican City. I called a Canon lawyer who formerly lived over there and he had no idea what that law might be -- whether it was codified, etc. -- aside from the Bible.
But in the McCaffrey case, the priest would follow Church law, so it doesn't matter if the civil law makes an exception for imminent crimes etc. If church law doesn't allow it, then this guy almost certainly wouldn't divulge it to anyone.
I know about this.
Catholic Law forbids an ordained priest from ever repeating anything heard in a confessional to anyone else (even the pope) ever, under any circumstances.
There are no exceptions.
However, this still leaves a lot of scope for the priest.
In a case such as this he can refuse you a church marriage, he can petition your excommunication, he can camp out on your doorstep every single day of your life.
The reason he can do all these things is because a part of the deal with Confession is that you make an Act of Contrition, which is decided by the priest, and called Penance. Once you have done your penance you have Absolution, a clean slate.
If the priest decides your penance for "bearing false witness" (the 9th commandment) is to make it right in the real world, and not just saying three hail mary's, then that's the deal.
HE isn't breaching the sanctity of the confessional...
In practice breaching any of the ten commandments, and then not obtaining absolution, is grounds for excommunication.
This priest was "just" doing his job, within limits, the statement by the bishop was just PR fluff, like plod after an FRA saying we still take rape seriously.
Yes, I can shoot John Lennon, confess to a priest, and he will NEVER tell anyone.
But see above, "confession" is only half the story, "penance" is the other half.
Until I repent, do my penance, and gain absolution, the priest is actually DOING HIS ORDAINED JOB to hound me night and day, in order to save my soul.
The whole "confessional" thing is ALWAYS presented wrongly, ESPECIALLY by writers of crime fiction.
You can (sic) take all the above as Gospel, as far as the Catholic church and Holy See are concerned.
Archivist: Vatican City which is just a tiny enclave does have it's own law. Canon Law is a codefied law but has nothing to do with the Bible and just applies to the clergy today. If a crime is committed in Vatican City the suspect is just turned over to the Rome police.
But as far as the priest who hears a confession about a crime that will happen, he can report it to the police. The confidentiality only applies to things that have already happened although even here the priest will urge the person to turn himself in and will not absolve him of the sin unless he agrees to this.
The church has also been contaminated by feminism because some of the people in his parish were criticising him but I wonder if it were a case where a female were falsely imprisoned for 20 years and a man was to blame if they would be singing the same tune.
I know what Canon law is. It is imformed by Biblical teachings. The Church also believes that the Holy Spirit continues to work through the Church.
But what is Vatican City law? Is it codified? Do they have a court for civil disputes?
From the Catholic Cathechism -- AfOR is right as usual -- the priest CANNOT reveal even imminent crimes -- NO EXCEPTIONS:
1467 Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives.72 This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal," because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the sacrament.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#VIII
slwerner, very thoughtful comment.
One of the lessons of our site, and of the Innocence Project, is that sometimes men are convicted based on nothing more than a woman's word. And it's unlikely that all of them had inadquate representation. One of the scarier things is to think about the potential jury you might draw for these cases, or perhaps a hardened feminist judge. Go to court sometime and take a look at them. They don't want to be there. Most of the successful businesspersons won't be there -- they get off. You get a lot of retirees and students without life experience. Anything can happen. It's not a pretty sight.
mm, if a catholic priest does breach the sanctity of the confessional, he is AUTOMATICALLY de-frocked (sacked) and excommunicated (barred from all sacraments, and all other roles within the church)
"sacked" means loss of job and loss of home, and excommunicated ex-priests have, to my knowledge, only ever survived by setting up in a new, separate branch of Christianity.
every would be catholic priest learns all this in the first week at the seminary, a priest breaking the sanctity of the confessional is on a par with a neurosurgeon performing lobotomies with a black and decker drill for fun.
As others have said, yes, there are some bad RC clergy, some, not many, most of the bad ones have drink problems, or woman problems as it happens. Still, they are a small minority.
Spoken as someone with long standing ties with the church, to the extent that the bishop knows me by name.
I mean that in the sense that everyone knows who elvis is (was), but if elvis knew you by name it means a lot more than claiming you know elvis.
Amusingly enough, the old Roman patriarchy laws which many modern MRA's cite as being great, are exactly what RC law (known as "Holy See") and structure is built on, and in this 21st century it is the institution that has changed / drifted the least from those 2000 year old ways.
FWIW I am not a religious nut, I'm an atheist / scientist / realist, so when I stand up for the church it means something.
40 years ago the RC priest was the one who sorted out domestic problems, no need for police or DV counsellors, same for wayward kids, unmarried mums, etc etc.
In my dad's day, before social security, those who fell on hard times were known as living "on the parish" because the priest made sure they had enough to live.
Where needed this was a handout, where possible it was some form of labour for another parishioner, in exchange for etc.
Back then the only other avenue for the needy in that area was Toc-H, who did handouts, and had little real ability or resources, hence a saying my dad had "as dim as a toc-h lamp" because toc-h had so little they had to run the lamps (oil and wick) on as low a flame as possible to conserve the oil.
But what is Vatican City law? Is it codified? Do they have a court for civil disputes?
Yes, but it is not as simple as that. The Vatican gave up jurisdiction over the city of Rome under the Lateran treaty and only has Vatican City and only handles civil maters or discipline of the clergy.. Criminal matters are handled by Italy.
AFOR: there is no seal of the confession when it comes to imminent crimes. There is also no attorney -client privilege in cases of an imminent crime. If a client told his lawyer he was going over to kill the DA then that lawyer could report it.
it drew criticism from some parishioners who questioned whether he acted appropriately.
Is suspect those parishioners would be silent had the penitent been an actual rapist. I also suspect there would be less vitriol had the penitent been a man.
Archivist: I hardly think that a Catholic Cathechism is the final word on this.There are many opinions on this and if you have the next year to waste you can read them all.
Wait, wait, wait -- under Church law, the official Cathechism is the most authoritative source and it says there are NO EXCEPTIONS. See my comment above,
The important point you are ALL missing here is the woman was punished for confessing.
If she hadn't confessed, she would not have been punished, the guy would have stayed in prison, and the 'justice' system would not have been publicly exposed for the joke it is.
If you think aknowledging false rape accusations 'chills' true victims from coming forward, punishing those who come forward more severely than those who are caught lying is going to deep freeze anyone's hope of exoneration.
Anon, I've disposed of that argument many, many times. Take a look.
Anon, the logical conclusion of your argument is that false accusers should not be punished, or that punishments of false accusers should not be reported, because either of these will prevent other false accusers from coming forward.
I don't play numbers games. I don't go along with the idea that a greater number of false accusation victims MIGHT have been exonerated if this ONE wasn't. For one thing, any falsely accused man's exoneration is a cause for celebration; we need not weigh him up against other hypothetical victims who now MIGHT not be released (it is all hypothetical).
For another thing, you run up against the same problem: if this women hadn't come forward, and instead, three other women came forward and three other men were exonerated, what do you do about those other women?
You would have to not punish them, or forbid reporting on their punishment, for your argument to still make sense.
Personally, I think that punishing false accusations HARSHLY is an effective deterrent.
Snark
I agree with you.
There needs to be a harsh punishment for false accusers.
The reason that there are so many false accusations is that women get off with nothing and even got paid for making them.
At a minimum for just filing a false rape claim you should be classified as a sex offender for life.
And if a guy is named and it gets out there publicly then the prison terms start.
I think any guy that is arrested on a false claim should be a minimum of 5 years in prison.
And prisons should be both male and female inmates so women do not get off with doing time at resort while a guy lives in hell.
In the case of this woman that caused a guy to serve 4 years in prison for her lies she should be serving at least 25 years for that.
ANON says..
"If you think aknowledging false rape accusations 'chills' true victims from coming forward, punishing those who come forward more severely than those who are caught lying is going to deep freeze anyone's hope of exoneration."
scott says..thats why their needs to be an independent review of all rape cases by an independent investigative council in all 50 states to un-earth all the perversions of the law in the area of Rape accusations.
I say this as someone who barely escaped 20 years in prison for a rape that was simply a fabrication of her imagination. If she would have been a little better liar, i would not be here right now fighting for the innocent.
scott.
Archivist: the Cathechism is used to instruct laymen and children in the basics.And the only reason that the State granted priests immunity from being compelled to answer questions in court about something he heard in confession is because there were official State religions until recently in most places. The priest could actually talk in this case but then he may have to contend with his Church and being defrocked. He can argue this in an eccleciastic court on the grounds that it wasn't a true confession and the seal doesn't apply.The girl also spoke to him outside of the confessional and he discussed this a number of times with her. He was also the one who first arrainged for her to see a lawyer so apparently the girl waived her right to the seal of the confession. The seal is not absolute. A person may instruct the priest they he wants people to know what he confessed. Besides, centuries ago some people would have to do a public penance and you could tell from the type of punishment they received what the sin was that they confessed because the penances were very specific.
Snark: yes, punishing false accusors harshly would be a BIG deterrent. Nevertheless, there is still a big problem with men being convicted on absolutely no evidence other than the woman's word.There isn't even probable cause to make an arrest. It's apparent that the entire system is defective from the cops to the prosecutors to the juries to the judges and to the appellate division. The only way to deal with a problem this large is to use jury nullification on a grand scale until the system collapses. So never avoid jury duty and never convict ANY man of any crime.During deliberations point out all the exculpatory evidence to convince other jurors to acquit.If they won't then just hang the jury so at least the guy gets another chance (hopefully with another man on the jury who won't convict) and the State wastes a lot of resources. Trials must proceed within a certain time and if you clog up the system they will have to be dismissed.
Anon @ 4:18
You're talking crap, mainly because you have been told the FACTS, and flatly refuse to listen to them.
Roman Catholic Church Law is known as the "Holy See" (Sancta Sedes) and has the status of International Law, even though it does not apply to a state, but to a group of people, this is ACCEPTED INTERNATIONAL LAW.
A breach of the Sacrament of Confession is an AUTOMATIC defrocking and excommunication for the Priest in question (Latae sententiae) and THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS OF ANY KIND.
The Sacrament of Confession even EXPLICITLY FORBIDS a Priest to mention your confession to a Bishop, or to the Pope, even when seeking guidance as to a suitable penance.
In the USA (which is where I am guessing you are from) the confessional is declared by the Federal Court to be strictly 4th amendment territory, and even issued injunctions to protect this status, eg by a third party eavesdropping.
See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n6_v114/ai_19174189/
slwerner said...
Anonymous - "ALL CASES SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED!!!"
All case where DNA evidence is possible (but, perhaps not utilized at the time) should absolutely be subject to review. The USDOJ, and not the Innocence Project, should be the ones taking the lead on this.
True, the USDOJ should be on the forefront of all of this. A very astute observatoin Mr SlWerner. We can only imagine ( and guess ) why they aren't. Feminist influences?
"All case where DNA evidence is possible (but, perhaps not utilized at the time) should absolutely be subject to review. The USDOJ, and not the Innocence Project, should be the ones taking the lead on this."
The USDOJ has a built-in conflict of interest. While that cabinet level department wears numerous hats, it is the chief prosecutorial arm of the Federal Government. As such, and despite whatever good faith and whatever best intentions its representatives have, it can never be regarded as an independent, objective, third party. It is akin to the nation's D.A. Nobody could honestly say D.A.'s might not be biased and corrput. A little case down in Durham a few years ago kind of proved that, didn't it?
The Innocence Project, on the other hand, is independent. Its interest isn't tainted by any inherent conflict.
What makes me angry concerning this case is;
1.) She told a lie and caused an innocent man to be sent to prison and suffer because she did not want to tell the truth.
2.) She is urged by this man of the cloth to tell the police and the system the truth, because she refused to do the right thing from the beginning.
3.) Even after doing the right thing, she is attempting to cause the priest trouble by blaming him for her predictiment (avoiding responsibility and accountability for her actions).
In my opion he is a Hero.
Father Guberovic is not a hero, he did nothing heroic, he is simply a good and just man, doing his job to the best of his ability.
Father Guberovic would, I am sure, be the first to agree with this.
It says much about how far we have come as a society that a decent man following his conscience is branded as a hero.
Audie Murphy was a Hero.
Archivist - "The USDOJ has a built-in conflict of interest. While that cabinet level department wears numerous hats, it is the chief prosecutorial arm of the Federal Government. As such, and despite whatever good faith and whatever best intentions its representatives have, it can never be regarded as an independent, objective, third party. It is akin to the nation's D.A. Nobody could honestly say D.A.'s might not be biased and corrput. A little case down in Durham a few years ago kind of proved that, didn't it?"
Pierce,
I must respectfully disagree here.
First, let me say, I may not have been clear enough about what I was suggesting. What I meant was that the USDOJ (and, most like, the Civil Rights Div) needs to act to supersede Local DA’s who typically oppose the reopening of cases when the Innocence Project (et. al.) petition the courts to do so.
There are seldom particularly close ties between USDOJ Civil rights Attorney’s and state criminal prosecutors, so those DOJ lawyers are not as likely to “side” with the local DA’s resistance to the work of the latter being revisited.
Hopefully to explain this better, let me bring up an example of a situation to which I had so “inside” information, the case here in Colorado of Tim Masters, a poor white kid railroaded for a murder – a case for which there was DNA evidence which would have been exculpatory.
The Innocence Project was instrumental in the eventual testing of that evidence, and sought to have the verdict set aside, and the case reviewed. The local DA was (predictably) dead-set against this. The Colorado Attorney General’s Office intervened, and appointed a special prosecutor from another district, who saw the case through to the exoneration and release from prison of the wrongfully convicted Masters.
My point in looking to the USDOJ was not so much to have them do the full review – start tot finish – but rather that they act to intercede on behalf of the potentially wrongfully convicted where they are presented with evidence which should be duly considered.
I still see the Innocence Project (IP) playing the important roles of investigation and advisal, but I don’t think that the IP should have to fight to get cases reopened – that’s the role of either a states Attorney General’s or the DOJ. I recommend the USDOJ specifically because it is even less likely to have possible conflicts of interest than would a states AG Office.
The most important point here is that, when critical evidence is uncovered, the government should not be acting as an obstruction to the review of cases, but should take an active role (in the forefront) in ensuring that such a review is conducted.
slwerner, excellent: ". . .the USDOJ (and, most like, the Civil Rights Div) needs to act to supersede Local DA’s who typically oppose the reopening of cases when the Innocence Project (et. al.) petition the courts to do so."
I agree with your comment.
Look to the aggressive, young, inexperienced DA, Shondra Strain, with little life experience. All they want is a conviction and a notch on their belt.
So the DA wouldnt admit a mistake on their part until it was no longer possible in any way. Check. This "hero" who probably indirectly raped, beat, kidnapped, imprisoned(and just the physical) a man, is seen as anything but what she is. Check. And police and prosecutors are barely even mentioned in the outrage. Check. Why is it when a person is in prison, guilty or not, it is seen as some alternate universe? How many assaults did he endure? Was he raped? Numerous times? Ahh thats prison though! If he was innocent and she lied to put him there, she ought to be seen as the monster she is. Just because she was off having kids and getting married while her victim is being assaulted BY OTHERS, doesnt mean that every punch he took, every beating, every moment of discomfort he couldnt alleviate doesnt have her name on it. She put an innocent man in prison. Sounds so simple. Until you admit that every horror he EVER EXPERIENCED inside, was her crime. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And the prosecutors who play puppetmasters with lives as they check their conviction % with no thought of what is behind every checkmark. Im a man and i would sooner be raped by a gang of thugs, than be thrown in a cage by a well dressed "dispenser of justice" who will happily let others do their bidding. Prosecutors need to first have humanity, then and only then should they hold lives in the palm of their hands. Disgusting on every level.
Post a Comment