Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Hartley on July 22, 2011, 04:09:PM
-
PC John Manners statement - 23/09/1985
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
Not sure if you are agreeing opr not Harters ???
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
Not sure if you are agreeing opr not Harters ???
Well what I am saying is that you are incorrect in your statement that "In fact he said no windows were open" - that is incorrect, he said no such thing.
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
Not sure if you are agreeing opr not Harters ???
Well what I am saying is that you are incorrect in your statement that "In fact he said no windows were open" - that is incorrect, he said no such thing.
Tch. :(
-
Good posts by the way Harters. +1
-
I think he's saying that he didn't notice any windows or doors open. Implying that there could have been some open.
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
He was, however, hyper alert and paying particular attention to such things.
-
He makes no mention of the window being opened as an escape route. In fact he said no windows were open
No he doesn't Cliff, he says:
"Whilst I was carrying out the search I was not aware of any open windows or external doors".
He was, however, hyper alert and paying particular attention to such things.
I posted the statement for people to read, make of it what you will.
-
Hartley, can you make out the couple of sentences that have been crossed out?
-
Hartley, can you make out the couple of sentences that have been crossed out?
Looks like it talks about knocked over chairs, can't make much of it out, not sure why it's been crossed out.
-
Thank you, Hartley. I can make out general dissarray and scuffs on floor - I wonder why it was crossed out?
-
Ooh! Good work, Sarann!
-
Hartley, can you make out the couple of sentences that have been crossed out?
Hi Shona, I read the crossed out paragraph as:
read it as:
"The Kitchen was in general disarray, chairs (upturned?) and breakfast dishes and food stuffs on the floor. There were also bloodstains on the floor."
-
Hartley, can you make out the couple of sentences that have been crossed out?
Hi Shona, I read the crossed out paragraph as:
read it as:
"The Kitchen was in general disarray, chairs (upturned?) and breakfast dishes and food stuffs on the floor. There were also bloodstains on the floor."
Might Manners have crossed that section out on being told that officers ahead of him had knocked all of that stuff over?
-
Thanks, Choch.
-
Can we get one thing clear here please. The highlighting and crossing out was done by Mike Teskowski, we have enough conpiracy theories already thank you.
-
Oh, right. I actually find that more puzzling.
-
Oh, right. I actually find that more puzzling.
Maybe, but lets see it as he highlighted things to make notes, after he made the notes he crossed the highlight out, nothing more sinister than that.
-
OK, Harts. The voice of reason, as ever!!
-
I find the comment by PC John Manners interesting where he states "Mrs Bamber was clothed in a nightdress.... I remember that the blood on her legs was smudged as if she had been dragged by the legs"!
So we have NB perched on an overturned chair with his head placed in a coal scuttle, SC "staged" in a most obvious way, in a "not quite right" position next to the bed (on a non-bloodstained rug), and now a suggestion by Manners that June appears to have been dragged across the floor.
Why would JB (or SC) do these things :o
In my mind (and my mind like everyones is limited) I can only see the murderer shooting them and then leaving them dead in the position they were killed.
All this "repositioning" is very disturbing ???
-
Thinking here...June moved..hmm...she was in the way a bit in the pictures by the doorway...
If Sheila was carried from the kitchen to where the police placed her..Junes body would be in the way and if carried over June...blood could drip onto June from Sheila and this may blow the cover up.
So June is moved out the way when Sheila is carried into the bedroom and put back into position afterwards.
Now on another thread one officer or another reports June in a different position to that depicted in the photographs....hmmm this adds support to this scenario being credible and correct in its basis.
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
That is simple. Sheila's manipulation is documented and photographed, I don't believe Mike has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, I think he is lying.
There is no documentation that June has been manipulated, if there are drag marks then it's just as likely that she dragged her own injured body to that position before being shot between the eyes.
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
That is simple. Sheila's manipulation is documented and photographed, I don't believe Mike has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, I think he is lying.
There is no documentation that June has been manipulated, if there are drag marks then it's just as likely that she dragged her own injured body to that position before being shot between the eyes.
Possible. The bit about June I mean. I don't think that Mike is lying about the photograph.
-
thinking of Sheila being carried by 2 or more policemen in the bedroom...
they move June as her body was in the way etc as blood from Sheila may drip on her...as they carry Sheila's body they have to round the bed...ie turn the corner.....it is at this point of turning that they will move slower as they have to turn 90 degrees... at which also Sheila's body may tip a little allowing blood to spill from her in the turning point area.
Now looking at one of the bedroom photographs there appears to be a rectangle of carpet that has been cut out in this relevant area of turning where blood may have spilled from Sheila.
Was this section cut out due to whose blood it was and what it may show if tested or was its appearance so distinctly different from other blood spots on the floor to make it stand out as unusual?
-
Unfortunately not possible, there is very little blood in the doorway itself, Junes body could not have been in the door way. I can post a photograph if you like but be warned it is a bit graphic and not particularly pleasant.
-
I believe Mike has seen Sheila on the bed what reason would he have to lie about that point?
-
june was in the doorway wasnt she, but laid to one side of it.
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
That is simple. Sheila's manipulation is documented and photographed, I don't believe Mike has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, I think he is lying.There is no documentation that June has been manipulated, if there are drag marks then it's just as likely that she dragged her own injured body to that position before being shot between the eyes.
Hartley - Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this? He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him. If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken. I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them. I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.
-
Hartley - Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this? He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him. If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken. I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them. I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.
Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.
I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.
This post for example:
You are a complete idiot...
I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...
Or this one:
Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...
Or this one:
Stop being pathetic...
So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.
-
Can we get one thing clear here please. The highlighting and crossing out was done by Mike Teskowski, we have enough conpiracy theories already thank you.
... You lying scumbag, I haven't altered anything...
-
Hartley - Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this? He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him. If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken. I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them. I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.
Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.
I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.
This post for example:
You are a complete idiot...
I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...
Or this one:
Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...
Or this one:
Stop being pathetic...
So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.
hmm, got a point. ::)
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
-
Can we get one thing clear here please. The highlighting and crossing out was done by Mike Teskowski, we have enough conpiracy theories already thank you.
... You lying scumbag, I haven't altered anything...
See my point NGB?
So Mike you haven't highlighted and crossed out on this page? Besides I think it's quite obvious I was not accusing you of anything untowards. Great reaction though! ::)
-
Hartley - Do you really believe it is necessary or appropriate to call Mike a liar in relation to this? He has stated that he recalls seeing the photograph and I have no reason to doubt him. If you do not believe he in fact saw the photograph you could say that he might have been mistaken. I personally take great exception to being called a liar (as has happened several times on this forum) and although there are times when that term is necessary and appropriate I do not see how you can consider this to be one of them. I hope that on reflection you will agree with me on this.
Well that is what I believe and I do feel it appropriate if it is being used to somehow bolster his argument.
I don't think you can play too high and mighty with me on this NGB, I've been on the receiving end of some of Mikes vitriol, of which I take great exception to.
This post for example:
You are a complete idiot...
I said that his body was frozen in a sitting position by rigor mortis...
Or this one:
Stop being an idiot, of course it happened...
Or this one:
Stop being pathetic...
So with all due respect NGB, I disagree with your entire post.
Hartley - Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making. I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view. I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it. My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view. If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse. If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.
-
june was in the doorway wasnt she, but laid to one side of it.
Sort of, to the side a bit, she wasn't blocking the doorway though.
-
Hartley - Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making. I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view. I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it. My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view. If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse. If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.
Sort of I suppose, but that is genuinely what I believe, I think being called a lying scumbag could be just as irritating and directly attacking my credibility, as per Mikes previous post.
But anyway. Let's move on.
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
I will leave well alone then!
-
Hartley - Fair enough, and I understand the point that you are making. I was not trying to "play high and mighty" on this. Posters on both sides of the argument sometimes use emotive language to put across their point of view. I agree we should not be too thin skinned about it. My only point is that calling someone a liar crosses a line in my view. If I am called an idiot I may be irritated but I regard it simply as abuse. If I am called a liar that goes beyond abuse - it is a direct attack on my integrity. I hope that you can see the difference.
Sort of I suppose, but that is genuinely what I believe, I think being called a lying scumbag could be just as irritating and directly attacking my credibility, as per Mikes previous post.
But anyway. Let's move on.
Fair enough, in the circumstances I think we probably should!
-
Sometimes we all get a bit heated and irritated with folk and calling people lyers is wrong whoever says it. Perhaps we can all take a bit more care and moderate our language and respect one another? ;D
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
-------------------
Ann Eaton has lied about handing the silencer over, she knows she gave it to the police on 11th September 1985, and that the relatives have conspired with police officers (in particular their best friend DS "Stan" Jones) about the silencer being found a month earlier. Eaton knows the truth and she is hoping that no evidence surfaces which proves that the relatives deliberately contaminated the silencer by scratching it against the paintwork of the aga...
David Boutfloyur also has lied, because he did not contact the police until 11th September 1985, to inform them that he had found a silencer in the gun cupboard at whf - he would hardly wait a month before choosing to report the find of a silencer a month previously?
I don't have to lie, the relatives and the police have made such a good job of it all by themselves...
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
-------------------
One of the firearm officers witness statements has June on the bedroom floor with her feet closest to the doorway when he entered the bedroom - now in the crime scene photographs that PC Bird took, Junes feet are pointing away from the door, so who moved her biody into that position?
-
I believe Mike has seen Sheila on the bed what reason would he have to lie about that point?
-----------------
Sheila was photographed on the bed, and Ann Eaton was told by a police officer that June was found on the bed, along with Sheila, and the gun laying between them...
-
june was in the doorway wasnt she, but laid to one side of it.
Sort of, to the side a bit, she wasn't blocking the doorway though.
-----------------
Depending upon which evidence you choose to rely upon, Junes legs and feet were closest to the bedroom door, (firearms officer), or pointing away from the door (crime scene pictures) - now which are we to believe?
-
watch your manners dave, youre outstaying your welcome
-
I believe Mike has seen Sheila on the bed what reason would he have to lie about that point?
-----------------
Sheila was photographed on the bed, and Ann Eaton was told by a police officer that June was found on the bed, along with Sheila, and the gun laying between them...
So what? They moved her, get over it.
----------------
They stage managed her body, just like they stage managed the other bodies, the photographs shown to the jury were very misleading since they were led to believe that the position of the bodies as shown in the crime scene pictures was exactly as they had been found by the firearms team when they got into the farmhouse - the truth is police moved the bodies and stage managed them, it was not any as yet unidentified killer, or Jeremy, it was the police, so you get over it...
Stop blaming Jeremy for doing the things which Essex police did...
-
watch your manners dave, youre outstaying your welcome
Can't argue with the facts can you. You are so vain.
im vain? why is that then?
-
Sometimes we all get a bit heated and irritated with folk and calling people lyers is wrong whoever says it. Perhaps we can all take a bit more care and moderate our language and respect one another? ;D
that sounds like fighting talk to me. Stick 'em up!
-
jeremy bamber could be innocent, get over it DAVE.
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
-------------------
Yes, Ann Eaton took home the bloodstained panties of Sheila, and other bloodstained garments from the bucket in the kitchen, why would someone want to do this?
And whilst on the subject of bloodstained panties, wasn't it her who conspired with DCS "Mick" Ainsley (head of the second investigation) to make sure that she mentioned when testifying that you can tell the difference between menstrual blood and ordinary blood by way of the smell (if she was asked about the possibility that the silencer had been deliberately contaminated with blood from Sheila's panties)?
It amounts to something when the head of the second investigation is telling witnesses what to say when they testify, don't you think?
-
Oh, FFS. Why does every new anti-JBer have to come across like Hitler annexing Poland? I'm sure you're a decent bloke, Dave, but you're not really helping.
IMO.
-
So if they stage managed them why photograph her on the bed or is that yet more false facts?
--------------
Use your brain, if you've got one, why do you think PC Bird falsified the photographic record by declaring that there was only 223 pictures taken as part of the investigation when all along there were 358?
Of course they stage managed the scene and tampered with the exhibits, that's why the relatives originally got suspicious...
358
223 -
-----
135 withheld photographs, which would have exposed the cover up and stage managing iof they had been disclosed by the time of the trial...
Work it out for yourself, do you not agree that the withholding of over 135 photographs was very serious?
-----
-
Oh, FFS. Why does every new anti-JBer have to come across like Hitler annexing Poland? I'm sure you're a decent bloke, Dave, but you're not really helping.
IMO.
Helping what lovey?
Lovey? Jesus. You and PB must have been seperated at birth. Unless.....................
-
So if they stage managed them why photograph her on the bed or is that yet more false facts?
--------------------
The photograph of Sheila on the bed, was obviously one of the 135 missing and deliberately withheld and concealed photographs that Essex police did not want the defense or the court to see...
Work it out...
-
Mike, that photo is so obviously key - is there no way it can be traced?
-
Smiffy your posts are as effective as a chihuahua chewing a tank.
I am going to ask the DPP to gag you with a PII; now that would
be in the public interest. ;D
He actually makes a pretty good point. The have already admitted moving Sheila's arm so they could photograph the boodstain on her night dress (It baffles me as to why they wanted a good picture of blood?) Mike also claims thay he has seen a picture of Sheila on the bed instead of on the floor. And I believe him. So why would it not be reasonable to suppose that June's body had also been "manipulated" into that position?
That is simple. Sheila's manipulation is documented and photographed, I don't believe Mike has seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, I think he is lying.
There is no documentation that June has been manipulated, if there are drag marks then it's just as likely that she dragged her own injured body to that position before being shot between the eyes.
....
I think you are lying about thinking that I am lying, I don't need to lie like you do, you are doing it because you can't find any proper explanation, you are running scared...
Sheila's body was moved and staged long before SOC arrived at the scene - they did not even take control of the farmhouse until 10am, so stop trying to blame poor old Cooksey boy for moving Sheila's body, he only moved her hand...
The stage managing took place before then, and you and everyone else knows it...
Stop kidding yourself...
-
Oh, FFS. Why does every new anti-JBer have to come across like Hitler annexing Poland? I'm sure you're a decent bloke, Dave, but you're not really helping.
IMO.
In my opinion Hitler didn't annex Poland he invaded it! He annexed Austria.
No I don't have proof.
I don't think Essex Police were involved either.
And Jeremy Bamber could have done it; he was involved in my opinion. Can You prove he wasn't. (Dates of birth can be altered!)
-
Mike, that photo is so obviously key - is there no way it can be traced?
---------------------
through the negatives, but Essex police chopped them up into single frames and several are still missing or unaccounted for, as far as I can gather? The police had to destroy the bedding upon which Sheila's body was laying because there would have been evidence contained on the blankets that Sheila had been laying there, so they burnt all the damning evidence on a bonfire in the grounds of whf...
Police told Ann Eaton that Sheila and June were found on the bed...
Why would the police lie to the relatives?
-
Of course because of the importance of the photos I bet they conveniently dissapear. They will use every trick in the book with public opinion turning in JB s favour
-
I believe Mike has seen Sheila on the bed what reason would he have to lie about that point?
-----------------
Sheila was photographed on the bed, and Ann Eaton was told by a police officer that June was found on the bed, along with Sheila, and the gun laying between them...
So what? They moved her, get over it.
Dave, I'd wish you'd do a bit of reading of early posts before you comment on something you obviously know nothing about. That way you will come over in an intelligent way instead of giving the impression that you are fumbling in the dark.
-
Of course because of the importance of the photos I bet they conveniently dissapear. They will use every trick in the book with public opinion turning in JB s favour
Now I know you are deluded. The public will never warm to a child butcher.
No, but they would to an innocent man unjustly convicted.
-
dave of course it matters if the bodies were moved, they should be photographed in the position they were FOUND in, not manipulated by the police first before photos are taken. it matters alot, dont you get it ?
-
fact is dave , the bodies shouldnt have been moved by the police before they were photographed, it hasnt give an accurate depiction of the crime scene has it, they shouldnt have interfered with the crime scene, simple as that.
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
-------------------
Yes, Ann Eaton took home the bloodstained panties of Sheila, and other bloodstained garments from the bucket in the kitchen, why would someone want to do this?
And whilst on the subject of bloodstained panties, wasn't it her who conspired with DCS "Mick" Ainsley (head of the second investigation) to make sure that she mentioned when testifying that you can tell the difference between menstrual blood and ordinary blood by way of the smell (if she was asked about the possibility that the silencer had been deliberately contaminated with blood from Sheila's panties)?
It amounts to something when the head of the second investigation is telling witnesses what to say when they testify, don't you think?
No she didn't, this is like groundhog day. I've already done this.
Read Anns statement, it even explains which bin they went into.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
-
And also to add I do not think he was mistaken, to describe it as such would not convey my opinion, I believe he is actively lying in order to bolster his argument.
Just as he did when he informed us that Ann Eaton took blood soaked clothes home for whf, he cropped a page of Ann's statement, if he hadn't cropped it then we would have seen the next line which shows Mike to be actively lying in an attempt to deceive people.
So yes that's it. You have irritated the hell out of me though, but I'll calm down in thirty seconds. ::)
-------------------
Yes, Ann Eaton took home the bloodstained panties of Sheila, and other bloodstained garments from the bucket in the kitchen, why would someone want to do this?
And whilst on the subject of bloodstained panties, wasn't it her who conspired with DCS "Mick" Ainsley (head of the second investigation) to make sure that she mentioned when testifying that you can tell the difference between menstrual blood and ordinary blood by way of the smell (if she was asked about the possibility that the silencer had been deliberately contaminated with blood from Sheila's panties)?
It amounts to something when the head of the second investigation is telling witnesses what to say when they testify, don't you think?
No she didn't, this is like groundhog day. I've already done this.
Read Anns statement, it even explains which bin they went into.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,497.msg8443.html#msg8443
[/quote
I thought that, too. Mike, this has been sorted, and you know that it has. When you have so many facts at your fingertips, why do you compromise your credibilty? I'm still recovering from the Ali Bongo fiasco. And I still dream about beetroot.
-
Of course because of the importance of the photos I bet they conveniently dissapear. They will use every trick in the book with public opinion turning in JB s favour
Public opinion turning in Bamber's favour! Yeah he is a popular bloke now!
I see all the free Bamber marches and demos all the time on Sky News!
It's on the Fantasy Channel.
-
Dave, diss Jackie at your peril. No one works harder. You have to admire that.
-
ffs
-
Of course because of the importance of the photos I bet they conveniently dissapear. They will use every trick in the book with public opinion turning in JB s favour
Public opinion turning in Bamber's favour! Yeah he is a popular bloke now!
I see all the free Bamber marches and demos all the time on Sky News!
It's on the Fantasy Channel.
You had me going there for a bit Poor Bambi until I saw Fantasy Channel. Between that and the Jackie tweets it makes for a mind-boggling afternoon.
You have to humour some of the cranks sometimes .... actually there's only two cranks before I get told off! And Grahame deffo isn't one of them!
I sometimes wonder, PB, if you don't crank a bit too much. IMO.
-
ffs
Only joking ;D
-
just stop the shit now, theres no need for it, you was doing ok pb until dave came on line, hes leading you astray lad ;)
-
Dave, diss Jackie at your peril. No one works harder. You have to admire that.
Hi Shona, great to see you! Good post about Jackie -very true too. +1 for both of you.
-
Thanks, Choch, and thanks for your kind message when it was much needed. xxx.
-
dave, just stop being a knob
-
Andy, there's no k in nob. And Dave, I have it on good authority that Jackie is as rich as Croesus. So there.
-
Thanks, Choch, and thanks for your kind message when it was much needed. xxx.
Any time x
-
off to bed all, got work and i dont want to sleep in, night all.
-
Where did that come from?
-
It's official Daves a nob and he came from John Lambertons school of Charm ::)
-
Dave, at the risk of sounding like Dick Emery's vicar, you are seriously not doing the anti-JBers any good. Are you aware of smiffy's work?
-
Bugger me, Jack. Don't say nob. Apparently, since our day, a k has been introduced. It's now nobk.
-
off to bed all, got work and i dont want to sleep in, night all.
Night, Andrea!
-
Where did that come from?
Where did what come from, Shon?
-
It's obviously been deleted, Choch. Dave calling Andy a TIT. Perhaps he thought better of it.
-
I hate to labour a point, but I'm sure, in 1979, on a toilet door in the Locarno, I clearly read "Garry is a nob."
Again, I might be wrong.
-
Shona everyday you make my world a happier place :D
-
Why, thank you, Jack!! Preen, preen. You've got the goss, Jack. How is JB feeling at the moment? Optimistic?
-
Shona JB is so confident but I know Ngb thinks it very serious what's going on with Essex Police at the moment and on the back of what's happening I said to him yesterday be careful. So he said to me he's fine he's fit and strong and he will be fine and I said I wasn't worried too much about everyday but if Essex Police are that worried you don't really know what could happen.
If you think about it there could be a number of policeman going to prison and big pensions lost anything could happen. Someone has already been murdered in JB s prison this year
Essex Police are going full steam ahead to stop JB s case getting referred to the court of appeal
-
Blimey, Jack, that's bit massive. Could Essex police really have covered up this case for 26 years? The mind boggles.
-
Whatever I believe, when I read stuff like that, Jack, I understand why you fight.
-
Pipe dreams Shona, just pipe dreams. Bamber will be in prison and
'confident' in 25 years time if he doesn't become one of the murdered!
-
I hate to admit it, but there will always be an element of doubt. Jackie's an intelligent woman, and she fights on.
-
I hate to admit it, but there will always be an element of doubt. Jackie's an intelligent woman, and she fights on.
I hate to admit it Shona The Brave every word of that post is just wrong!
;D
-
At least I'm not Shona the radio rental anymore. But Jackie is intellligent, tenacious and loyal. We could learn a lot.
-
shes very loyal. a reet terrier is jack!!
-
Blimey, Jack, that's bit massive. Could Essex police really have covered up this case for 26 years? The mind boggles.
Yes Shona and several other people are sure oif it as well including ngb. Recent events concerning JB have I am afraid confirmed our suspicions that t5hey are in fact hiding something big and it may go all the way to the top.
-
if people can conspire to muder the most powerful man on the planet (jfk).
Then im sure this country could stitch up smallfry like jeremy bamber.
-
I hate to admit it, but there will always be an element of doubt. Jackie's an intelligent woman, and she fights on.
I hate to admit it Shona The Brave every word of that post is just wrong!
;D
That shows just how inconsistent you are. In one breath you call her Shona the Brave and in the next breath you disagree with her. This should be a warning to all those tempted to be friends with you. ;)
-
I didn't call her Shona The Correct! Since when have brave and wrong been mutually oppossing adjectives? ;D
-
thinking of Sheila being carried by 2 or more policemen in the bedroom...
they move June as her body was in the way etc as blood from Sheila may drip on her...as they carry Sheila's body they have to round the bed...ie turn the corner.....it is at this point of turning that they will move slower as they have to turn 90 degrees... at which also Sheila's body may tip a little allowing blood to spill from her in the turning point area.
Now looking at one of the bedroom photographs there appears to be a rectangle of carpet that has been cut out in this relevant area of turning where blood may have spilled from Sheila.
Was this section cut out due to whose blood it was and what it may show if tested or was its appearance so distinctly different from other blood spots on the floor to make it stand out as unusual?
The cut out bit of carpet I refer to is not near the door by June but not too far from where Sheila's feet were depicted in the photographs....
I would like to add that there must have been some great urgency and reason for the police to have cut out this sample of carpet prior to photographs being taken...why was it a priority...it makes no sense if it was an innocent act...but lots of sense if it threatened the cover up. In my view that rectangle of carpet was cut out so it did not appear in photographs.
-
thinking of Sheila being carried by 2 or more policemen in the bedroom...
they move June as her body was in the way etc as blood from Sheila may drip on her...as they carry Sheila's body they have to round the bed...ie turn the corner.....it is at this point of turning that they will move slower as they have to turn 90 degrees... at which also Sheila's body may tip a little allowing blood to spill from her in the turning point area.
Now looking at one of the bedroom photographs there appears to be a rectangle of carpet that has been cut out in this relevant area of turning where blood may have spilled from Sheila.
Was this section cut out due to whose blood it was and what it may show if tested or was its appearance so distinctly different from other blood spots on the floor to make it stand out as unusual?
The cut out bit of carpet I refer to is not near the door by June but not too far from where Sheila's feet were depicted in the photographs....
I would like to add that there must have been some great urgency and reason for the police to have cut out this sample of carpet prior to photographs being taken...why was it a priority...it makes no sense if it was an innocent act...but lots of sense if it threatened the cover up. In my view that rectangle of carpet was cut out so it did not appear in photographs.
The purpose of taking photographs is so that the crime scene can be recorded. Therefore it is imperative that the crime scene is preserved as it is BEFORE any photographs are taken. In other words those photographs are a permanent record of the crime scene and should not vary in any way. Well, you may say that Sheila committed suicide and therefore it was not crucial to be accurate in recording the scene. No that is not true. It was still a crime scene and the utmost care should have been taken by the police in preserving things for the enquiry. You cannot excuse the police for the errors they made and then go off and say that JB is still guilty. If that crime scene was interfered with in any way then any evidence that was gathered should have been made null and void. Because of these brave errors the police had everything to lose both collectively and individually. So they had a real motice in covering things up.
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
There was a big pool of Ralphs blood on the kitchen floor. It would not take much effort by those wishing to cover up what really happened to use that source of blood to make stains on the wallpaper.
With no stains on an appropriate bit of carpet to back up the later mentioned bloodstains on the wallpaper then it does look dodgy. There also seems an intent in the cover up to have Ralph shot initially in the bedroom and any deliberate bloodstaining added to the wallpaper may have been part of the cover up attempts.
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
Perhaps they had more important concerns than checking out the state of the decor - like avoiding the possibility of being shot in the head while climbing the stairs?
-
talking of Ralphs blood around the coal scuttle.
It is obviously still wet at the time of taking photographs (10.00 am approx according to Bird) for it to produce a clear detailed reflection of the coal scuttle.
Dried blood would not do this ...the pool of blood would soon skin over at the surface and lose reflective properties. It is not feasible that the blood should still be wet over 6 and a half hours after death unless it had only recently exited the body due to significant movement of the body to enable previously contained blood to escape.
The warmth given off by the still lit aga nearby would speed up blood drying.
-
Manners on seeing Ralph claims to see damage to his head but only refers to blood splashes..he refers to other stuff on the floor.
What is odd is that he does not mention a huge pool of blood having come from Ralph or that some effort had been made to contain it by somebody.
This is an error that is significant as the later picture of Ralph shows a substantial amount of blood that had to have been deposited fairly close to when the pictures were taken.
Ralphs body looks very much staged and gives all the signs of rigor mortis having set in prior to the body being put into the position shown in the photographs.
Now if killed about 3.30 am then by 7.30 am or shortly afterwards when viewed by Manners , Woodcock etc then that only leaves 4 hours for rigor mortis to have set in. Thats very tight and it would not be expected at 4 hours for it to be well set in. The pictures show a body with it fairly well established.
The argument runs that at shortly after 7.30 there may not have been enough rigor mortis set in to position Ralph as depicted. He could well have been left sitting longer in his chair. By leaving his body in the chair for 2 further hours then a greater level of rigor mortis would be set in to allow for his body to be posed as shown and this ties up with freshly leaked blood in photographes taken at about 10.00am.
The body does look staged but if certain things could be viewed then it would be even more obvious that it was staged. For instance the angle of his feet to his legs will reflect the position he was in when rigor mortis set in . If seated as contended then these will be conversant with his sat in a chair with feet most likely flat to the floor. In the posed position in the photographs the rigor mortis would not allow his feet to be correctly orientated to match his position giving away that rigor mortis was set in prior to his body being positioned. The strange feature of Ralph's pyjama bottoms being round his ankles hides the angles of his feet to his legs and thus hides the fact of rigor mortis and staging. It is quite likely that the pyjamas were deliberately moved to conceal his body being staged.
Ralphs right pyjama sleeve is drawn up excessively high for him to have naturally have fell in the position shown in the picture. This may well have occured when he was moved into position and not put back in place by those moving him. His right arm is also not naturally positioned for the position he was placed in. Again its orientation is conversant with rigot mortis from when seated and the arm on his map or the arm of the chair he had been on or a mix of both.
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
Perhaps they had more important concerns than checking out the state of the decor - like avoiding the possibility of being shot in the head while climbing the stairs?
rubbish as usual in my opinion.
Sighting blood on the wallpaper would be a significant indicator of what they may find ahead so it would have been of paramount importance and noted if it was there.
-
Woodcok in his statement does claim to see a pool of blood near the coal scuttle ...but then undermines himself creating big doubt about his claim by stating
"I was aware there were further blood splashes on the floor and on the kitchen units."
Before he can describe "further blood splashes" he must tell us of the first blood splashes and a pool of blood is no blood splash at all. It is very different.
This strongly suggests deception and that in the back of his mind he is thinking or splashes yet writes of a pool knowing it to be false and part of the cover up that was the staging of Ralph's body. Hence he writes further blood splashes.
Alternatively it also suggests some alteration and editing of his account has taken place.
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
Perhaps they had more important concerns than checking out the state of the decor - like avoiding the possibility of being shot in the head while climbing the stairs?
rubbish as usual in my opinion.
Sighting blood on the wallpaper would be a significant indicator of what they may find ahead so it would have been of paramount importance and noted if it was there.
What part of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" don't you understand?
I must be the tenth person to have had to say this to you. It's just rediculous. You spew out thousands of posts, most of which are baseless conjecture, with no logical analysis of any actual facts. What do you think you are achieving? Nine times out of ten you just seem to be talking to yourself.
All this rambling just fills the forum with noise and makes it more difficult for people to catch up on stuff that might actually be worth reading.
(in my opinion of course)
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
Perhaps they had more important concerns than checking out the state of the decor - like avoiding the possibility of being shot in the head while climbing the stairs?
rubbish as usual in my opinion.
Sighting blood on the wallpaper would be a significant indicator of what they may find ahead so it would have been of paramount importance and noted if it was there.
What part of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" don't you understand?
I must be the tenth person to have had to say this to you. It's just rediculous. You spew out thousands of posts, most of which are baseless conjecture, with no logical analysis of any actual facts. What do you think you are achieving? Nine times out of ten you just seem to be talking to yourself.
All this rambling just fills the forum with noise and makes it more difficult for people to catch up on stuff that might actually be worth reading.
(in my opinion of course)
troll behaviour...from bob again
are you a mistaken idiot or a liar bob...you have not had the decency to explain yourself over previous matters so butt out
as usual bob cant discuss reasonably so just trys to rubbish decent posters and the credible posts from them...
-
Manners and Woodcock were both in the firearms team and went up the main stairs..Both mention Collins using a mirror to check the bedroom out before proceeding up to it.
Neither Manners nor Woodcock report seeing any bloodstained wallpaper in the stairs/hallway area.
This may lead to the suggestion that no bloodstains were on the wallpaper when they were there.
Perhaps they had more important concerns than checking out the state of the decor - like avoiding the possibility of being shot in the head while climbing the stairs?
rubbish as usual in my opinion.
Sighting blood on the wallpaper would be a significant indicator of what they may find ahead so it would have been of paramount importance and noted if it was there.
What part of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" don't you understand?
I must be the tenth person to have had to say this to you. It's just rediculous. You spew out thousands of posts, most of which are baseless conjecture, with no logical analysis of any actual facts. What do you think you are achieving? Nine times out of ten you just seem to be talking to yourself.
All this rambling just fills the forum with noise and makes it more difficult for people to catch up on stuff that might actually be worth reading.
(in my opinion of course)
troll behaviour...from bob again
are you a mistaken idiot or a liar bob...you have not had the decency to explain yourself over previous matters so butt out
as usual bob cant discuss reasonably so just trys to rubbish decent posters and the credible posts from them...
Remember the disgusting comments you made about Ralph's body yesterday, smiffy? By no stretch of the imagination could you ever be described as a decent poster.
IMO.
-
not relevant pugs and not disgusting either.
Ralphs nether regions would have been on display and thats a fact...and if having nether regions exposed to view is disgusting or even mentioning it is disgusting then its you and the rest of the Mary Whitehouse brigade that should act a bit more adult about it.
Mens nether regions when viewed from the rear are obviously different from females and if some outstanding features are there they need to be presented as part of the point made.
As the issue was about supposedly mistaking a male for a female and the males lower half was exposed then such considerations as the differences highlights how ridiculous the argument by Hartley was to make the point firmly.
backside and dangly bits are quite fair terms to use and far better than many other terms that could be used that many see as swear words.
do you shonapugs think the police may have pulled Ralphs pyjama bottoms down to conceal his feet betrayed rigor mortis as part of the staging of his body?
His pyjama bottoms are down round his ankles so either that occurred accidentally in the course of what led to his death or they were pulled down deliberately for some reason either before or after death.
Oddly we seem to have no reports on how bloodstained or not and the patters of blood on his pyjama bottoms that may help in establishing the course of events. It could be taken that such stains /patterns or lack of stains may indicate that his body was staged and hence the information has been concealed as part of the cover up.
-
Still thinking on the pyjama bottoms round Ralph's ankles and whether they also may conceal slippers or similar if worn.
-
not relevant pugs and not disgusting either.
Ralphs nether regions would have been on display and thats a fact...and if having nether regions exposed to view is disgusting or even mentioning it is disgusting then its you and the rest of the Mary Whitehouse brigade that should act a bit more adult about it.
Mens nether regions when viewed from the rear are obviously different from females and if some outstanding features are there they need to be presented as part of the point made.
As the issue was about supposedly mistaking a male for a female and the males lower half was exposed then such considerations as the differences highlights how ridiculous the argument by Hartley was to make the point firmly.
backside and dangly bits are quite fair terms to use and far better than many other terms that could be used that many see as swear words.
do you shonapugs think the police may have pulled Ralphs pyjama bottoms down to conceal his feet betrayed rigor mortis as part of the staging of his body?
His pyjama bottoms are down round his ankles so either that occurred accidentally in the course of what led to his death or they were pulled down deliberately for some reason either before or after death.
Oddly we seem to have no reports on how bloodstained or not and the patters of blood on his pyjama bottoms that may help in establishing the course of events. It could be taken that such stains /patterns or lack of stains may indicate that his body was staged and hence the information has been concealed as part of the cover up.
We are not the Mary Whitehouse brigade.
We are adults and are fully aware of the bizarre state in which Ralph was found and photographed, we are just more respectful when discussing it.
One of the main questions is how Ralph came to be in the toppled-over position, and if the view of him through the window was not clear because he was originally further back then not much could have been seen of him anyway.
Mike has always asked how could a male body be mistaken for a female without resorting to offending anyone and we are completely aware of what he means.
-
Not offending anyone is brilliant in principle but impossible in practise.
There will as well be those who claim offence when in reality they are not offended but claim to be so purely to persue an agenda.
Some may find a theory of some person pulling down pyjama bottoms down in order to conceal vital evidence being depicted is a disgusting proposition. However if the primary exercise is to conceal critical evidence then any means will do and be used by those in desperation.
-
I read the crossed out paragraph as:
"The Kitchen was in general disarray, chairs (upturned?) and breakfast dishes and food stuffs on the floor. There were also bloodstains on the floor."
In a separate post, it's not highlighted. It reads:
The kitchen itself was in general disarray, chairs
over-turned, broken crockery and food stuffs on the floor. There were
also blood stains on the floor.
-
If I can find where I read that there was even a bigger " blood stain ",amounting to a pool by the dresser in the kitchen,I'll find it if it kills me. It was pointed out to Jeremy by one of the officers.
-
If I can find where I read that there was even a bigger " blood stain ",amounting to a pool by the dresser in the kitchen,I'll find it if it kills me. It was pointed out to Jeremy by one of the officers.
I'm guessing that either you have misread something, or the person providing the information has made an error.
If you find it, it may be interesting to see.
-
I'm guessing that either you have misread something, or the person providing the information has made an error.
If you find it, it may be interesting to see.
Harters,I've definitely seen it somewhere,or I certainly wouldn't have mentioned it. How else would I have known about it ? I jolly well hope that I can find it,for my own sanity if nothing else. ;D
-
I have a feeling it's in Claire Powells' book,which is very " anti ".I'm looking as I write.
-
Lookout,think you'll find it in Scott Lomax's book. I'm sure he wrote that there was a large amount of blood on the floor beside a kitchen cupboard,I think in the area where there was a bloodied hand print on the kitchen worktop?
-
Lookout,think you'll find it in Scott Lomax's book. I'm sure he wrote that there was a large amount of blood on the floor beside a kitchen cupboard,I think in the area where there was a bloodied hand print on the kitchen worktop?
Oh thank you so much tyler. I'm busy going page for page through Claire Powells' book.
Yes,it quite possibly is that book,because it's somewhere on the left hand side of a page. I knew I'd seen it and not dreamt it.
Very little,if anything was made of it considering Neville wasn't near the dresser/cupboard.
-
Oh thank you so much tyler. I'm busy going page for page through Claire Powells' book.
Yes,it quite possibly is that book,because it's somewhere on the left hand side of a page. I knew I'd seen it and not dreamt it.
Very little,if anything was made of it considering Neville wasn't near the dresser/cupboard.
That's probably because:
I'm guessing that either you have misread something, or the person providing the information has made an error.
-
That's probably because:
Again,Harters,we rely on books/links/relatives,so how would we know ? Or they know,if it comes to that. However,perhaps it should have been more elaborated and brought in to question,like the silencer,bike and wetsuit. ;D
-
Again,Harters,we rely on books/links/relatives,so how would we know ? Or they know,if it comes to that. However,perhaps it should have been more elaborated and brought in to question,like the silencer,bike and wetsuit. ;D
Refer to my post in another thread:
I wouldn't read a great deal in to any of the claims made in the various books.
-
I don't Harters.In fact it's only the past couple of years that I've even bothered with the books,as prior to that,in 1986,I'd made my own mind up without the need for anyone else's help.
-
Again,Harters,we rely on books/links/relatives,so how would we know ? Or they know,if it comes to that. However,perhaps it should have been more elaborated and brought in to question,like the silencer,bike and wetsuit. ;D
Books are improper to cited for evidence. Statements by witnesses and books are 2 different animals. Books are mainly useful to provide some background and to faciliate further research. If you cite a claim for a book you have to make clear it is a claim for a book and not corroborated.
Books are most useful when the footnotes point out the genesis of the claims they are making. If they are citing a document (including astatement) you want to read the document in question to see if their claim is true. If the claim is true you cite that document in the future not the book. When you are stuck citing the book it means you don't know if the claim is true or not. So when you cite a book you are making a allegation effectively not presenting a documented fact.
many authoris include not footnotes and provide no basis for their allegations. Those who do so at least enable you to try to check their claims out if you want to go through the effort which in some cases is a lot of effort depending on how hard it is to get a hold of the referenced materal. Plenty of times footnotes do not hold up and the referenced material do not support the proposition claimed.
If you don't check then in that case you say such and such author claims A,B,c but you don't know if it is actually true because you did not check. That is done so you don't end up with egg on your face in the event he intentionally distorted or simply made an error.
-
I don't Harters.In fact it's only the past couple of years that I've even bothered with the books,as prior to that,in 1986,I'd made my own mind up without the need for anyone else's help.
out of intrest lookout. wich books have you had a read of.
-
out of intrest lookout. wich books have you had a read of.
I've actually flicked through the pages of Lomax's,Powells' and Wilkes's,but haven't read them from chapter to chapter.
-
Obviously I got them to compare notes as it's always good to keep your options open,as some contain more info than others even if it is distorted out of all proportion.
-
oh i see so thats more or less all of the published ones.
-
That's right,there's also a Rough Justice paperback somewhere which I haven't read.
-
is there ill have a look for that.