UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Jeremy Bamber case document library => Jeremy Bamber case documents library. => Police statements and trial transcripts => Topic started by: John on March 20, 2013, 07:00:06 PM
-
Det Sgt Stanley Brian Jones - Trial transcript
Pages 1 to 8 inclusive.
-
Pages 9 to 15 inclusive.
-
I am amazed at the very first words jeremy said to Stan Jones was to call him a 'b........'. @)(++(*
To be perfectly frank with you I would have done the same. What a callous b........ is about right. It just goes to show how far the police have come in 28 years as nowadays the relative would be wrapped in cotton wool and be assigned a support officer.
-
At last we get to the truth of what Jeremy did with the rifle and the magazine the previous evening. According to Jones, Jeremy took a bullet out of the breech and replaced same in the removed magazine which was then placed on the settle. The rifle was then placed against the wall in what was assumed to be the scullery. Jeremy confirmed that he had not fired the rifle that evening.
Bamber also told Taff Jones in the presence of Stan Jones that he didn't take the sights and the silencer off the rifle yet they had been seen on it some days earlier. Bamber said to them that he assumed his father had done it. Assumed??
Yet none of Nevill's prints were found on the weapon or the attachments??
-
At last we get to the truth of what Jeremy did with the rifle and the magazine the previous evening. According to Jones, Jeremy took a bullet out of the breech and replaced same in the removed magazine which was then placed on the settle. The rifle was then placed against the wall in what was assumed to be the scullery. Jeremy confirmed that he had not fired the rifle that evening.
Bamber also told Taff Jones in the presence of Stan Jones that he didn't take the sights and the silencer off the rifle yet they had been seen on it some days earlier. Bamber said to them that he assumed his father had done it. Assumed??
Yet none of Nevill's prints were found on the weapon or the attachments??
Ah but this is where his lies start to come home to roost. Jeremy told Taff and Stan Jones that when he originally picked up the rifle it was empty as was the magazine. He told them that he brought out a box containing 50 bullets and left it on the kitchen table. Now remember that 25 rounds were fired yet 30 bullets remained in the box after the police arrived on the scene. Bamber was asked to account for the 5 extra rounds - he couldn't!
Stan Jones also confirms calling at the Eatons farm on the 12th August 1985 and being given the silencer by Peter Eaton. He confirmed that there appeared to be blood and paint on the knurled end along with a short grey hair. He made reference to the paint matching that in the Bamber's kitchen and went on to explain that the marks were difficult to see in the police photgraphs but could be seen if you looked for them.
It is difficult not to conclude that the silencer was on the rifle when Nevill was assaulted and that the hair found on it belonged to him.
-
Instead of just being a dodgy ex (?) burglar with a Napoleon complex, why isn't Bamber's besty rich and famous with his own afternoon chat show? He KNOWS where Maddy McCann's body is. He KNOWS where Keith Bennet's body is. He has in his possession two pieces of irrefutable evidence that will ensure Bamber's freedom (when the hour eventually cometh, not today though. Never today.) When he's got a minute, he's going to find a cure for cancer. What a guy.
-
Instead of just being a dodgy ex (?) burglar with a Napoleon complex, why isn't Bamber's besty rich and famous with his own afternoon chat show? He KNOWS where Maddy McCann's body is. He KNOWS where Keith Bennet's body is. He has in his possession two pieces of irrefutable evidence that will ensure Bamber's freedom (when the hour eventually cometh, not today though. Never today.) When he's got a minute, he's going to find a cure for cancer. What a guy.
Far from it Shona as both him and the wife have been declared insolvent so God knows what they have been up to.
-
Having just read the transcript two other things stand out for me.
When Stan Jones spoke to Jeremy just days after the murders he was more interested in the sequence of deaths than he was about how his family had been wiped out. It was a foregone conclusion as far as he was concerned that Sheila had done it. Any innocent person would have been questioning these matters but not Jeremy. He was too busy arranging meetings with the accountant to see what he would get.
It is also bizarre that when he went to Witham to see Stan Jones and senior officers he took Collins along and introduced him as his 'chauffeur'. The guy was a positive fruit lube!
-
That same day after Bamber and Collins had been to Witham Police Station, Stan Jones along with Cook and Miller met up with Ann Eaton at the farmhouse. The Aga surround was examined and the scratch marks identified. Cook took a sample of the paint for comparison purposes.
-
Having just read the transcript two other things stand out for me.
When Stan Jones spoke to Jeremy just days after the murders he was more interested in the sequence of deaths than he was about how his family had been wiped out. It was a foregone conclusion as far as he was concerned that Sheila had done it. Any innocent person would have been questioning these matters but not Jeremy. He was too busy arranging meetings with the accountant to see what he would get.
It is also bizarre that when he went to Witham to see Stan Jones and senior officers he took Collins along and introduced him as his 'chauffeur'. The guy was a positive fruit lube!
Greed John,,,,,pure and simple,,,,,I saw it many times when I was a nurse in the Crimean War,,,,,.
-
Having just read the transcript two other things stand out for me.
When Stan Jones spoke to Jeremy just days after the murders he was more interested in the sequence of deaths than he was about how his family had been wiped out. It was a foregone conclusion as far as he was concerned that Sheila had done it. Any innocent person would have been questioning these matters but not Jeremy. He was too busy arranging meetings with the accountant to see what he would get.
It is also bizarre that when he went to Witham to see Stan Jones and senior officers he took Collins along and introduced him as his 'chauffeur'. The guy was a positive fruit lube!
Greed John,,,,,pure and simple,,,,,I saw it many times when I was a nurse in the Crimean War,,,,,.
Golly gosh Shona.....in a past life? 8(>((
-
It never ceases to amaze me even now how much information can still be acquired in the Bamber case. I never knew that a chalet had burned down for instance and just before the robbery which Jeremy did. Coincidence??? 8**8:/: 8-)(--)
Having just read the transcript two other things stand out for me.
When Stan Jones spoke to Jeremy just days after the murders he was more interested in the sequence of deaths than he was about how his family had been wiped out. It was a foregone conclusion as far as he was concerned that Sheila had done it. Any innocent person would have been questioning these matters but not Jeremy. He was too busy arranging meetings with the accountant to see what he would get.
It is also bizarre that when he went to Witham to see Stan Jones and senior officers he took Collins along and introduced him as his 'chauffeur'. The guy was a positive fruit lube!
-
That same day after Bamber and Collins had been to Witham Police Station, Stan Jones along with Cook and Miller met up with Ann Eaton at the farmhouse. The Aga surround was examined and the scratch marks identified. Cook took a sample of the paint for comparison purposes.
..... which was then covered over with a yellow sticker by same, to distinguish it from the actual marks believed to have been caused by the knurled end of the moderator.
-
That same day after Bamber and Collins had been to Witham Police Station, Stan Jones along with Cook and Miller met up with Ann Eaton at the farmhouse. The Aga surround was examined and the scratch marks identified. Cook took a sample of the paint for comparison purposes.
..... which was then covered over with a yellow sticker by same, to distinguish it from the actual marks believed to have been caused by the knurled end of the moderator.
Exactly and here is the photo of same yellow sticker on the underside of the mantle with scratches quite apparent nearby.
(http://i.imgur.com/191NG3W.jpg)
-
Distance Comparison by the shortest routes:
1). Police Station, Newland Street, Witham to the start of Pages Lane. (10.6 miles)
2). Bourtree Cottage, Goldhanger to the start of Pages Lane. (3.6 miles)
The distance (1) looks shorter than (2) only because the maps are to a different scale.
The police car (CA7) had to travel nearly three times as far to Pages Lane than Jeremy Bamber's car*, yet it overtook him on the last stretch of the Tollesbury Road B1023. Jeremy may have taken a slightly longer route by first setting off to the west of his cottage instead of east.
Jeremy Bamber claimed (in front of Colin Caffell, Julie Mugford, Ann Eaton and DC Clark at the cottage) that he drove as fast as he could to WHF in his car (he was normally a fast driver), although he was only travelling at about 30mph when overtaken.
*Wilkes identified it as a Vauxhall Astra, but the case library photo shows Nevill Bamber's car, a Citroen CX 2400, being forensically examined.
________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Police car CA7 route.
(http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/4470/distancecomparison.jpg)
2. Jeremy Bamber's route.
-
He used his own car, the Vauxhall Astra, to drive to the farm that morning when he was overtaken by the police. The Citreon belonged to Nevill but as you rightly state it was later examined at Jeremy's house at Goldhanger when his part in the murders was suspected.
-
Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders. Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?
(http://i.imgur.com/r7RcReR.jpg)
-
A nice representation of the routes Myster but the times for the police are a bit conservative and assume a speed of less than 30 mph. I would think probably double that since it was an emergency?
-
Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders. Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?
I'm not at all sure that it was repainted... I would have thought Eatons may have kept it in its original state for a while at least, just in case any further forensic examination of the marks was needed. In this higher resolution photo of the same view, can you see what looks like a scratch (on the vertical part just to the right and below the metal flashlamp on the mantleshelf) which corresponds to the U-shaped scratch on the vertical surface in the close up photo? The paint may look as if it has been sanded in the second photo, but it could just be reflection from the flashgun (you can pick out a faint reflection of the yellow sticker on the vertical surface).
Sutherst probably had few more photos to examine that we are not privy to.
-
There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.
In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits. JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements. However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August. I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.
JB seems confused about this. It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.
-
Looking at the other pictures of the Aga surround it is clear that it was repainted soon after the murders. Could it have been these photos that photographic expect Peter Sutherst examined as he failed to identify any marks?
I'm not at all sure that it was repainted... I would have thought Eatons may have kept it in its original state for a while at least, just in case any further forensic examination of the marks was needed. In this higher resolution photo of the same view, can you see what looks like a scratch (on the vertical part just to the right and below the metal flashlamp on the mantleshelf) which corresponds to the U-shaped scratch on the vertical surface in the close up photo? The paint may look as if it has been sanded in the second photo, but it could just be reflection from the flashgun (you can pick out a faint reflection of the yellow sticker on the vertical surface).
Sutherst probably had few more photos to examine that we are not privy to.
Oh you mean the gold colored flashlamp? I just see something. I have always looked at the black lamp.
I suppose the "white dust" could be finger print powder not being cleaned off or being the underside of the mantle it could be cooking residue?
There are probably also other photos carefully saved on Mike's famous hard drive which will be released one day soon.
-
Instead of just being a dodgy ex (?) burglar with a Napoleon complex, why isn't Bamber's besty rich and famous with his own afternoon chat show? He KNOWS where Maddy McCann's body is. He KNOWS where Keith Bennet's body is. He has in his possession two pieces of irrefutable evidence that will ensure Bamber's freedom (when the hour eventually cometh, not today though. Never today.) When he's got a minute, he's going to find a cure for cancer. What a guy.
What I love is he has invented a Supercomputer in his den which reveals the location of the bodies and he names the computer after a Nazi encoding machine.
You just could not make these things up? or perhaps you could? @)(++(*
-
.
There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.
In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits. JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements. However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August. I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.
JB seems confused about this. It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.
Ann said he went out to shoot rather than shot at.
She might have thought he meant he "missed them" as in didn't see them because they had run off when he went out again after loading the rifle, rather than he "missed them" as in he fired a shot at them, but didn't kill any.
-
Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.
How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see? Someone please explain this for me?
-
Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.
How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see? Someone please explain this for me?
I think I'll have to sleep on that one... I'm not up to speed with what Peter Sutherst said off-hand.
-
.There is some interesting contradictions here regarding the rabbit shooting.
In Stan Jones Trial Transcript page 5 there is a statement, slightly confused that JB denyed shooting at the rabbits. JB also denys this in an unconvincing manner in his own interview statements. However in Ann Eaton Statements she remembers JB telling Stan Jones that he shot at the rabbits and missed them on the night of the 6th August. I attach relevant page (24) from Ms Eaton's statement.
JB seems confused about this. It seemed to be an issue during the cross-examination of Stan Jones and Council certainly picked up on the matter.
Ann said he went out to shoot rather than shot at.
She might have thought he meant he "missed them" as in didn't see them because they had run off when he went out again after loading the rifle, rather than he "missed them" as in he fired a shot at them, but didn't kill any.
I accept that too. It is not really clear if he missed that rabbits as they had gone when he went out or he shot and missed them. Ms Eaton seems to feel this was not clear. I do not think it is a significant issue one way or the other but Stan Jones does return to it a few times. Compared to the rest of the night I do not think two rabbits matter one way or another. (Except to the rabbits of course).
-
Yes, you are right Myster. There is just the slightest sign of the 'J' mark on the vertical surface just below and right of the brass lamp.
How can Peter Sutherst possibly say that there are no marks in the original police photos then when they are there for all to see? Someone please explain this for me?
I think I'll have to sleep on that one... I'm not up to speed with what Peter Sutherst said off-hand.
The problem with all these old photos is that they suffer from dust and scratches on the negatives and the prints and again when they are scanned. The scans I have seen of this area are covered in dust marks and yet everyone ignores them. One the other hand modern digital photographs are capable of great enlargement but also of manipulation which make them untrustworthy.
-
Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.
Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).
I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".
-
Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.
Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).
I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".
Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen. Most women have had to do this at some time. The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders. This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.
However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood. It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen. More likely it was just very lightly stained water. No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.
Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"
-
Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.
Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).
I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".
Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen. Most women have had to do this at some time. The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders. This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.
However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood. It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen. More likely it was just very lightly stained water. No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.
Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"
Just how DO you produce a flake of dried blood from a bucket full of blood-stained water? >@@(*&)
-
Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.
Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).
I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".
Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen. Most women have had to do this at some time. The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders. This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.
However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood. It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen. More likely it was just very lightly stained water. No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.
Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"
Just how DO you produce a flake of dried blood from a bucket full of blood-stained water? >@@(*&)
There was no end to their cunning. They must have distilled the blood out of the water using the AGA.
-
Interesting that during the trial DS Jones stated that it was the police who offered to dispose of the bloodstained clothing and carpets etc, it doesn't sound like Jeremy needed to persuade them. I bet he couldn't believe his luck.
Also imagine if the hair on the silencer hadn't been lost and had been positively identified as Neville's-that would put the conviction further beyond doubt. Though I suppose the blue forum would say the family planted it just like they planted Sheila's blood in the silencer (yes, they do genuinely seem to believe this!).
I agree about his questions to the police about the order of the deaths. An innocent man who loved his family would never have asked this question before he asked more searching questions about how it happened. Mind you, an innocent man in court when accused of lying would never, ever say "that is what you have to establish".
Well some on "Blue" do make great play of the clothing Sheila was soaking in the kitchen. Most women have had to do this at some time. The normal method is to use hot salty water to soak the clothes but that was in the days before we had good washing machines and biological washing powders. This practice is perhaps a mystery now to modern western women but a regular necessity to women in other countries.
However any sensible person realizes if this blood and salty water had been used to contaminate the silencer any forensic scientist can tell the difference between highly diluted menstrual blood in salty water and normal blood. It certainly would not have been a bucket of blood in the kitchen. More likely it was just very lightly stained water. No woman produces that much blood over an entire cycle let alone the first day.
Also can any sane person believe that the bereaved family members sat down and thought "How convenient, we can use this stained water to contaminate the silencer to mimic the little known concept of "blowback" to frame Jeremy. Muh-hahaha!"
Just how DO you produce a flake of dried blood from a bucket full of blood-stained water? >@@(*&)
There was no end to their cunning. They must have distilled the blood out of the water using the AGA.
Ho ho!! My grandad used to say "fiendishly clever, these Chinese!" 8(0(*
I hear you've been "emulating" today!! You'll get hairy hands.....
-
Always a problem, a filthy habit I must give up.
People have not been talking about me have they?
-
Always a problem, a filthy habit I must give up.
People have not been talking about me have they?
Only in a good way! You've got quite a fan club!
Are you watching "Abigail's Party"? I'd forgotten how brilliant it is.
-
Always a problem, a filthy habit I must give up.
People have not been talking about me have they?
Only in a good way! You've got quite a fan club!
Are you watching "Abigail's Party"? I'd forgotten how brilliant it is.
Tell me more? A long time since I had any admirers!
I see Mike T is in full flow again wanting to dunk Julie and Ann in the village pond as witches. Fine ol' English Justice. Also "abusing his members" ! Am I allowed to say things like that? It is a complete zoo over there.
Yes Abigail's Party is just wonderful. Alison Steadman is just great. I cannot believe it goes back to 1977.
-
Always a problem, a filthy habit I must give up.
People have not been talking about me have they?
Only in a good way! You've got quite a fan club!
Are you watching "Abigail's Party"? I'd forgotten how brilliant it is.
Tell me more? A long time since I had any admirers!
I see Mike T is in full flow again wanting to dunk Julie and Ann in the village pond as witches. Fine ol' English Justice. Also "abusing his members" ! Am I allowed to say things like that? It is a complete zoo over there.
Yes Abigail's Party is just wonderful. Alison Steadman is just great. I cannot believe it goes back to 1977.
Just the usual guessing games, people wondering who you are. I know you're not me (you're far too polite and you've got a much better grasp of the case) so....are you Tim?
What can I say about the blueies? I wonder what I did before I discovered them? Like a cross between Monty Python, Dixon of Dock Green and The Magic Roundabout. I'm hoping Lugg and Lookout have a baby.
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVVYbHceWGE
-
Always a problem, a filthy habit I must give up.
People have not been talking about me have they?
Only in a good way! You've got quite a fan club!
Are you watching "Abigail's Party"? I'd forgotten how brilliant it is.
Tell me more? A long time since I had any admirers!
I see Mike T is in full flow again wanting to dunk Julie and Ann in the village pond as witches. Fine ol' English Justice. Also "abusing his members" ! Am I allowed to say things like that? It is a complete zoo over there.
Yes Abigail's Party is just wonderful. Alison Steadman is just great. I cannot believe it goes back to 1977.
Just the usual guessing games, people wondering who you are. I know you're not me (you're far too polite and you've got a much better grasp of the case) so....are you Tim?
What can I say about the blueies? I wonder what I did before I discovered them? Like a cross between Monty Python, Dixon of Dock Green and The Magic Roundabout. I'm hoping Lugg and Lookout have a baby.
Oh I do not think I am you but I sometimes think we are "like-sisters". Actually my name tells all. What is a good anagram of Outlook?
Yes Lugg had better Lookout or he may get more than he expected. I think her "pants are on fire" for him.
Personally I have the hots for that nice Mr Campion but he has forsaken me recently.
What I like now is that Vidvic and Yeltrah are openly calling MT a liar and all he can do is rant abuse back. I think people are unkind to MT. Where would we be without him? He has achieved more than everyone else put together in keeping JB safely locked up. It is like watching re-runs of what was that old English TV programme? "Till Death Us Do Part?"
I have found a picture of MT arguing a fine technical legal point related to JB's innocence.
-
@)(++(*
Perhaps people are a bit tough on Mike. But, Jeez, he's a terrible driver!