Hillsborough Disaster:The truth at last

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Off the top of my head, no. But evidence consists of facts (most witnesses) or opinions (expert witnesses) and nothing else. Arguments are made out of the facts and opinions adduced in evidence. Witnesses are no more allowed to advance arguments when giving evidence than they may dance a jig or juggle: it's not what they are there for.

And how did the discussion divert into this particular rivulet? Who is arguing that the court is a proper place for free-floating argument? What has it to do with the Hillsborough cover up? I may have lost the thread.

The thread has drifted away from Hillsborough specifically, but it is still about the judiciary and its investigative competence.

Have any of you sat through a trial and watch it from beginning to end?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

The thread has drifted away from Hillsborough specifically, but it is still about the judiciary and its investigative competence.

Have any of you sat through a trial and watch it from beginning to end?

What do you think? In my case, I would be willing to bet many times more than you.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I think it sort of spread from the discussions about police competence, and the apparent propensity to close ranks and hold the line rather than to admit to a mistake.

Rolfe.

Yes it has rather. Perhaps the thread should be split?

Originally Posted by Nessie

The thread has drifted away from Hillsborough specifically, but it is still about the judiciary and its investigative competence.

Have any of you sat through a trial and watch it from beginning to end?

Yes on three occasions. One assessing the standard of expert evidence (which was pretty much all the evidence provided) for a journal article, one assisting counsel and once as a juror. I've seen chunks of a few more.

[Nessie]

So those of you who have been to court have seen that it is evidence based and not a matter of pure argument. It is not like an episode of Poirot where all parties are gathered in the drawing room as he announces who the murderer is.

I certainly think Antony believes it is like that.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

What do you think? In my case, I would be willing to bet many times more than you.

Certainly. So do you think the police fit people up and the courts go along with that out of stupidity? Do you think such is very very rare or common place?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Certainly. So do you think the police fit people up and the courts go along with that out of stupidity? Do you think such is very very rare or common place?

I did about 10 years of criminal work in the 80s and it was common (speaking anecdotally and about inner London) for the cops to fit up defendants using 'verbals' leading to many trials within trials as to the admissibility of confessions. Then PACE came in and interviews had to be recorded. I have not practised in crime in the 20 years following this change so I don't know what affect that had. I do believe, however, that the world the ordinary bobby moves in is different to the one we imagine and this world forms a harsh worldview in said bobby's mind such that s/he may be more willing to bend the rules after a while on the beat than they were at training college. In the same way, nurses in inner city hospitals can come to be unfeeling towards their patients and social workers can be pressed by a large and difficult caseload into taking short term decisions and the path of least resistance while we comfortable middle class folk mostly look the other way and come down hard on these groups when they falter.

It's a big subject and I have no proper evidence for my view, I readily admit. But when I worked as a criminal defence lawyer my view of the typical cops' mentality was that even if your client did not commit this crime he probably got away with ten others and that maybe justified cutting a few corners. I did not find it difficult to see their point of view either.

[Skwinty]

I wonder what the police in Hillsborough were thinking and feeling on the night of the 14th April 1989?

[Nessie]

I was told a great story about verbals by a well know Scottish solicitor/football referee. When taped recording of interviews first came in many solicitors thought that would be the police in a lot of trouble.

What they did find was properly conducted interviews and that many of their clients had been lying to them about what they did say. They also found that criminals were lapsing into police terminology and saying things like "I was proceeding down the street...."

Another area where technology has backed up the police has been video recording of searches. It was clear the police were not planting evidence as claimed. It was also clear that the defence did not want such videos to be shown in court as then people would get to see what they are really like, their living conditions and behavior.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Skwinty

I wonder what the police in Hillsborough were thinking and feeling on the night of the 14th April 1989?

As shocked as every one else. I was one of those watching on TV and it was horrific just doing that.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Nessie

As shocked as every one else. I was one of those watching on TV and it was horrific just doing that.

Did I get the date wrong? I thought it happened on the 15th.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I was told a great story about verbals by a well know Scottish solicitor/football referee. When taped recording of interviews first came in many solicitors thought that would be the police in a lot of trouble.

What they did find was properly conducted interviews and that many of their clients had been lying to them about what they did say. They also found that criminals were lapsing into police terminology and saying things like "I was proceeding down the street...."

Another area where technology has backed up the police has been video recording of searches. It was clear the police were not planting evidence as claimed. It was also clear that the defence did not want such videos to be shown in court as then people would get to see what they are really like, their living conditions and behavior.

Interesting. Along with taped interviews, supposedly beneficial to the defendant, there came the loss of the right to silence, or its erosion anyway (in England) because the fact your guy kept quiet could be mentioned to the jury and could become a matter for adverse comment whereas before, they were simply not told about it.

[Dubious Dick]

Heard interview with Chair and Vice-Chair of the campaign group over the weekend. Made me cry and mad as hell! 23 years for the truth to come out! probably 25 before fully(?) resolved. Many of those responsible dead/retired and largely untouchable. A quarter of a b****y century! When so many knew exactly what went on. O.K. the lower ranks would have feared for their jobs/careers if they had spoken out, so maybe they can be forgiven for having caved in to pressure to conform.

From Day 1, i.e. evening of events at Hillsborough police already trying to pin drink as the blame. A theme the West Midlands Police returned to again in their sham investigation of the South Yorks Police.

The families want every single person involved in the over up named and shamed. I say every single one of those who were in any position of authority and still alive should be jailed! Those dead, their names recorded and records blackened.

Time for an effective whistleblower law and an end to cover ups! But perhaps little chance when we have Cameron and his cronies in charge in U.K. despite his fawning apology!

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Interesting. Along with taped interviews, supposedly beneficial to the defendant, there came the loss of the right to silence, or its erosion anyway (in England) because the fact your guy kept quiet could be mentioned to the jury and could become a matter for adverse comment whereas before, they were simply not told about it.

It depends on how you do it. Saying "my solicitor told me not to say anything" works well explaining that one away. Total silence, as Gayle Sheridan tried during the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial resulted in comparisons to IRA interview techniques.

[Nessie]

I admit to thinking at first this was just yet another example of foot violence. That is one of the reasons they kept the game going as people were so used to violence and the fences were there to contain it so the game could go on.

Police confronted with such violence at ever game they work at will keep that mind frame and take some convincing that day violence played no part.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I was told a great story about verbals by a well know Scottish solicitor/football referee. When taped recording of interviews first came in many solicitors thought that would be the police in a lot of trouble.

What they did find was properly conducted interviews and that many of their clients had been lying to them about what they did say. They also found that criminals were lapsing into police terminology and saying things like "I was proceeding down the street...."

Another area where technology has backed up the police has been video recording of searches. It was clear the police were not planting evidence as claimed. It was also clear that the defence did not want such videos to be shown in court as then people would get to see what they are really like, their living conditions and behavior.

Do you think just maybe that police might behave differently if they know they are being filmed? Is that possible? In fact, isn't that the whole point of having the cameras?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Nessie

So those of you who have been to court have seen that it is evidence based and not a matter of pure argument. It is not like an episode of Poirot where all parties are gathered in the drawing room as he announces who the murderer is.

I certainly think Antony believes it is like that.

All too often the evidence presented is carefully selected, distorted, even edited to portray a certain account of events. Counsel attempt to limit testimony to only the parts that support their case. Juries rarely understand evidence fully and are strongly discouraged from actually asking questions of their own.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

I have thought about this and concluded it is so meaningless as to warrant a cite. Please supply an authority for this proposition. Btw. equally meaningless would be the opposite proposition. Reasoning (except in the special case of expert's evidence) is never evidence. That certainly does not mean reasoning is not part of the trial process (it obviously is) only that what you say is meaningless. Cite please.

I cannot find any citation for that, certainly not where I though it was, so claim withdrawn.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Do you think just maybe that police might behave differently if they know they are being filmed? Is that possible? In fact, isn't that the whole point of having the cameras?

It was being filmed, live on TV.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

All too often the evidence presented is carefully selected, distorted, even edited to portray a certain account of events. Counsel attempt to limit testimony to only the parts that support their case. Juries rarely understand evidence fully and are strongly discouraged from actually asking questions of their own.

That is not the case anymore in Scotland, or it should not be, because of full disclosure hwereby both sides inform the other of all the evidence they have prior to a trial starting. The defence are just as capable of editing, distorting and being selective over evidence as the prosecution. I gave an example of that with videoing drug searches.

I agree juries can end up bambozeled and it often seems more like a game being played between the prosection and defence.

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I cannot find any citation for that, certainly not where I though it was, so claim withdrawn.

Duly noted in The Great Book of Honourable Retractions

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It was being filmed, live on TV.

In the post I was responding to it seemed absolutely clear that you were talking about police interviews being recorded, and searches being recorded. Your claim was that people (for some strange reason) thought that police would misbehave on camera, but the joke was on those people because when the cameras were rolling the police neither verballed people nor planted evidence.

That now seems to have metamorphosed into a claim that these police interviews and searches were being shown live on TV, with the unstated implication that the police were unaware they were being filmed. (I believe you must be implying that, because otherwise your post is meaningless).

Could you clarify what exactly it is you are claiming happened, and what you think it means?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

In the post I was responding to it seemed absolutely clear that you were talking about police interviews being recorded, and searches being recorded. Your claim was that people (for some strange reason) thought that police would misbehave on camera, but the joke was on those people because when the cameras were rolling the police neither verballed people nor planted evidence.

That now seems to have metamorphosed into a claim that these police interviews and searches were being shown live on TV, with the unstated implication that the police were unaware they were being filmed. (I believe you must be implying that, because otherwise your post is meaningless).

Could you clarify what exactly it is you are claiming happened, and what you think it means?

Since we are meandering all over the place (and without wishing to intrude in any way) may I say how much I loathe those ubiquitous, propagandist TV shows in which we get to see traffic cops lecturing and patronising the great unwashed populace. You do realise what this is all about I trust? The cops are heroes, the common folk are not to be trusted, we must all join in moralising and feeling protected by the boys in blue. Puke. Now, how many progs to they churn out showing the cops as nasty little racists like that one shot in the Greater Manchester area a little while back with secret cameras? Not many.

I still challenge those who say the cops are great to say where they get the idea from? As far as I can tell it's all brainwashing.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

In the post I was responding to it seemed absolutely clear that you were talking about police interviews being recorded, and searches being recorded. Your claim was that people (for some strange reason) thought that police would misbehave on camera, but the joke was on those people because when the cameras were rolling the police neither verballed people nor planted evidence.

That now seems to have metamorphosed into a claim that these police interviews and searches were being shown live on TV, with the unstated implication that the police were unaware they were being filmed. (I believe you must be implying that, because otherwise your post is meaningless).

Could you clarify what exactly it is you are claiming happened, and what you think it means?

I thought you were talking about events at Hillsborough in your original post.

If you mean police interviews and tape recordings, it was a solicitor who said to me that he and collegues were surprised by what they heard and saw. It was solicitors who were expecting the worst from the police and did not find that to be the case.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Since we are meandering all over the place (and without wishing to intrude in any way) may I say how much I loathe those ubiquitous, propagandist TV shows in which we get to see traffic cops lecturing and patronising the great unwashed populace. You do realise what this is all about I trust? The cops are heroes, the common folk are not to be trusted, we must all join in moralising and feeling protected by the boys in blue. Puke. Now, how many progs to they churn out showing the cops as nasty little racists like that one shot in the Greater Manchester area a little while back with secret cameras? Not many.

I still challenge those who say the cops are great to say where they get the idea from? As far as I can tell it's all brainwashing.

I think it comes from the likes of public satisfaction surveys

http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-lea...faction-police

where the police usually do well and the likes of politicians, estate agents and call centre workers don't.

I also think the general public like programmes where the police get the bad guys.

As for covert filming, is there any job where that would not uncover some dirty little secrets? Ever seen Watchdog, Panorama or other investigative shows?

[anglolawyer]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think it comes from the likes of public satisfaction surveys

http://www.guardian.co.uk/public-lea...faction-police

where the police usually do well and the likes of politicians, estate agents and call centre workers don't.

I also think the general public like programmes where the police get the bad guys.

As for covert filming, is there any job where that would not uncover some dirty little secrets? Ever seen Watchdog, Panorama or other investigative shows?

Hmm - when last seen the cops were employing Murdoch journalists to handle their PR (at taxpayers' expense) which sets them apart from estate agents. Is there a comparable of graph of the amount of time and money spent on polishing up the cops' image (where it's not done for them by the BBC putting on its fawning traffic cop shows and crime watch etc). Maybe they are related?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Nessie

That is not the case anymore in Scotland, or it should not be, because of full disclosure hwereby both sides inform the other of all the evidence they have prior to a trial starting. The defence are just as capable of editing, distorting and being selective over evidence as the prosecution. I gave an example of that with videoing drug searches.

I agree juries can end up bambozeled and it often seems more like a game being played between the prosection and defence.

The requirement for full disclosure is quite common, however it doesn't mean much when papers can be lost and evidence can be spun. When the prosecution shop around for an expert witness that'll support their case do they mention those that didn't agree?
In court testimony is often a bad joke; poorly presented, incomprehensible, distorted and spun. This is especially true with specialised or expert evidence, witnesses stuck between competing counsel and attempts to restrict testimony to suit one side.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I thought you were talking about events at Hillsborough in your original post.

If you mean police interviews and tape recordings, it was a solicitor who said to me that he and collegues were surprised by what they heard and saw. It was solicitors who were expecting the worst from the police and did not find that to be the case.

Well that explains the confusion then.

Do you see the point though? Why would rational solicitors expect police to misbehave when the police knew they were being filmed? Why would anyone take the fact that police did not misbehave on film to be evidence that the police had not misbehaved earlier, when they were not being filmed? Your anecdote doesn't make any sense, because it's presenting as evidence something which logically shouldn't count as evidence at all.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by anglolawyer

Hmm - when last seen the cops were employing Murdoch journalists to handle their PR (at taxpayers' expense) which sets them apart from estate agents. Is there a comparable of graph of the amount of time and money spent on polishing up the cops' image (where it's not done for them by the BBC putting on its fawning traffic cop shows and crime watch etc). Maybe they are related?

That sounds like the Met all right.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

The requirement for full disclosure is quite common, however it doesn't mean much when papers can be lost and evidence can be spun. When the prosecution shop around for an expert witness that'll support their case do they mention those that didn't agree?
In court testimony is often a bad joke; poorly presented, incomprehensible, distorted and spun. This is especially true with specialised or expert evidence, witnesses stuck between competing counsel and attempts to restrict testimony to suit one side.

OK so the bright lawyers and sheriffs have got it horribly wrong. Problem is evidencing your claim and showing how it pervades all court cases.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Well that explains the confusion then.

Do you see the point though? Why would rational solicitors expect police to misbehave when the police knew they were being filmed? Why would anyone take the fact that police did not misbehave on film to be evidence that the police had not misbehaved earlier, when they were not being filmed? Your anecdote doesn't make any sense, because it's presenting as evidence something which logically shouldn't count as evidence at all.

The solicitor who told of his experience took the view that since there had been no change in the evidence they were getting from interviews after the introduction of tape recording, it was likely they were being conducted in the same way as before tape recording. Certainly there were no procedural changes, but crib sheets were provided so that cops did not fluff their lines with regards to reading out rights and cautions.

Fact is the accused would answer police questions after being cautioned, the interviews were generally boring and tedious, the accused would lapse into police terminology and they were making regular confessions and not being verballed as the police did not need to.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by Nessie

So those of you who have been to court have seen that it is evidence based and not a matter of pure argument. It is not like an episode of Poirot where all parties are gathered in the drawing room as he announces who the murderer is.

I certainly think Antony believes it is like that.

... which just goes to show the amount of attention you've paid to what I've posted.

No, of course I don't think a court of law is like that; and I think it quite impertinent of you to ascribe such views to me. There is such a thing as Rule 12.

Neither do I believe that police misconduct in criminal cases is universal, although it is certainly more common than people like Nessie and Skwinty seem to think. What I do believe is that the police have an impossible task in finding out what happened in many crimes.

Unrealistic expections placed upon them by the public and the courts tend to invoke the law of unintended consequences: an incentive to "solve" crimes and bring prosecutions all to often translates into incentives to find scapegoats instead of arriving at the truth.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Antony

...

Neither do I believe that police misconduct in criminal cases is universal, although it is certainly more common than people like Nessie and Skwinty seem to think. .......

You have presented nothing in the way of evidence, just a suspicion based on miss carriages of justice.

If you are happy with suspicion alone, I suspect we have a very active and positive attitude to miss carriages of justice in the UK with a very active and strong appeals system and individuals and the press who are prepared to campaign when a miss carriage is found. So we have two ways of preventing or dealing with such.

If they were common place, between appeals courts, individual campaigners and the press people would know about it.

[Skwinty]

Originally Posted by Antony

and I think it quite impertinent of you to ascribe such views to me.

Neither do I believe that police misconduct in criminal cases is universal, although it is certainly more common than people like Nessie and Skwinty seem to think.

Antony, please heed your own advice.

Thanks, now it's off your hamster wheel for me.

cheers

[Antony]

Originally Posted by Nessie

You have presented nothing in the way of evidence, just a suspicion based on miss carriages of justice.

Miscarriages of justice are evidence. It's an absurd pretence to state otherwise. They are evidence of a culture within the police and court system.

Now, you could plausibly claim they are not proof, and then it would be possible to have a discussion. I understand you work in the court system, or for the police; it's somewhat unsettling to have a discussion with someone with those connections who doesn't see a distinction between "evidence" and "proof".

Since you don't agree that all the cases of injustice mentioned here are evidence (you referred to them as 6 cases; not sure which 6 you meant, given that more like 20 have been mentioned in this thread by various contributors), let's look at what you call "evidence" in support of your claim that it's "very, very rare" for the police to pursue the wrong person and fit them up: 6 high-profile cases where the police acted professionally, plus 2 weblinks describing less well-known cases.

Of the high-profile cases, 5 were whodunnits which the police failed to solve, and were concluded as a result of the culprit being handed to them on a plate. The other (Shipman) wasn't even recognised as crimes being committed until the culprit over-reached himself, again. Nothing to criticise the police for in those cases (apart from possibly missing early clues), but they are not counter-examples to the assertion that whenever the police seem to have solved a whodunnit, they get it wrong.

Then there were 2 relatvively unknown cases which you quoted:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23844305.html

The link was to a subscription page that I don't have full access to, so I googled this (by searching on "Robert Bovill John Conway"):
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/THUG+W......-a073793969

In the story, Bovill and his aunt Elizabeth Conway were described as having a feud with Conway before the murder, and that a witness claimed Bovill had said to him "he got killed because he used to batter my auntie".

Are we to understand that was the sum total of evidence against Bovill? If so, then this is clearly another wrongful conviction; if not, then it's hard to see how the report on the case would fail to mention the key evidence. Since you worked at the court where this case was conducted, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what the key evidence was. When I asked before, all you could say was "it turned out to be his nephew". That's not good enough.

The report on other case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/168602.stm) also fails to mention any real evidence against the accused other than innuendo.

Quote:

If you are happy with suspicion alone,

This is truly and comically ironic, after your 2 quoted cases which seem to show how cases get concluded on suspicion alone, without ringing any alarm bells in your mind.

Quote:

...

If they were common place, between appeals courts, individual campaigners and the press people would know about it.

This is known as "argument from incredulity". You, subjectively, don't think it would happen, so you conclude it doesn't happen.

[Nessie]

You need to evidence that miscarriages are evidence of a culture and not caused by human error that takes place in all parts of life and work.

Your characterisation of the police being handed those cases on a plate is wrong. Without the thousands of hours worth of work put into the investigation there would have been little to no chance of the final conclusion. Then you would have moaned that the police had nothing very much to go on.

As for the two local cases, there was more evidence for both that got the conviction that reported in the papers. You have your decision made and are trying to use limited detail to try and back it up. Thank goodness you are not a police officer or lawyer.

Please answer the question you repeatedly dodge what is your definition of a who done it case?

[anglolawyer]

I see the SYP are in the news again today. This time the chief constable has been summoned before the House of Commons Home Affairs select committee to explain how come they spent ten years doing nothing about organised gangs of mostly Asian men grooming under age girls for sex. Oh dear.

[Rolfe]

"Human error" and "a culture" are far from being mutually exclusive.

Rolfe.

[The Don]

Kelvin McKenzie has now doubled down and asked the police for an apology (for the news story that he ran with a particularly lurid headline, which happened to align perfectly with his own views and without adequately fact checking).

IMO the police do owe an apology to the British Public in general and Liverpool fans in particular but the editor of The Sun at the time does not deserve one.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by The Don

Kelvin McKenzie has now doubled down and asked the police for an apology (for the news story that he ran with a particularly lurid headline, which happened to align perfectly with his own views and without adequately fact checking).

IMO the police do owe an apology to the British Public in general and Liverpool fans in particular but the editor of The Sun at the time does not deserve one.

Maybe a politician's apology is in order? "We're very sorry that you didn't do your job properly Kelvin."

[Antony]

Originally Posted by Nessie

You need to evidence that miscarriages are evidence ...

This is pure blather, and a portmanteau response to enable you continue in denial, regardless of what evidence or arguments are raised on the other side.

Quote:

Your characterisation of the police being handed those cases on a plate is wrong. Without the thousands of hours worth of work put into the investigation there would have been little to no chance of the final conclusion.

Really? Brady, the Moors murderer, was caught because someone witnessed him killing one of his victims and called the police; the Yorkshire Ripper was caught because he was stopped for having false car number plates; Nilsen was caught because the drains inspector found his drain blocked with human remains; Tobin was caught because he attacked 2 teenagers in his own flat in the presence of his own son; Black was caught because he was seen dragging a child into his car and the police were again alerted.

All of this was good police work, and doesn't bear any resemblance to detective fiction, or the psychic powers displayed by the police who "solved" the crimes in the notorious miscarriages of justice. My point is that when the police are faced with a real crime mystery (as in the Guildford and Birmingham cases, the Broadwater Farm case or the Jill Dando murder) they always get it wrong. We expect too much of them, and all too often they respond to the pressure by doing things the easy way.

Quote:

Then you would have moaned that the police had nothing very much to go on.

There you go, trying to predict my reaction again. I've already said that the police deserve every credit for their role in those high-profile cases (Moors murders, Yorkshire Ripper, Nilsen, Tobin, Black, Shipman) where they didn't go in for grand-standing.

Quote:

As for the two local cases, there was more evidence for both that got the conviction that reported in the papers.

So we're not supposed to know what this real evidence was. Does the principle that "justice must be seen to be done" mean anything to you?

Let's remember that these were 2 cases which you brought into the discussion, and you've had several opportunities to demonstrate that the police and courts got it right. "There was more evidence" doesn't demonstrate anything.

Quote:

You have your decision made and are trying to use limited detail to try and back it up. Thank goodness you are not a police officer or lawyer.

What "decision" have I made? I will remind you of my words in response to you raising the cases as examples: "in the absence of details like these, I will reserve judgement as to whether they're genuine or not." In what way is that "having my decision made"?

Quote:

Please answer the question you repeatedly dodge what is your definition of a who done it case?

A whodunnit is when the investigators require real forensic methods to identify the culprit. The notorious miscarriages of justice are easy to spot because the accused come into the frame for arbitrary reasons, with the police apparently deploying psychic powers. In each of the genuine, undisputed cases you cited, the accused gave himself away. I have yet to see a case where the police uncovered a genuine mystery to track down the culprit(s), and got it right.