Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[BBB167893]

At least Baggett has an excuse?

I mean, what is worse? Being a highly regarded expert and wrong, or just being a run-of-the-mill expert and wrong? I say the former is worse.

Was one of the awards "Right About the JBR Case Award"?

IMO it comes down to publicity. How can it hurt a professional career to make unverifiable claims that just so happen to promote your specialization? It IS self-promoting.

And the award for Biggest, Most Ridiculously Transparent, Most Desperate Wildcard goes to...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Asked and answered. But I'll repost, if it pleases you (and even better if it doesn't!):

"According to McCann, examination findings that indicate chronic sexual abuse include the thickness of the rim of the hymen, irregularity of the edge of the hymen, the width or narrowness of the wall of the hymen, and exposure of structures of the vagina normally covered by the hymen. His report stated that there was evidence of prior hymeneal trauma as all of these criteria were seen in the post mortem examination of JonBenet.
"There was a three dimensional thickening from inside to outside on the inferior hymeneal rim with a bruise apparent on the external surface of the hymen and a narrowing of the hymeneal rim from the edge of the hymen to where it attaches to the muscular portion of the vaginal openings. At the narrowing area, there appeared to be very little if any hymen present. There was also exposure of the vaginal rugae, a structure of the vagina which is normally covered by an intact hymen. The hymeneal orifice measured one centimeter which is abnormal or unusual for this particular age group and is further evidence of prior sexual abuse with a more recent injury as shown by the bruised area on the inferior hymeneal rim. The examination results were evidence that there was at least one prior penetration of the vagina through the hymeneal membrane. The change in the hymeneal structure is due to healing from a prior penetration.

Sure as he** sounds like scarring and hymenal damage to me!

What is your source for this McCann quote?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And the award for Biggest, Most Ridiculously Transparent, Most Desperate Wildcard goes to...

RDI, for using "they were in the house at the time" as an argument that the parents killed JBR, and for using "they had the most access" as an argument for prior abuse. When these statements would obviously hold true for ANY parents.

 

[BBB167893]

I was going to let this one ride but I think you might need to learn something about sourcing and corroboration

Said the pot to the kettle.

Who knows if it was his opinion or not? I sure don't because I never read it ANYWHERE.

Of THAT, I have no doubt!

The only place I can seem to source your claim is the BONITA PAPERS. What the heck is that?

I can tell you what they are: typed up copies of the police file, compiled by the legal secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the BPD's Dream Team. As in, someone who was actually there, as opposed to the lamestream media, which I could go on and on about.

Not exactly the NY Times is it?

THAT's what you base these things on? Whether or not something was in the freakin' NY Slimes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also claim Saddam Hussein had big stockpiles of WMDs? Can you see my problem yet?

Internet poster Jameson (post deleted) claims Bonita has disavowed much of what is in these papers. User beware.

Agreed. ANYTHING that one says, you SHOULD beware of! I had to learn that the hard way!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I can tell you what they are: typed up copies of the police file, compiled by the legal secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the BPD's Dream Team. As in, someone who was actually there, as opposed to the lamestream media, which I could go on and on about.

No you can't tell me what they are. You have no idea what McCann's opinions really are unless you can source them. Any amateur knows this!

Whereas I can tell you what the autopsy report says because it has been sourced.

 

[BBB167893]

What is your source for this McCann quote?

Let's not waste time, HOTYH. You know full-well it came from the Bonita Papers, which I have reprinted in my book. It is my hope that many others will have a chance to read it that way.

RDI, for using "they were in the house at the time" as an argument that the parents killed JBR, and for using "they had the most access" as an argument for prior abuse.

[Buzzer sounds] Oh, I'm sorry, that is incorrect. The award goes to IDI, hands down. Perhaps it's time to move on to the lightning round. And, since I'm a Sith Lord, we'll be using real lightning! LOL

All kidding aside, I don't even have to generalize. Let's take a look at the stuff you alone have "graced" us with: anytime someone points out the special treatment the Rs got because of their status, they're accused of having it in for "the rich." Anytime a real heavy-hitter (like McCann) says something that could be bad news for the Rs. they're accused of being unethical self-promoters. Not to mention this mantra of "if it's in the paper, it must be true" that we're subjected to over and over again. And I ought to know: I used to be a master of those dodges.

You're wrong in another way, too: the so-called "wildcards" you just named are known as "opportunity," which is a big part of narrowing down a suspect pool.

When these statements would obviously hold true for ANY parents.

That's exactly WHY parents have to be considered when a child ends up dead. You're not doing yourself any favors.

 

[BBB167893]

No you can't tell me what they are. You have no idea what McCann's opinions really are unless you can source them.

Then let's do that. ST's book speaks about a panel of experts. We know that, because it's been posted here recently. He doesn't name them, but PMPT does. It corroborates his statements:

Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis. --PMPT, pb, pg 563.

So, as you can see, I have no reason to doubt the account of McCann's findings.

Leaving aside the physical considerations, which you claim are obscure, let's take a look at other factors. Children who have been abused have been known to express it in behavior such as lack of boundaries and severe bedwetting. JB's bedwetting issues are extremely well-known at this point, AND she had some pretty serious boundary issues, not the least of which was her insistence on asking any nearby adult to wipe her after evacuating. But you don't seem to consider any of this.

Any amateur knows this!

There are SO many things I could do with that statement. But I won't, because it's too easy.

Whereas I can tell you what the autopsy report says because it has been sourced.

No argument. Oh, and just to settle the idea of whether or not the autopsy report contains every conclusion of the coroner, let's take a statement from Dr. Meyer himself:

I'd ruminate over it. It's not like you can say, "i've done the autopsy. I've submitted my report. We've done our thing. It's not my problem anymore." There is a possibility that I'm going to be involved in it again. I know I'm going to testify. I try to theorize how things occurred.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I can tell you what they are: typed up copies of the police file, compiled by the legal secretary of Dan Hoffman, one of the BPD's Dream Team. As in, someone who was actually there, as opposed to the lamestream media, which I could go on and on about.

Actually WHERE? In an office? JBR was murdered in the basement, remember?

Ooooh, well thats it then. JBR was previously, chronically abused because Dan Hoffman's secretary said so.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

Isn't there ONE OTHER SOURCE for McCann besides the Bonita Papers (I'm pretty sure those books you quoted all use these 'papers' as source).

These Bonita Papers are tabloid junk, like Elvis on Mars or something.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So, as you can see, I have no reason to doubt the account of McCann's findings.

That you have no reason to doubt McCann, I can see THAT for SURE.

The question is whether or not the 'account of McCann's findings' even exists in the first place. You'll need more sourcing than some secretary who was 'going' to write a book, notes that were sold to the tabloids by her nephew (you're not really serious, are you?).

 

[cynic]

The fact that it was Baggetts opinion that JMK wrote the note can be corroborated by several sources, including most major news agencies.

I don’t care if you quote a hundred media sources regarding what Baggett claimed with respect to Karr. They may as well have picked someone at random from the street and asked them what they thought of the handwriting, their qualifications would be the same.
He is a fraud, as I posted previously. I guess your highly esteemed media got it wrong. Perhaps they should have checked out who they were talking to.

Baggett admitted that he was not board-certified. He testified that he had studied under Dr. Rev Walker, who was a doctor of divinity. He also said that he taught document examination through Handwriting University, a mail-order school, and that his son [Bart Baggett] owned HandwritingUniversity.com, “the largest handwriting analysis school in the world.” He admitted that he had taken no continuing education classed, had never published in any trade journals, and that he had once been convicted of felony theft.
…
In that case Judge Clay Land ruled that Baggett was not professionally certified, had not undergone proficiency testing, and had not published anything in the document examination field. Judge Land labeled Baggett’s qualifications as “clearly paltry.”
-Forensics Under Fire. Jim Fisher

While we are on the topic of the mainstream media, this is not the first time they aired or published misinformation. (Sorry if this shatters your world.)

Grunge Speak
Date: November 1992

In the early 1990s, Grunge emerged as a popular new hard rock musical style. Its characteristic image was of greasy-haired, lumberjack-shirted garage bands playing punk-metal guitar rock. Groups such as Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Mudhoney epitomized this new Seattle-based sound.
On November 15, 1992 the New York Times published an article analyzing the roots and evolution of the grunge movement. It theorized that Grungers had embraced greasy hair and lumberjack shirts as a way to rebel against the vanity and flashy style of the eighties. The Times also reported that, just like any self-respecting subculture, the Grungers had developed their own lexicon of "grunge speak."
Grunge terms, according to the Times, included phrases such as Cob Nobbler (a loser), Lamestain (an uncool person), Wack Slacks (old, ripped jeans), and Swingin' on the Flippity-Flop (hanging out).
Three months later, The Baffler, a small, Chicago-based magazine, revealed that the Times had been the victim of a hoax. The grunge terms didn't exist. Megan Jasper of Seattle-based Caroline Records, whom the Times had used as its source for the glossary, had simply made the words up.
The Baffler gloated that "when the Newspaper of Record goes searching for the Next Big Thing and the Next Big Thing piddles on its leg, we think that's funny."
Members of the grunge band Mudhoney later began using the fake terms satirically during interviews. The New York Times dismissed the prank as 'irritating.'

And,

The CBS Bush Memos September 2004

On 8 September 2004, Dan Rather reported on 60 Minutes that CBS had obtained documents revealing that President Bush had disobeyed orders while serving in the National Guard and had then used his family's influence to cover up his poor service record. The documents allegedly came from the files of Col. Killian, Bush's commanding officer in the Guard. Rather's news report generated controversy almost immediately. Bloggers pointed out that the documents in question looked as if they had been written in Microsoft Word, which would not have existed when Bush was serving in the Guard. Initially CBS paid no attention to the bloggers, but when it realized that its source for the documents, Bill Burkett, had lied about how he obtained them, it decided that it could no longer vouch for their authenticity. Rather apologized for airing the story.

And,

The press release declared, "The Arm the Homeless Coalition will be collecting donations to provide firearms for the homeless of Columbus... Funds are to be used to provide arms, ammunition and firearm safety training for homeless individuals who pass the coalition's rigorous screening. Homeless are selected for the program on the basis of need, mental and emotional stability, and potential value to society at large." The release ended on a cheery note: "Santas will be at area malls collecting money for this vital and charitable cause."
A photograph accompanying the release showed a man in a santa suit waiting to accept donations. A sign beside him read, "100 percent of contributions will be used to provide desperately needed protection for our country's homeless." The media were instructed to address their queries to the Coalition's Director, Jack Kilmer.
The press release immediately stirred up controversy. The Columbus Dispatch denounced the Coalition in an angrily-worded article, and the Charitable Solicitations Board of Columbus sent the organization a cease-and-desist letter, forbidding it from engaging in any fund-raising activities until it had registered with the board.
The Associated Press obtained an interview with the mysterious Jack Kilmer. In this interview, Kilmer defended the Coalition's goal of arming the homeless by asking, "Who more needs to exercise their constitutional right to have a weapon for protection?" He also noted that there were homeless organizations that dealt with shelter, food, and jobs, but none that trained homeless people in firearm use. Though he added, "We're surely not going to hand out firearms on the streets."
Kilmer declined to disclose the group's size or the location of its headquarters, saying, "We have had some hostile reaction in the past."
That weekend, as promised, a man in a Santa Claus outfit showed up at the Columbus City Center claiming to represent the Arm the Homeless Coalition. However, he did not take donations. Instead, he passed out information about the Coalition.
But by that time the Associated Press interview had brought the Coalition to the attention of the national media — CNN, Rush Limbaugh, and others covered the story — and a storm of public criticism was gathering around the Coalition. Letters denouncing the charity poured into newspapers, and editorial columns buzzed with condemnation.

That was 1993, but you couldn’t fool the national media twice, right?
Well, 6 years later, the story surfaced again.
60 Minutes II, the Associated Press, and numerous local radio stations fell for it.
Here is the 1996 story:

Give Piece a Chance
Arm the Homeless stages a firearms giveaway for Phoenix vagrants.
By David Holthouse Thursday, Apr 1 1999
Manny Marco, unemployed vagabond, tenderly loaded the last of 30 9-millimeter bullets into the spring-action, extended clip for his new Mac-10--a semiautomatic assault weapon capable of throwing rounds as fast as Marco can blink.
"That's very good, Manny," coaxed Arm the Homeless firearms instructor Pete Whippit. "Now, insert the clip and rack that lever there." Marco did so, producing the wicked, unmistakable chik-chik of a freshly loaded weapon.
"Okay, Manny," Whippit continued, pointing to a switch. "Now, all you need to do is flick this thing here from 'Safe' to 'Fire,' and you are cocked, locked and ready to rock."
Tears of joy trickled through the caked grime on Marco's face as he threw both arms around Whippit, still holding the fully loaded machine pistol. Nearby, a cluster of vagrants sorting through a shopping cart filled with handguns and shotguns ducked and danced away from the arc of the Mac-10's barrel.
"God bless you, and God bless Arm the Homeless," Marco said. "This is the nicest thing
anyone's done for me in 10 years."
With that, Marco withdrew from the embrace and shook the Mac-10 menacingly at a reporter. "Beats the h**l out of a little spare change, don't it?"

Here is some more:

Looks like fauxtography isn’t the only thing that the newswires and other media outlets get taken in by these days. Here we have the AP, ABC and other news agencies getting fooled by Alexis Debat, a “news consultant” who has not only faked interviewing various people in the news but has also faked his own education and background. And he’s been doing it for years with his writing serving as the main source for some of the AP’s and ABC’s stories. He even somehow got a job with the Nixon Center, a political think tank in D.C. which is a foreign policy advisory organization with a leaning toward the “realpolitik” or pragmatist view of foreign relations.
The AP reports on how they and ABC as well as a French political journal called Politique Internationale were taken in by the fanciful work of Debat.
A former ABC News consultant fired last year because he couldn’t authenticate academic credentials is at the center of a new dispute over apparently faked interviews with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates and others.
The consultant, Alexis Debat, quit the Nixon Center, a Washington think tank, on Wednesday after Obama’s representatives claimed an interview with the senator appearing under Debat’s byline in the French magazine Politique Internationale never took place. The interview quoted the Democratic presidential candidate as saying the Iraq war was “a defeat for America.”
How embarrassing for them all!
Debat has apparently faked interviews with a lot people in the news.
Pelosi, Gates, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg all said they never gave interviews that appeared in the magazine under Debat’s byline, ABC News’ Web site, the Blotter, reported on Thursday.
According to the report, people knew this “news consultant” was lying all the way back in 2005 when a UN official discovered that a Debat interview with Kofi Annan was faked and a later one was really an Annan speech given at Princeton University reworked as if it were an interview with the UN chief.
It is bad enough, though, that this guy fooled his employers about fake interviews, but even worse is the fact that this Debat guy was used as an important source to buttress other journalist’s reports on current events.
Debat has been extensively quoted by other media, including the AP, which included his remarks in three stories.
He was identified as a terrorism consultant in a 2004 story about CIA Director George Tenet’s resignation and quoted as saying Tenet had a reputation as a yes-man for President Bush.
And he was quoted twice in 2001, identified as a former French Defense Ministry analyst. In one story, he said the United States and France has increased their intelligence-sharing. He was the main source for the second story, in which he said police had found a notebook with codes that could help decipher messages within Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network.
So, what the heck is going on with editors these days? It seems they are all out to lunch while liars like Jason Blair, Jack Kelly, Michael Finkel, and Stephen Glass — the list goes on and on — just make things up out of their rear ends and publish their lies with little notice from those who are supposed to be the media’s fact-checkers.
Just remember, though, the “official” media and journalists who are “trained” to be real journalists are far more trustworthy than we slobbering bloggers!
Now, if you believe that, I want to talk to you about the sale of a bridge in Brooklyn I just happen to own.
-Newest Faux News Scandal : Another Journalist Fakes Interviews
Posted on September 14th, 2007 by Warner Todd Huston
Blogger News Network
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/national/main3262071.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3262071

I could go on and on and on. The point is, HOTYH, the media doesn’t necessarily exhaustively check its sources, and sometimes not at all – that is a fact. There is space to fill and airtime to fill, there are deadlines and pressure.
Also, because often many media outlets simply reprint or re-broadcast a story, numbers mean little in terms of veracity. 50 newspapers, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS could run with a story put out on an AP wire with little to no checking. Does that mean it is 54 times as likely to be true? No, if the original source is wrong, or a hoax, it just means that the incorrect story has gone out on a wide scale.

Isn't there ONE OTHER SOURCE for McCann besides the Bonita Papers

Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238946,00.html

"In mid-September, a panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation - that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue, and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse' 'There was chronic abuse'. . .'Past violation of the vagina'. . .'Evidence of both acute and injury and chronic sexual abuse.' In other words, the doctors were saying it had happened before. One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault, but with a child who was being physically abused."
Such findings would lead an investigator to conclude that the person who inflicted the abuse was someone with frequent or unquestioned access to the child, and that limited the amount of suspects.
Every statistic in the book pointed to someone inside the family.
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis. --PMPT, pg 563.

Q. Now, tell me who the members were of what you call the blue ribbon panel of pediatric experts, give me their names, please.
A. I think the FBI recommended --
Q. Just their names, not the recommendation?
A. -- and tried to -- and he participated, was a doctor from California, Dr. John McCann
Deposition of Steven Thomas, September 21, 2001

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

ST, PMPT, and Shapiro (fox news) are all pulling from the BONITA PAPERS which are tabloid junk. Nobody has a quote from Dr. McCann himself that can be sourced.

 

[Ravyn]

John McCann, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.
McCann Assisted BPD. "In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos



I found this, but also like and I know the saying a picture is worth a thousand words,how can the experts know for sure by a picture and the coroner didn't put his personal thoughts in the autopsy report....

 

[suepitzl]

IMO, Patsy killed her after she wet her pants.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

John McCann, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine, Dept of Pediatrics at University of California at Davis.
McCann Assisted BPD. "In August, the Boulder police department contacted Dr. John McCann, one of the nation’s leading experts on child sexual abuse. McCann had agreed to assist the police department in determining if JonBenet had been a victim of sexual abuse during or before her murder. McCann was sent the autopsy report and photos



I found this, but also like and I know the saying a picture is worth a thousand words,how can the experts know for sure by a picture and the coroner didn't put his personal thoughts in the autopsy report....

What you've found is more 'Bonita Papers' tabloid junk.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'd ruminate over it. It's not like you can say, "i've done the autopsy. I've submitted my report. We've done our thing. It's not my problem anymore." There is a possibility that I'm going to be involved in it again. I know I'm going to testify. I try to theorize how things occurred.

Sorry, but it seems I need to ask for the source lately because I've not been able to independently confirm some of the more recent posts claims. Presuming you have your source and its more than simple 'Elvis on Mars' tabloid junk: Its going to be impossible for Dr. Meyer to theorize on prior abuse, because the doctor didn't list even one prior injury in the final diagnosis.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then let's do that. ST's book speaks about a panel of experts. We know that, because it's been posted here recently. He doesn't name them, but PMPT does. It corroborates his statements:

Dr. David Jones, professor of preventative medicine and biometrics at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center; Dr. James Monteleone, professor of pediatrics at St. Louis University School of medicine and director of child protection for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital; and Dr. John McCann, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of California at Davis. --PMPT, pb, pg 563.

I don't think you understand corroboration either. Where did ST get his information about a panel of experts, and where did PMPT get its information? Did they both get the information from the same source? It seems this is the case because I can't find anything from McCann that is independent of the Bonita Papers.

Maybe you're better off using that paper written by those two doctors that use JBR as their classic example, even though they don't know what happened to her. At least THAT is corroborated.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Verifying Your Internet Research

When doing research, particularly on the internet (but anywhere), you should do several things:

• Use more than one source, particularly for important things; this will give you a wider range of material from which to discern accuracy and reliability
• Verify your sources and preferably cross-reference to measure out objective “truth” vs bias
• Try to use primary sources (original) vs. secondary or tertiary sources (original cited and open to interpretation); the closer you are to the original source, the closer you are to getting the original “story”
• When going to more than one source, try to get a range of different source-types (e.g., conservative newspaper vs. blog vs. special interest site, etc.) to gain a full range of insight into the issue you’re researching

Read more at Suite101: How to Research Your Novel on the Internet: Use the World Wide Web to Get Accurate Information for Your Stories http://writingfiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/researching_your_novel_on_the_internet#ixzz0kHliMrWU
​

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

IMO, Patsy killed her after she wet her pants.

Yeah right.

Maybe slow down for the 'Victory!' and 'not the country that it serves' parts. These are superfluous to PR's coverup. Besides, where do you think the cord and tape came from? Midair?

 

[cynic]

I don't think you understand corroboration either. Where did ST get his information about a panel of experts

The experts gathered at the request of the BPD; ST’s information is first hand.
We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

where did PMPT get its information?

Don’t know, but neither do you.

Just to be clear, I guess you are the sole judge of what constitutes a proper source?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The experts gathered at the request of the BPD; ST’s information is first hand.
We gathered affidavits stating in clear language that there were injuries 'consistent with prior trauma and sexual abuse'
Steve Thomas, JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation p. 253

Don’t know, but neither do you.

Just to be clear, I guess you are the sole judge of what constitutes a proper source?

Thats up to you. But if I'm to be the judge, then here's my ruling:

Dr. McCann is apparently referenced by Steve Thomas and by the Bonita Papers which are both RDI. This fails to provide an unbiased report of what Dr. McCann's views are.

There are plenty of unbiased reporting for PR, JR, LS, LW, ST, AH, ML why not McCann? Why are the only sources for McCann RDI sources? Its an honest question, really. Its pretty obvious you're OK with just RDI sources and I understand that.

Saying ST's information is 'first hand' as if it should be enough, when he's obviously over-the-edge RDI (quit the job that could've solved the case), says it all for me.

Please note ST's choice of words "stating in clear language evidence of prior trauma and sexual abuse" Not Prior sexual abuse. See what I mean? The prior trauma is chronic inflammation from soap, and the sexual abuse is from acute injuries from that night. There's nothing wrong with his statement except what it implies.