Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[JackiePreece]

So Mat if one of us was brave enough to go over to the racist forum where would we find it on what thread

I don't mind going undercover

[maggie]

So Mat if one of us was brave enough to go over to the racist forum where would we find it on what thread

I don't mind going undercover

ThaTs a good idea jackie but be careful and shower after.

[Bridget]

This is what you posted on the other board:

Sooooooooo.
As I promised on the other forum. I was going to make a call to Ewen Smith - he works at the CCRC now for those that do not know and although he isn't working the Bamber case - and isn't working the News International case I'm on so has bo contact with me .. he is high enough up in the CCRC that my firm can contact him.

Unofficially or officially. But I digress.


After the conversation, very awkward, I realised what he told me was soemthing I actually wouldn't be able to post on the other board.

I'd get banned by the admin there......Mike.

But I can talk about it here.. via PM. Feel free to PM me and ask!

So it appears you didn't post about Ewen here. I don't see a thread started by you there about the NOTW deal.

[maggie]

Nothing there bridget. How strange. The mystery of the disappearing posts. Something spooky  going jon ere.

[Bridget]

Mat on the NOTW deal:

Yes, Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal. His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention, the deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.

But then when the belief changed, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie. Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is somethnig most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did.  Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him isnging his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000 - he wanted more. Lotsd more.

[JackiePreece]

I have just been over the dark side but I couldn't find what I was looking for but I found an interesting post by Abs


Jeremy Bamber and the murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case CLOSED by CCRC. NO APPEAL REFERRAL. / Re: Conversation with Ewen.
« Last post by abs on Today at 12:00:52 PM »

Why are there so many "guests" posting all the time? - Personally I find it a bit annoying, and isn´t it just another way of having multiple personas?

[Roch]

Bear in mind a members can delete their own posts and that does not show up on the moderation log.

That's what I was thinking.

[bloggs and son]

I know how to sort this!
(1) Mat can post it again.
(2) Post the number of those witnesses who said they saw Mats post.
(3) Count the number of the witnesses who said they didn't see it.
(4) Let the witnesses who said they saw Mats post tell what they think Mat said in that post.

[JackiePreece]

I didn't see it

Unfortunately

[maggie]

I didn't see it

Unfortunately

Nor me Jackie.  I saw nothing.

[susan]

Grahame alias bloggs and son  that is a good idea and that will clear it up once and for all.

[bloggs and son]

Mat on the NOTW deal:

Yes, Jeremy had a deal with the NOTW which pre-dated JM's deal. His deal was for £40,000 which was given because the NOTW didn't believe him to be guilty and thought it would be a big scoop for them to have the story of a someone who had faced trial on a case that had gotten a great deal of attention, the deal was put together by David Montgomery but then something happened. The higher ups at the NOTW realised Bamber was guilty, they'd been saying this in their paper that Bamber was guilty for some time previous but there was always a belief that there was a great chance that Jeremy would get away with it, even if he was guilty due to the evidence.

But then when the belief changed, they realsied that they wouldn't be paying £40,000 and wanted to have a story to print, an exlcusive - so who was the next best thing? Julie. Her agreement was signed AFTER Jeremy's which is somethnig most people don't know, in fact most people do not know Jeremy had a deal in place, he did.  Montgomery worked with Julie too on her deal and found her to be much easier to deal with as Jeremy would often make phone calls to the news team in the lead up to him isnging his agreement and he would bitch and moan about the sum of £40,000 - he wanted more. Lotsd more.

The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.

[maggie]

The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.

Yes bloggsey, because Julie was in effect being paid to support the guilty charge and therefore would benefit from it.  Jeremy was being paid for a not guilty charge which he would obviously still want with or without the money.  It made no difference to the outcome from Jeremy's perspective. Also Jeremy was probably a pretty spoilt and priviledged young man in the 1980's the Thatcher years when money was all.  He was pretty much bound to be that way and had no doubt been brought up to be.  It has no bearing at all on his ability to kill 5 members of his close family.  The NOTW thing is all hot air IMO.  Maybe that's why it disappeared. :D

[Bridget]

The big difference of course is that Julie Mugford was a material witness and that the court didn't know when the case went to trial. Let's face it they were both wasters, but that doesn't make him guilty. The fact that he demanded more money in a way is an indication of his confidence that he would get off. But the big no no was that she didn't reveal this deal before or at the trial. This in itself is evidence relevent to the accused, more even than Jeremy's own deal with the NOTW.

I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?

[ngb1066]

I agree to that any deal JB did is irrelevant, his greatest incentive to lie would be to stay out of prison. I don't think JMs contract, or any evidence as to the date it was signed has emerged yet, has it?

The contract itself has never been disclosed.