you can chill here

[andrea]

ill be the same as i always have been, i want guilty beleivers to post here. Its just when the disruptive posters come here, the ones that come here to be deliberately disruptive, as a mod i will try but a stop to that, they can still post but  i just want them to keep it civil.

[Roch]

By the way bob, it's gone a bit pro again.  No hartley or vic.  Need a few battles on here

Are you suggesting I should stir things up a bit Rochy with a dissenting post? That could prove suicidal with our new army of moderators 

Test the mods out?  See which one is trigger happy   

[andrea]

not me, im not trigger happy  only when i run out of fags

[andrea]

right am off for a shower then im off to bed, nght all xx

[Alias]

Night, Andrea! 

[Roch]

R.I.P. Columbo

[bob]

R.I.P. Columbo

Indeed. Or will he surprise us by popping back for "Just one more thing..."

[Roch]

R.I.P. Columbo

Indeed. Or will he surprise us by popping back for "Just one more thing..."

A dogged detective.  We could have done with his knack of ferreting out liars.  Respect Peter Falk.  Was in a few WWII films as a young actor I think.

[shonapugs]

Columbo was cool, but do you know who I think could solve this case? Lynda La Plante. She rocks.

[Roch]

Where's jackie?  Seems to have stopped posting.  Hope she returns soon.

[paulg]

Where's jackie?  Seems to have stopped posting.  Hope she returns soon.

Start a JM thread and she'll be back. 

[chochokeira]

Where's jackie?  Seems to have stopped posting.  Hope she returns soon.

She hasn't posted for a few days, has she?

Come back, Jackie, we need you!

[tyler]

I opened an account on twitter to follow her but have forgotton my password    otherwise I could have a look to see if she is posting (sorry tweeting) on there.I reckon she has gone to Canada to give JM a piece of her mind 

[Hartley]

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

So if there is any truth in the post below then the defence knew about JM's NOTW contract and could have informed the jury at any time, perhaps they did and the jury did know about it?

Source was one of the defence team.

While they were waiting for the verdict at trial. From 'Blood Relations';

"He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story."

[Newbury1]

But the jury were not aware that JM had signed a contract with the News of the World entitling her to £25,000 in the event of a conviction of Jeremy Bamber.  Do you not agree that their view of JM's evidence might have been affected by that knowledge?

So if there is any truth in the post below then the defence knew about JM's NOTW contract and could have informed the jury at any time, perhaps they did and the jury did know about it?

Source was one of the defence team.

While they were waiting for the verdict at trial. From 'Blood Relations';

"He was bandying figures for which he planned to sell his story to the newspapers - somewhat unattractive behaviour in the opinion of one of his legal team. A group of them sat with Jeremy, trying to buoy his spirits but feeling increasingly uncomfortable about his obsession with a newspaper deal. The best offer he'd had, he said, was £40,000. Couldn't they get him a better offer than that? After all, he was pointing out, if he was convicted, Julie had been promised £15,000 for her story."

Hartley - did you mean to put this on the "you can chill here" thread