Author Topic: The mysterious meeting in the judges chambers: (Read 4852 times)

Jan · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:34:PM »

Thank you Adam.

I think he is saying therefore it is not valid - even though it has been said it was discussed between the judge and the prosecution.

Mr. Gee · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2015, 03:52:PM »

I think he is saying therefore it is not valid - even though it has been said it was discussed between the judge and the prosecution.

But "every word of Wilkes is valid even if he's wrong it seems?

lookout · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2015, 04:49:PM »

The heading of this thread sounds like a humerous book title. There's no answer to that !!

Jane · « **Reply #33 on:** January 17, 2015, 05:18:PM »

The heading of this thread sounds like a humerous book title. There's no answer to that !!

Add the prefix "The Case Of............................." et voila!!! A previously undiscovered mystery by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, perhaps?

lookout · « **Reply #34 on:** January 17, 2015, 05:40:PM »

Add the prefix "The Case Of............................." et voila!!! A previously undiscovered mystery by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, perhaps?

Yes,it sounds more like one of his books.

lookout · « **Reply #35 on:** January 17, 2015, 05:45:PM »

Made into a movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

Jeremy Bamber Forum