Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: JackiePreece on January 02, 2016, 12:33:PM
-
She obviously knows and would obviously have kept a record of the money and terms of settlement
Why is she refusing to say the date
-
She obviously knows and would obviously have kept a record of the money and terms of settlement
Why is she refusing to say the date
Unless she's hauled into court and answers are demanded, it's her business and no one else's. I'd love to know why Jeremy has kept his silence, all these years, on the subject of Julie. I don't believe she was the love of his life and I don't believe he's remained silence out of chivalry.
-
Unless she's hauled into court and answers are demanded, it's her business and no one else's. I'd love to know why Jeremy has kept his silence, all these years, on the subject of Julie. I don't believe she was the love of his life and I don't believe he's remained silence out of chivalry.
She was asked and so was the lawyer . The money would have been paid after the trial but neither could find the original documents .
-
Unless she's hauled into court and answers are demanded, it's her business and no one else's. I'd love to know why Jeremy has kept his silence, all these years, on the subject of Julie. I don't believe she was the love of his life and I don't believe he's remained silence out of chivalry.
He doesn't appear to be the type to talk about anyone at all and is probably someone who doesn't see bad in anyone either. If he'd been the type to do so,you wouldn't have heard the last of it.
I wonder which category we fall into ?
-
She was asked and so was the lawyer . The money would have been paid after the trial but neither could find the original documents .
Whilst that MAY be significant, what she said in court would all have been based on what she'd told the police the previous year. That she may have entered into an arrangement with any publication would have had no bearing on it.
-
He doesn't appear to be the type to talk about anyone at all and is probably someone who doesn't see bad in anyone either. If he'd been the type to do so,you wouldn't have heard the last of it.
I wonder which category we fall into ?
Lookout, for God's sake allow him some balls!!!!! It may have slipped your notice but he spent rather a lot of time making accusations against his family.
-
Whilst that MAY be significant, what she said in court would all have been based on what she'd told the police the previous year. That she may have entered into an arrangement with any publication would have had no bearing on it.
I said that a few posts back .
But also explained why it still could have influenced her within the testimony - hence why the rules are in place.
If you were on the jury and you were told during the trial she had sold the story about the murder of the twins for enough money to buy a small flat - would it have influenced your opinion of her as a witness?
That is why it was a bad idea to think about even considering a deal before the trial.Before Adam leaps in I don't think it would have changed Jeremys testimony though :)
-
She obviously knows and would obviously have kept a record of the money and terms of settlement
Why is she refusing to say the date
Erm---------she forgot dates. :o
-
I said that a few posts back .
But also explained why it still could have influenced her within the testimony - hence why the rules are in place.
If you were on the jury and you were told during the trial she had sold the story about the murder of the twins for enough money to buy a small flat - would it have influenced your opinion of her as a witness?
That is why it was a bad idea to think about even considering a deal before the trial.Before Adam leaps in I don't think it would have changed Jeremys testimony though :)
I'm not really clear on how she'd have got away with altering her testimony, Jan. She would have gone through what she was going to say prior to taking the stand, if she'd altered that in any way whilst being questioned by Jeremy's defence, they'd have jumped on it like a ton of bricks.
I can't give you an honest answer about how I'd have felt as a juror -as you know, Adam still dines out on my dislike of her clothes- but having read CAL's description of her testimony, I doubt if I could have remained unmoved by it.
If you don't think a deal would have changed Jeremy's testimony, I think Julie must be given the same benefit of doubt.
-
I'm not really clear on how she'd have got away with altering her testimony, Jan. She would have gone through what she was going to say prior to taking the stand, if she'd altered that in any way whilst being questioned by Jeremy's defence, they'd have jumped on it like a ton of bricks.
I can't give you an honest answer about how I'd have felt as a juror -as you know, Adam still dines out on my dislike of her clothes- but having read CAL's description of her testimony, I doubt if I could have remained unmoved by it.
If you don't think a deal would have changed Jeremy's testimony, I think Julie must be given the same benefit of doubt.
Say when it came to court and she was waivering because she knew some of the information was not true - could she have been persuaded to carry on regardless because the money was a carrot to keep on track? As it turns out apparently she was a hard witness to question anyway . So I do think the money was relevant .
Of course it was not to Jeremy - he wasnot going to say he was guilty to get 25000 was he. But the papers should not have made deals with anyone at ALL .
I think the guilters should acknowledge it was important because if the deal was signed before the trial and it had been revealed to all the jurors then a guilty man could have walked free?
-
I said that a few posts back .
But also explained why it still could have influenced her within the testimony - hence why the rules are in place.
If you were on the jury and you were told during the trial she had sold the story about the murder of the twins for enough money to buy a small flat - would it have influenced your opinion of her as a witness?
That is why it was a bad idea to think about even considering a deal before the trial.Before Adam leaps in I don't think it would have changed Jeremys testimony though :)
Not in the slightest because her statement couldn't have been influenced by the deal and her place as a witness was already a cert long before.
-
Unless she's hauled into court and answers are demanded, it's her business and no one else's. I'd love to know why Jeremy has kept his silence, all these years, on the subject of Julie. I don't believe she was the love of his life and I don't believe he's remained silence out of chivalry.
Jeremy does not talk about hatred of ANYONE involved
Family or Mugford and I had many conversations
Maybe any of the people who believe him to be guilty and have corresponded with him could prove otherwise
-
Say when it came to court and she was waivering because she knew some of the information was not true - could she have been persuaded to carry on regardless because the money was a carrot to keep on track? As it turns out apparently she was a hard witness to question anyway . So I do think the money was relevant .
Of course it was not to Jeremy - he wasnot going to say he was guilty to get 25000 was he. But the papers should not have made deals with anyone at ALL .
I think the guilters should acknowledge it was important because if the deal was signed before the trial and it had been revealed to all the jurors then a guilty man could have walked free?
I can only say, that at 20, under the circumstances of having to give evidence in a murder trial, I'd certainly have waivered. I'd have doubted the truth I was telling. I wouldn't have been alone in the witness box. There'd have been me, plus all my psychological baggage. It would have been the same for 20 year old Julie.
-
I don't believe for one minute that JM was a shrinking violet.
She comes across as really hard nosed, 20 or not.
-
I wonder if JM gave Liz a cut of the 25 grand, after all it was her that got JM to go to the cops.
-
Jeremy does not talk about hatred of ANYONE involved
Family or Mugford and I had many conversations
Maybe any of the people who believe him to be guilty and have corresponded with him could prove otherwise
Poor Pamela had the " temerity " to ask after Jeremy. Now then,this is the sister of one of those who were killed. Would ANYONE who had been certain that Jeremy was the killer,ask after the health of " said killer " who'd not only murdered their own flesh and blood but also two innocent little boys ?? I certainly wouldn't have taken Pam to have been non compus mentis when she'd asked that question.
-
Poor Pamela had the " temerity " to ask after Jeremy. Now then,this is the sister of one of those who were killed. Would ANYONE who had been certain that Jeremy was the killer,ask after the health of " said killer " who'd not only murdered their own flesh and blood but also two innocent little boys ?? I certainly wouldn't have taken Pam to have been non compus mentis when she'd asked that question.
Lookout, you've made it abundantly clear that you have your emotions under such rigid control that they wouldn't dare allow you to feel anything you thought it wasn't correct to feel.
-
I can only say, that at 20, under the circumstances of having to give evidence in a murder trial, I'd certainly have waivered. I'd have doubted the truth I was telling. I wouldn't have been alone in the witness box. There'd have been me, plus all my psychological baggage. It would have been the same for 20 year old Julie.
Shame she didn't manage to come up with any unique murder plans only Jeremy and her had discussed
-
I wonder if JM gave Liz a cut of the 25 grand, after all it was her that got JM to go to the cops.
I wonder if they still talk to each other
-
Lookout, you've made it abundantly clear that you have your emotions under such rigid control that they wouldn't dare allow you to feel anything you thought it wasn't correct to feel.
Surely that's my prerogative if I,myself feel that what I say is correct otherwise I wouldn't be saying it.
I'm not doing anyone any harm,nor am I controlling anyone to agree with my thoughts and views,so what is the problem that you seem to have with me ?
-
Surely that's my prerogative if I,myself feel that what I say is correct otherwise I wouldn't be saying it.
I'm not doing anyone any harm,nor am I controlling anyone to agree with my thoughts and views,so what is the problem that you seem to have with me ?
What I was trying to say is, that not everyone has the ability -or even desire- to cut off feelings. Just because Pam asked after Jeremy, it doesn't mean she thought he was innocent. Undoubtedly, if she believed him guilty, she'd have hated what he'd done, but if her love for him had been unconditional, she wouldn't have been able to easily switch those feelings off. It may be a concept you find difficult to comprehend.
-
She was asked and so was the lawyer . The money would have been paid after the trial but neither could find the original documents .
I agree.
The NOTW would not pay money to either Bamber or Julie, until after the verdict.
Firstly because it is probably illegal to pay the money during the trial.
Secondly, the NOTW won't pay Bamber for a future story he may not be able to give, if convicted. And won't pay Julie for a story she may not be able to give if Bamber is found innocent.
Ditto signing the deals. Signing deals is the NOTW committing to payment although they don't know the verdict. Which is stupid as they will certainly be losing £40,000 or £25,000. Dependant on the verdict.
All this is simple. So I don't know why supporters always look for this technicality.
-
What I was trying to say is, that not everyone has the ability -or even desire- to cut off feelings. Just because Pam asked after Jeremy, it doesn't mean she thought he was innocent. Undoubtedly, if she believed him guilty, she'd have hated what he'd done, but if her love for him had been unconditional, she wouldn't have been able to easily switch those feelings off. It may be a concept you find difficult to comprehend.
Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.
-
I agree.
The NOTW would not pay money to either Bamber or Julie, until after the verdict.
Firstly because it is probably illegal to pay the money during the trial.
Secondly, the NOTW won't pay Bamber for a future story he may not be able to give, if convicted. And won't pay Julie for a story she may not be able to give if Bamber is found innocent.
Ditto signing the deals. Signing deals is the NOTW committing to payment although they don't know the verdict. Which is stupid as they will certainly be losing £40,000 or £25,000. Dependant on the verdict.
The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.
-
Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.
If someone murdered my sister I certainly wouldn't be asking after his health, unless of course I thought him innocent.
-
Yes,I am different. Even different from Jeremy himself who stated that he had no bitterness and that he'd forgiven Sheila for what she'd done.
I'm different inasmuch as if someone murdered my g/grandchildren whether in sound mind or not I certainly wouldn't be asking after the health of a murderer,even if it was one of the family.
I did note that the rest of the relatives weren't so impressed with Pam's question,so I daresay they feel the same way as I do.
You forget that each one of us is an individual and are not programmed to do or to think the same way as others.
I imbue Pam -rightly or wrongly- with being the one member of the family who DIDN'T from the outset, view Jeremy as the person who would steal the family fortune from under them. I think it possible she may have been the only family member to love him unconditionally. If none of the other family members had ever had any positive feelings about him, it would have been no hardship to them to feel the way you do.
-
The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.
I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?
If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.
Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.
-
The deal was if he was found guilty - no deal if he was found innocent - hence why it is believed it was signed before the trial finished. But as the documents are lost we will never know for sure will we ? Or perhaps we will one day.
no one throws away documents like that jan, they knew the date they were signed but deliberately witheld it. It was too risky to let that come out in the open .
-
I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?
If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.
Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.
Oh come on Adam of course it was signed pre-trial, or they could have got the story for free.
-
Oh come on Adam of course it was signed pre-trial, or they could have got the story for free.
I don't understand.
If Bamber is convicted, the NOTW desperately needs a story from elsewhere, straight away. Why would Julie give it to them for free ?
-
Actually I have just read JM 2002 statement and she said she was offered the deal whatever the verdict - but not sure how she would know because she did not read the small print .
However in that statement she quite clearly sets out when and why she approached her lawyer and she said she had to go to the hotel room to fulfil the contract - so that indicates the contract had at least been drawn up and in place - so we have to consider what she told the judge during the trial
" The defence received information that Julie Mugford had concluded a deal with the NoW. Geoffrey Rivlin raised this in chambers with the judge. The judge ordered the prosecution to make enquiries, which they did. They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so. As a result of that Julie Mugford was not cross examined on this, upon the basis that she would have repeated her denial and under the rules of evidence and professional conduct she could not have been accused of lying about this because the defence did not have any admissible evidence to contradict it."
-
I didn't know that. Have you got a source ?
If this was the deal, there is a slim chance she signed a deal during the trial. If several lawyers from both parties made a horrendous mistake. Although I don't know what the laws were on this in 1986.
Otherwise, going by my last post, there is no way the NOTW and Julie would have signed deals pre verdict.
Well if she did - she lied to the judge then.
-
It's common knowledge that both Julie and Bamber had deals in place, pre verdict.
It's in Wilkes's book. Bamber complaining to his lawyers about the amount of Julie's deal.
I'm sure everything was signed at the correct time. After 30 years there really is no mileage in this technicality attempt.
-
It's common knowledge that both Julie and Bamber had deals in place, pre verdict.
It's in Wilkes's book. Bamber complaining to his lawyers about the amount of Julie's deal.
I'm sure everything was signed at the correct time. After 30 years there really is no mileage in this technicality attempt.
How do you know if the documents were lost ? That is one huge assumption. And if even the deal was in place - Julie lied to the judge? But I suppose that's ok too?
-
How do you know if the documents were lost ? That is one huge assumption. And if even the deal was in place - Julie lied to the judge? But I suppose that's ok too?
Where did I say documents were lost ?
Have you got sources for the deal being dependent on Bamber getting a not guilty verdict.
And a source that Julie lied to the judge. I saw you're post just now, is that from the OS ?
-
found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal
The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World. The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail. Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
-
Where did I say documents were lost ?
Have you got sources for the deal being dependent on Bamber getting a not guilty verdict.
And a source that Julie lied to the judge. I saw you're post just now, is that from the OS ?
you didn't - her lawyer did.
-
found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal
The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World. The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail. Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
Jan, if that came from the OS, I really don't feel inclined to give credence to it.
-
'They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so'
So Mugford continued her lies right through the trial and one way or another that point must be proved and documentation found
-
'They reported back to the judge and the defence that Julie Mugford stated that she had concluded no agreement with any newspaper, and had no intention of doing so'
So Mugford continued her lies right through the trial and one way or another that point must be proved and documentation found
And if they are located and found to be dated POST trial, I suppose it will be claimed that they're forgeries.
-
Well if some of the statements aren't what they seem--------------------------
-
Jan, if that came from the OS, I really don't feel inclined to give credence to it.
I think it came from a post of mine, as with the earlier quote.
-
found this as well - I wondered why JM had not given evidence in the appeal
The defence made an application to obtain a copy of the contract between Julie Mugford and the News of the World. The defence had information 1) that the contract had been entered into before Julie Mugford gave evidence and 2) that the contract provided that payment would only be made in the event of a guilty verdict. The Court of Appeal refused the defence application and defence counsel therefore took the view that it was not possible to explore this issue further since Julie Mugford would simply say what she said in her 2002 witness statement, that she could not remember when she had entered into the contract and had not read the contract in any detail. Since this was the only issue in respect of which the Court of Appeal had agreed that Julie Mugford could be cross examined she was not called to give evidence.
I don't see the problem, even if she did sign the contract before she gave evidence. What she had to say was set in stone long before that so you can't argue that it was an incentive to lie about Jeremy. If I were on the jury, it would have made no difference to me unless she was approached before she initially contacted the police.
-
I think it was Adam that said that JM was studying on the night that the murders happened.
Julie said that they were drinking, and smoking pot.
Studying the affects of drugs!
-
Say when it came to court and she was waivering because she knew some of the information was not true - could she have been persuaded to carry on regardless because the money was a carrot to keep on track? As it turns out apparently she was a hard witness to question anyway . So I do think the money was relevant .
Of course it was not to Jeremy - he wasnot going to say he was guilty to get 25000 was he. But the papers should not have made deals with anyone at ALL .
I think the guilters should acknowledge it was important because if the deal was signed before the trial and it had been revealed to all the jurors then a guilty man could have walked free?
I certainly agree, cheque book journalism was always questionable can remember there being a lot of controversy around them and I'm pretty sure it's not acceptable at all these days. NOTW, The People etc. were the worst offenders.
-
What was the law in 1986 ?
If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.
There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.
Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.
-
What was the law in 1986 ?
If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.
There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.
Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.
I doubt it would have been illegal to agree to sell a story as long as nothing was leaked that might affect the trial.
-
What was the law in 1986 ?
If newspaper deals were allowed after completed Witness Statements, then this discussion is not relevant.
There was a media block on the case pre verdict. The television and newspapers could only write about the day at trial.
Both Julie and Bamber may have been interviewed a few days prior to the verdict. So the NOTW could publish their story straight afterwards.
As far as I have read the contempt of court would have applied because of the alleged discussion in chambers . That is what I was referring to.
"This was later ruled in breach of guidelines by the Press Complaints Council, though she was not made to pay the money back"
-
I doubt it would have been illegal to agree to sell a story as long as nothing was leaked that might affect the trial.
A prosecution witness being offered money for a story that depends on a guilty verdict is surely illegal or at least highly unethical.
-
Immoral comes top of the list.
-
A prosecution witness being offered money for a story that depends on a guilty verdict is surely illegal or at least highly unethical.
It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.
-
It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.
I think at the time it was against press council guidelines that's why the NOW were in trouble but the law may have changed since 1985 .
I think Rivilin ? said he could not question her in court about the deal because she had said ( or her lawyer had) that she had NO deal and no intention of making a deal. Otherwise he would have used in court against her.
-
I can't even imagine " deal " being mentioned at a time like that.
I wonder what the suggestion of a deal was all about and who instigated it in the first place,besides what is surmised ? There can't be many cases with similarities like this.
-
It might be unethical, but I doubt it's illegal. I'm sure you can bet on the outcome of a case, yo only get paid if you bet on the right outcome.
Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.
-
Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.
How could she lie when her statement was already written. She couldn't stand in the witness box suddenly spring something entirely other than what she'd already said. They'd have stopped proceedings and asked what she was playing at.
-
Yes, you can bet on the outcome of a case, but in this case the promise of cash to a prosecution witness is an incentive to lie and make sure the outcome is guilty.
how could it be an INCENTIVE TO LIE? She had already given her statements long before any contract was signed.
-
how could it be an INCENTIVE TO LIE? She had already given her statements long before any contract was signed.
Why do you think people give testimony in court if they are just going to parrot what was said in their statements? It is in court that witnesses are asked further questions not dealt with fully in their statements, or ask new ones. There is the opportunity to lie.
-
Why do you think people give testimony in court if they are just going to parrot what was said in their statements? It is in court that witnesses are asked further questions not dealt with fully in their statements, or ask new ones. There is the opportunity to lie.
And such an instance would be picked up because the defence have access to what they originally said. They don't come to court which a clan slate and say whatever comes off the top of their heads. Statements are taken for a reason!
-
Where did I say documents were lost ?
Have you got sources for the deal being dependent on Bamber getting a not guilty verdict.
And a source that Julie lied to the judge. I saw you're post just now, is that from the OS ?
Adam, as you agree that both JB and JM had deals in place pre trial and you are aware of JM's denial of this to the court then why do you need a source for JM having lied to the judge.
Just read your own posts.
-
And such an instance would be picked up because the defence have access to what they originally said. They don't come to court which a clan slate and say whatever comes off the top of their heads. Statements are taken for a reason!
Had it been possible to cross examine JM they may well have found discrepancies with her witness statements. Especially considering they are contradictory. Thanks for enlightening me as to why witness statements are taken... that's patently obvious.
-
She obviously knows and would obviously have kept a record of the money and terms of settlement
Why is she refusing to say the date
maybe she cant remember.
-
I can understand her not remembering but there should have been three copies of the contract and allegedly they all went missing.
-
well the notw should have one she may not of kept her copy but im sure they would of done.
if she is hiding somthing about the contract what would that be.
-
could it be that the contract would say that the deal was made much earler than was asumed before.
or could it mention exactly who get her the contract.
-
Wouldn't the document have a date on. Often the date is next to the persons signature. That will be the date it was signed. If that document has been lost, that is not her fault.
Julie's lawyers and NOTW lawyers should know anyway. Julie had more important things to do than remember dates. Like testifying.
-
did you read jans post they cant seem to find the copys.
of course it would have the date on it thats what we are intrested in.
-
did you read jans post they cant seem to find the copys.
of course it would have the date on it thats what we are intrested in.
That's it then.
The document has been lost and she can't remember the date. Don't see why she should.
If she wanted to lie she would say she signed it after the trial
-
there were3 compys all seem to have been lost.
she cant rember the date air enough but one of those copys should still be about somewhere.
-
there were3 compys all seem to have been lost.
she cant rember the date air enough but one of those copys should still be about somewhere.
People who are interested should get looking. Julie won't.
-
what makes you think there not.
-
what makes you think there not.
If they are, good luck. Look forward to hearing the results.
-
i think it will be found soon.