Author Topic: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence  (Read 729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2020, 10:25:AM »
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson. But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.

I never knew you were the sarcastic type Roch.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2020, 10:37:AM »
I never knew you were the sarcastic type Roch.

Gringo, yourself and Bill have been top posters but on this issue, Caroline seemed able to persuade that there were more sets of images, thus allowing for JB to have attempted the sale. I remain open minded regarding the truth of this particular incident.

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2020, 11:01:AM »
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson.  But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.

Caroline also backed Carol Anne Lee even making it clear that they were in contact.
It is a FACT that Cal was putting untrue stories through the media to sensualise her book. There is also points in the recent documentary regarding the holiday in the south of France that are untrue.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 11:10:AM by ngb1066 »
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2020, 11:13:AM »
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson.  But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.

Your wrong and Caroline was wrong. Gringo showed what a liar Fielder was. Fact. Another point Colin was not known for his honesty in fact his marriage showed that . Jeremy being found guilty of the murders suited him for many reasons that were obvious
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2020, 11:23:AM »
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy.  It's frightening.  There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics. 

I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.

I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional?  I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you.  It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.

Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that.  You have move on. 

I really don't understand the mentality.

Spot on
Apparently Jeremy is definitely guilty and on a full life tariff yet these people spend 7 days a week on these forums insulting anyone that questions Jeremy’s guilt. This behaviour has made some really good posters leave the forum
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2020, 11:29:AM »
Gringo, yourself and Bill have been top posters but on this issue, Caroline seemed able to persuade that there were more sets of images, thus allowing for JB to have attempted the sale. I remain open minded regarding the truth of this particular incident.

Persuade who?
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2020, 11:39:AM »
Spot on
Apparently Jeremy is definitely guilty and on a full life tariff yet these people spend 7 days a week on these forums insulting anyone that questions Jeremy’s guilt. This behaviour has made some really good posters leave the forum

Yes, this is sad.  I've been browsing some of the old threads, and there have been some excellent posters.

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2020, 12:08:PM »
Your wrong and Caroline was wrong. Gringo showed what a liar Fielder was. Fact. Another point Colin was not known for his honesty in fact his marriage showed that . Jeremy being found guilty of the murders suited him for many reasons that were obvious

I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.

What I am trying to express is that there has been a previous dialogue on here, regarding how many different sets of images existed and the locations of these different sets. Caroline counted more sets than the ones accounted for by defence based posters.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 12:09:PM by Roch »

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2020, 12:20:PM »
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.

What I am trying to express is that there has been a previous dialogue on here, regarding how many different sets of images existed and the locations of these different sets. Caroline counted more sets than the ones accounted for by defence based posters.


Are you talking about the naked pictures of Sheila? Are you implying that you agree with Caroline and believe Fielders version of events?

From what I have read Gringo has proved Fielder to be a pathological liar just like Mugford.

I don’t trust Colin because he originally believed Sheila committed suicide and he is another person making money out of this case. I doubt his conscience is clear over Sheila’s mental health issues.

From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11269
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2020, 01:08:PM »

Are you talking about the naked pictures of Sheila? Are you implying that you agree with Caroline and believe Fielders version of events?

From what I have read Gringo has proved Fielder to be a pathological liar just like Mugford.

I don’t trust Colin because he originally believed Sheila committed suicide and he is another person making money out of this case. I doubt his conscience is clear over Sheila’s mental health issues.

I'm not saying I belive Fielder per se. But the number separate batches of images has been contested. The defence based posters' arguments have all the batches accounted for and Caroline's argument had an extra batch, the existence of which, was then not contested by the defence based posters. So in essence, the argument was left up in the air.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 01:09:PM by Roch »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2020, 01:23:PM »
I'm not saying I belive Fielder per se. But the number separate batches of images has been contested. The defence based posters' arguments have all the batches accounted for and Caroline's argument had an extra batch, the existence of which, was then not contested by the defence based posters. So in essence, the argument was left up in the air.

Where were these batches from and who had custody of them?

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2020, 02:36:PM »
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.

I’m not an expert on this subject. As I find it rather trivial. But Colin has not mislead anyone. Colin cannot prove anything as he was not at the meeting. He only believes it because he read about it in the Sun.

If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.

I’m sure Gringo would correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2020, 02:37:PM by David1819 »

Online QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2020, 03:41:PM »
If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.

That does seem quite likely.  Another possibility is that it was Brett Collins doing this on his own.  The whole relationship between Jeremy and Brett is another under-explored area.

Offline gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2020, 03:46:PM »
I’m not an expert on this subject. As I find it rather trivial. But Colin has not mislead anyone. Colin cannot prove anything as he was not at the meeting. He only believes it because he read about it in the Sun.

If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.

I’m sure Gringo would correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
  Pretty well sums it up, David.
    You are also correct that it is rather trivial. It is one of those aspects of the case that guilters often cited to demonstrate that JB was heartless and cold. For years the argument was that Fielder would not be prepared to perjure himself ergo the accusation against JB was believable and demonstrated his callousness and greed. Fielder's willingness to testify supposedly bolstered his accusation.
    Once we established that not only was Fielder prepared to perjure himself but in fact had previous for doing so, the arguments changed. There is literally zero evidence to back up Fielder's claims. There are no photos and never were any photos. There are certainly not some extra batches unaccounted for.
   

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2017
Re: Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence
« Reply #44 on: July 20, 2020, 04:22:PM »
  Pretty well sums it up, David.
    You are also correct that it is rather trivial. It is one of those aspects of the case that guilters often cited to demonstrate that JB was heartless and cold. For years the argument was that Fielder would not be prepared to perjure himself ergo the accusation against JB was believable and demonstrated his callousness and greed. Fielder's willingness to testify supposedly bolstered his accusation.
    Once we established that not only was Fielder prepared to perjure himself but in fact had previous for doing so, the arguments changed. There is literally zero evidence to back up Fielder's claims. There are no photos and never were any photos. There are certainly not some extra batches unaccounted for.
   

Thank you Gringo
From Colin Caffells
His relationship with Sheila was one of brotherly love. He was very proud of having a beautiful sister who was a photographic model