Scope of Non-Documentary Evidence

[Roch]

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

They might be differentiated, somewhere on this thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html

[guest29835]

They might be differentiated, somewhere on this thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html

I find it virtually impossible to make any sense of that thread as there's lots of bickering.

It's not a crucial issue, though I do wonder how much it affected Jeremy's trial. due to the influence of the story on public perception of the accused.  The jury would surely have heard of the case and read The Sun's story or picked up its gist from elsewhere.

[JackieD]

I find it virtually impossible to make any sense of that thread as there's lots of bickering.

It's not a crucial issue, though I do wonder how much it affected Jeremy's trial. due to the influence of the story on public perception of the accused.  The jury would surely have heard of the case and read The Sun's story or picked up its gist from elsewhere.

Exactly

[guest29835]

Exactly

By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo.  His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.

[Roch]

By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo.  His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.

I've found one of Bill's relevant posts on this:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7958.msg377478.html#msg377478

But I cant find Caroline's response.

[guest29835]

I've found one of Bill's relevant posts on this:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7958.msg377478.html#msg377478

But I cant find Caroline's response.

If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral.  The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.

The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell.  I've never taken to him.  I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him. 

[Roch]

If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral.  The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.

The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell.  I've never taken to him.  I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.

Have you blocked pm's?  If not, please check your pm's.

[Caroline]

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.

See what happens when you mention my name? 

[guest29835]

Have you blocked pm's?  If not, please check your pm's.

Thanks.

[JackieD]

http://

Have you blocked pm's?  If not, please check your pm's.

Here we go with the pm’s
More trouble

[gringo]

If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral.  The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.

The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell.  I've never taken to him.  I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.

    This was Mike Fielder's job. It's what he was paid to do; smear suspects/witnesses in a national newspaper prior to proceedings in order to influence opinion.
    We have thus far found only three examples of Fielder's reporting. Two of those examples (Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) are entirely dishonest and made up wholly of lies and misinformation. It is not disputed that his reporting on these cases was dishonest or that he perjured himself in the case of Carmen Proetta during the libel trial. It is also beyond dispute that his lies happened to support the CPS/Police/official government position and smeared suspects/witnesses on their behalf.
    Whether he held those views in good faith or merely did so for money is unknown and for yourself to decide. The smear jobs on the Proetta and Stagg were also, coincidentally or not, prior to judicial proceedings.
    Nobody has found any example of a Fielder report that is undisputed fact. Which brings us to the third
 known example of a Fielder story.
    We are to believe that a hack whose only known reporting thus far has been smearing with sexual allegations and innuendo, one of those times leading to him committing perjury, is this time telling the truth with his sleazy allegations and innuendo. His admission that he saw no photos could be seen by those with a cynical disposition as convenient, giving him licence to not have to accurately describe any of the pictures. Funnily enough he didn't accurately describe any of the pictures and instead, the hack with a track record for writing wild and sleazy smears and innuendo, described some non existent photos involving sex toys that nobody claims existed ever.
    It should be clear what Fielder was and his role. There is no mystery.
 

[gringo]

By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo.  His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.

  Thank you, Chevalier. For the removal of doubt they are his insights.

[guest29835]

    This was Mike Fielder's job. It's what he was paid to do; smear suspects/witnesses in a national newspaper prior to proceedings in order to influence opinion.
    We have thus far found only three examples of Fielder's reporting. Two of those examples (Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) are entirely dishonest and made up wholly of lies and misinformation. It is not disputed that his reporting on these cases was dishonest or that he perjured himself in the case of Carmen Proetta during the libel trial. It is also beyond dispute that his lies happened to support the CPS/Police/official government position and smeared suspects/witnesses on their behalf.
    Whether he held those views in good faith or merely did so for money is unknown and for yourself to decide. The smear jobs on the Proetta and Stagg were also, coincidentally or not, prior to judicial proceedings.
    Nobody has found any example of a Fielder report that is undisputed fact. Which brings us to the third
 known example of a Fielder story.
    We are to believe that a hack whose only known reporting thus far has been smearing with sexual allegations and innuendo, one of those times leading to him committing perjury, is this time telling the truth with his sleazy allegations and innuendo. His admission that he saw no photos could be seen by those with a cynical disposition as convenient, giving him licence to not have to accurately describe any of the pictures. Funnily enough he didn't accurately describe any of the pictures and instead, the hack with a track record for writing wild and sleazy smears and innuendo, described some non existent photos involving sex toys that nobody claims existed ever.
    It should be clear what Fielder was and his role. There is no mystery.

It would be interesting to ask Brett Collins. 

[JackieD]

By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo.  His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.

Always

[gringo]

It would be interesting to ask Brett Collins.

    One of the oft repeated arguments is a comment made by another reporter regarding this issue. This really is how piss weak the whole story is relying as it does on second and third hand innuendo.
     From memory, Peter Gruder/Gruber who was an Express hack, I believe. He says that Jeremy never denied it when speaking to him. When you dig down further into this seeming refusal by JB to deny the allegation, it turns out that he wasn't asked/accused. Gruder? had put to JB that the Sun were leading with this accusation and JB had replied, "Interesting", or something like that.
    So, not denying something that he was not being asked counts as evidence that he definitely did it.  Fielder's tale was clearly a smear job on behalf of those that he usually did paid smear jobs for. I see no evidence that his role was anything but this and nobody has yet presented any examples of Fielder's writing which do not contain lies and sexual smears and innuendo.
    It isn't even reasonably disputed that the tale told of the photos of Sheila by Fielder is demonstrably made up of lies invented by him.