0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Same playbook. Most of the guilty arguments about JB revolve around some supposed fact questioning his character. These "facts" invariably come from dubious and interested parties and are often wild misrepresentations.
Denial.
By the way, have the Jeremy supporters read Mike's post from several days ago yet..Posts: 48316 Re: Home Office have a recording of significant Bambers Comments made to me... « Reply #10 on: January 02, 2020, 09:41:AM »QuoteQuote from: mike tesko on January 02, 2020, 09:38:AMHe had a grin on his face and big unblinking eyes when I told him that his sisters accomplice, was none other than himself..The remark he made following my disclosure appeared to me, to be very telling indeed - he said to me 'YOU FUCKING CLEVER BASTARD', and he continued to grin...I sensed that he was acknowledging the simple truth of the matter.His sister had not acted alone, she had an accomplice, and in my mind I was sure that he was that accomplice.
It has been previously discussed, Sami. The canard about not suing is a red herring. Apart from anything else it would be difficult to argue that this story damages JB's reputation and standing given that he is convicted murderer. It just being false is not sufficient on it's own to win a libel action.
Speaking of confessions did anyone read the ex-prisoner's comment /post after the drama episode the other night ? It was so full of F's and C's that I couldn't carry on reading it, but this sub-human reckoned that JB had told him he was guilty
Do you read Mike’s and Boozy’s posts Lookout? Both been in jail with him.
There is whole thread about Fielder and his dishonesty. He lied for money as shown in this thread:http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html. As briefly as possible: Whether you believe that Bamber attempted to sell nude pictures or not, the whole allegation rests on whether you believe Fielder. To say that Fielder is not a reliable witness understates his lack of credibility by magnitudes. First of all he plied his trade in that most disreputable of rags, The Sun, whose stock in trade is lying and smearing. A sleazy story in the Sun shouldn't really be considered as evidence of anything by anyone with even an ounce of sense but despite this, those who believe in Bamber's guilt hold as an article of faith that this story is true. The position of those who believe Fielder was that he himself had never been shown to lie and it was unfair to tar him by association. It was further posited that he had offered to testify in the trial(eventually not used as a witness) and this further supported the view that he was telling the truth. Why? it was asked, would he risk perjuring himself? It seems scarcely credible anyway that Bamber would meet with a reporter of the Sun, a paper that had been printing negative stories about him all week and present to them the best negative story they could imagine. Attempting to sell nude pictures of your dead sister to a newspaper that have been smearing you all week would be "too good to be true" for a reporter in Fielder's position. Wouldn't it? And yet we are to believe that this is exactly what happened. We then discover that Fielder had in fact previously lied. Not only had he lied, he had then gone on to commit perjury. Other newspapers were also sued but the judge singled out Fielder and the Sun as the most egregious offenders. The headline was the "Tart of Gib" where the Sun accused Carmen Proetta of being an anti British, escort agency owning former prostitute in order to discredit her testimony against British SAS members. All accusations were shown to be lies. You would imagine that at this point even the most staunch believer must be beginning to have some doubts about the credibility of the only witness to this alleged event. Instead we are now supposed to believe that just because he lied and perjured once doesn't mean he is now. Some may have already noted that this is something of a climb down from the original position 1) Working for a lying disreputable rag doesn't prove Fielder personally to be a liar and anyway he was willing to testify. Why would he commit perjury? Later 2) Working for a lying disreputable rag and lying and perjuring personally in the Carmen Proetta case doesn't mean he's lying and willing to perjure himself this time as well even though the circumstances appear too good to be true. At this point a new witness is introduced to back up the now utterly destroyed original only witness. We are told that by some tenuous stretch that Colin Caffell can and does back up Fielder's version of events. Spoiler Alert: He can't and he doesn't. It is claimed that Bamber used the same words to describe the photos to Colin as Fielder used in the article. Reading Colin's statements from the time though it is clear that this is in fact not true. Back to Fielder however and his credibility problem. After displaying his true character in the "Tart of Gib" hack job he went on to cement his reputation as a smearer for power by lying about Colin Stagg, who was being wrongly accused of the Rachel Nickell murder. Also worth noting is that even those who believe Fielder agree that the Bamber article went on to make further claims of pornographic pictures involving dildos, amongst other claims, that are known to be false. So where we are now is that we know of three articles that have been written by Fielder. Two of them we know to be entirely fabricated (Proetta and Stagg) The third we know to be largely fabricated and the only issue is whether a specific nine words are true. So, of the hundreds of words we know to have been written by Fielder, we know for certain that all but nine are lies. Those nine may or may not be true, but our only evidence of their truth is the word of the person who wrote the hundreds that we know to be lies. Believe Fielder if you like, but know who he is. Finally, there is a principle in law, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. A witness who lies about one matter is not credible to testify in any matter. Fielder has lied about not one matter but every matter that we are aware of, therefore he is not credible. Is there even an example of him reporting the truth?
Skim, really.
I'm not sure cheque book fraud would necessarily bar a prospective teacher. I have known a male member of staff have sexual relations with a female pupil and be allowed to continue teaching in an all-boys school.Of course I wouldn't be certain, not having committed any of these or indeed any criminal offence.
Very good post gringo.
theres a clip on youtube where he tells his story in an interview on tv ,surely if it was not true jb,s camp would have sued but they never.i think that says it all
Yes but are they Subhuman? Or is it because he said Bamber was guilty 🙈
