Why didn't Fielder appear as a witness?

[guest7363]

No it wasn't.

Well that answers it then, that’s why he didn’t appear as a witness 🙈

[guest7363]

well simple he dident want to cross examined and the proscution didentwant hmi cross examened ethere.

Or the police didn’t need the evidence because it happened after the murders and felt they had enough simple.

[nugnug]

Or the police didn’t need the evidence because it happened after the murders and felt they had enough simple.

well it would be pretty damming evdence if it could stand up  to cross examination im guessing it couldent.

[lookout]

   It is more time consuming rather than difficult where Fielder is concerned, Jackie. Nothing he says is true. Has anyone had any luck in reading the front page off the video yet?

I'll have a go at it gringo----with my trusty magnifier 

[gringo]

I don’t understand it, “Why didn’t Fielder appear as a witness”. Was it brought up in Court?  If it was surely the defence would have called him to answer his claim?  Can you help on this one NGB?

  He was willing to testify as a witness and according to the guilters this somehow backed up his story.You know the drill, Willing to appear, Why would he be willing to perjure himself, Blah Blah. The discovery of his later wholesale lying and actual proven perjury pricked that particular balloon so a change of weak spurious argument was needed to  shore up the the self evident lies.
    Now the guilters have retreated to their latest refuge, The nine words baloney. You can believe Bamber guilty and disbelieve Fielder's tale at the same time and it amazes me that real adults consider Fielder's words true as an article of faith. Read his words, dissect them and then honestly tell me that you find him or his story credible in any way.
    Bamber may be guilty or not. Fielder's story is demonstrably a pack of lies.
    Whether or not his evidence would be admissible is something that NGB would know more about.
    His record as a witness speaks for itself however.
 

[guest7363]

  He was willing to testify as a witness and according to the guilters this somehow backed up his story.You know the drill, Willing to appear, Why would he be willing to perjure himself, Blah Blah. The discovery of his later wholesale lying and actual proven perjury pricked that particular balloon so a change of weak spurious argument was needed to  shore up the the self evident lies.
    Now the guilters have retreated to their latest refuge, The nine words baloney. You can believe Bamber guilty and disbelieve Fielder's tale at the same time and it amazes me that real adults consider Fielder's words true as an article of faith. Read his words, dissect them and then honestly tell me that you find him or his story credible in any way.
    Bamber may be guilty or not. Fielder's story is demonstrably a pack of lies.
    Whether or not his evidence would be admissible is something that NGB would know more about.
    His record as a witness speaks for itself however.

I take it you don’t like him then 🙈

[lookout]

Try as I might the writing is so blurred that I can't make it out at all.

It's probably the most disgusting of video's I've watched anyway-----laden with lies, it's sickening. Worse too are the supercilious faces on those telling them.

[nugnug]

  He was willing to testify as a witness and according to the guilters this somehow backed up his story.You know the drill, Willing to appear, Why would he be willing to perjure himself, Blah Blah. The discovery of his later wholesale lying and actual proven perjury pricked that particular balloon so a change of weak spurious argument was needed to  shore up the the self evident lies.
    Now the guilters have retreated to their latest refuge, The nine words baloney. You can believe Bamber guilty and disbelieve Fielder's tale at the same time and it amazes me that real adults consider Fielder's words true as an article of faith. Read his words, dissect them and then honestly tell me that you find him or his story credible in any way.
    Bamber may be guilty or not. Fielder's story is demonstrably a pack of lies.
    Whether or not his evidence would be admissible is something that NGB would know more about.
    His record as a witness speaks for itself however.

it wuld certanly be admissable today im not sure abut then.

feilder  cliams he was willin to give evdence but you only have his word for that.

[David1819]

Or the police didn’t need the evidence because it happened after the murders and felt they had enough simple.

Bad character evidence is predominantly ruled inadmissible.

Steven Avery poured petrol over a cat then threw it in a fire, witnesses then said he laughed as it ran round on fire before it eventually died. Kratz wanted to put this to the jury at his murder trial, but the judge didn't allow it.

[guest7363]

it wuld certanly be admissable today im not sure abut then.

feilder  cliams he was willin to give evdence but you only have his word for that.

I would say if he’s been interviewed it’s down to the CPS to either present or use it? If he hasn’t been interviewed the CPS can’t look at it or use it.  It’s ok saying he’s willing to give evidence?  Do you mean he’s willing to give a statement?

[gringo]

I'll have a go at it gringo----with my trusty magnifier 

   

[guest7363]

Bad character evidence is predominantly ruled inadmissible.

Steven Avery poured petrol over a cat then threw it in a fire, witnesses then said he laughed as it ran round on fire before it eventually died. Kratz wanted to put this to the jury at his murder trial, but the judge didn't allow it.

Hopefully your wrong David 👍

[gringo]

Or the police didn’t need the evidence because it happened after the murders and felt they had enough simple.

   The need for as much evidence as possible against Bamber was reflected in the 10-2 verdict. The non use of Fielder was not because they already had ample evidence. We all, including you, know that not to be the case. Were it so there would be nothing still to debate over 30 years later.
   It may be that Fielder's "evidence" would not be allowed because of non relevance. Perhaps it would be admissible on the grounds of relevance because it speaks of his character. I would be pretty confident in stating that it was most certainly not a surfeit of evidence that negated the need for Fielder's use.
    He has been exposed on this forum as a liar.
    Dissect his words in the video, RJ, and then honestly tell me that his account stands up to any scrutiny.
    Just the first five sentences that I have partially dissected discredit him. I could have dissected his entire blurb, it begs questions to fill in missing detail and Fielder's use of language betrays his lies. Nothing I have said in the initial post has been challenged by any guilter.
   Fielder isn't even clear on the question of who offered him the photos. Was it Bamber? Was it Collins? According to Fielder it was both of them. But no pictures were brought or seen at a meeting supposedly entirely devoted to negotiating the sale of said photos.
   Simple test here. Bambers version of the circumstances of the meeting requires no pictures to be present which fits the known facts.
   Fielder's version of the story does really require photos to be present if people are honest and yet no photos are present.

[guest7363]

Bad character evidence is predominantly ruled inadmissible.

Steven Avery poured petrol over a cat then threw it in a fire, witnesses then said he laughed as it ran round on fire before it eventually died. Kratz wanted to put this to the jury at his murder trial, but the judge didn't allow it.

Bad character is always down to the judge, but it can be used if he gives the go ahead.  Has he given a witness statement David?

[gringo]

I take it you don’t like him then 🙈

   What's to like about Fielder? You know his record, I assume. He was demonstrably a liar who had no compunction in destroying people's lives with lies. Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg being two of his known victims. Innocent people smeared and lied about because that was Fielder's job.
     I doubt his own mother liked him. Nothing to like. Do you like him?