Why didn't Fielder appear as a witness?

[JackieD]

It's starting to get creepy!

No what’s creepy is Matt the troll giving you a copy of my passport and I’ve yet to see if it’s real

[guest7363]

   You made the comment towards me, intending sarcasm, and I answered honestly. I don't know him either but can make a judgement on his likeability based on his known output and history. Based on that he was someone who told lies about people destroying their lives in order to pay his bills. Sounds like a bastard to me.
    I am sure that there are plenty of people that you have never met but would be willing to make a judgement on so why so shy with Fielder. Admit that he is unreliable and move on. 
    His job was lying. For money. I have never met Jeffrey Epstein and don't know him. I still have an opinion on him though.

Take it how you want, if I wanted to ask you I would have, David made a remark

I doubt Arlidge QC would want to embarrass himself by applying to submit this into evidence.

Even if he did, it would be deemed as prejudicial bad character evidence and thus inadmissible.


So I wanted to know if he was a witness, that’s all?

[Caroline]

Wrong again !

About what?
B

[guest7363]

I don't see how the subject would help the prosecution. Their narrative was to portray Sheila as an innocent victim to the jury. A Jury back in 1985 would have got the impression of Sheila being a promiscuous sex deviant and aspiring porn star.

Very good point David 👍

[Caroline]

Take it how you want, if I wanted to ask you I would have, David made a remark

I doubt Arlidge QC would want to embarrass himself by applying to submit this into evidence.

Even if he did, it would be deemed as prejudicial bad character evidence and thus inadmissible.


So I wanted to know if he was a witness, that’s all?

Totally agree RJ, there is no reason for him to have been called.

[gringo]

I don't see how the subject would help the prosecution. Their narrative was to portray Sheila as an innocent victim to the jury. A Jury back in 1985 would have got the impression of Sheila being a promiscuous sex deviant and aspiring porn star.

   
    If you were on the jury then I am sure that Fielder's evidence if true would be damning against Bamber. The trouble for the prosecution is that two or three questions into the cross examination and Fielder would be exposed as a liar.
   Why were no photos at the meeting?
   Bamber's version requires no photos.
   Fielder's version requires photos.
   There are no photos present.

[David1819]

  I suspect that the rest of the article would give a clear picture of Fielder's motives behind the story. How much of the article is devoted to Fielder's invented descriptions?
   

Bamber was under close surveillance by the police when this meeting with Fielder is supposed to have happened. Its a pity we only have the surveillance records going up till the 15th of September.

[Caroline]

  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.

No idea why you keep pursuing this. Bamber tried to sell the pictures- no doubt about it.

[guest7363]

Totally agree RJ, there is no reason for him to have been called.

Well I  couldn’t get my head around the thread, it was when David as good as said he wasn’t called as a witness, I didn’t know because we haven’t got the trial evidence, he’s asking a question he knows the answer to,  he wants to debate then accuses you of sarcasm, everyone knows the gutter press and what they get up to.

[Caroline]

If you watched what came out of your mouth you would keep getting pulled up for your tone

You really have no idea about yourself.

[guest7363]

   
    If you were on the jury then I am sure that Fielder's evidence if true would be damning against Bamber. The trouble for the prosecution is that two or three questions into the cross examination and Fielder would be exposed as a liar.
   Why were no photos at the meeting?
   Bamber's version requires no photos.
   Fielder's version requires photos.
   There are no photos present.

Well that’s why they didn’t call him as a witness then I suspect, there you have your answer 👍

[Caroline]

No what’s creepy is Matt the troll giving you a copy of my passport and I’ve yet to see if it’s real

You’re mad! Why would I want a copy of your passport?

[David1819]

No what’s creepy is Matt the troll giving you a copy of my passport and I’ve yet to see if it’s real

WTF?

[Kaldin]

Fielder's evidence would have been irrelevant. Trying to sell someone's intimate photos isn't an indication of guilt.

[Caroline]

Well that’s why they didn’t call him as a witness then I suspect, there you have your answer 👍

Colin got rid of the photos.