A noticeable aspect of the Fielder allegations is their lack of detail. It perhaps seems an unimportant aspect but the more you consider it, the more you come to realise that the lack of detail hides some questions that haven't been asked. In fact the lack of detail is deliberate. I have a strong suspicion that the following questions I am about to raise offer some of the probable reasons for the non use of Fielder as a witness. I would also suggest that it was realised by the prosecution team that some of these questions would be raised by Bamber's defence in 1986 when they considered his use as a witness, hence his non use.
Fielder would have been exposed for what he was and the holes in his story would be apparent to all. Even the most incompetent of barristers could not fail to miss what is effectively an open goal.
Given the scarcity of evidence against Bamber, something commonly agreed even by guilters and reflected in the 10-2 majority verdict, it would seem the more evidence of his bad character the better. What better than Fielder's story to show the callous scheming nature and depths of JB's depravity than this gift, from Bamber himself, we are told.
Despite the oft repeated refrain that Jeremy has never denied the allegations, this is as far from the truth as you can get. He has in fact given a detailed account of the meeting and the circumstances of arranging said meeting. In brief JB claims that Brett Collins arranged a meeting with Fielder in order for JB to give his side of the story. This was because of the sensational and lurid stories in the tabloid press since the murders about JB and his deceased family. (It isn't disputed that the tabloid press were behaving exactly as stated). JB further claims that at the meeting Fielder was only interested in asking about pornographic pictures of Sheila.
Not only does JB deny Fielder's tale, he gives a detailed account of the circumstances which deals with any questions you may have in a manner that is consistent with the facts. If you believe Bamber guilty however, this apparently is not a denial.
So back to Fielder's account. Here are his words verbatim(highlighted in red) below from the, "Killing Mum and Dad" docudrama, or whatever it is, and some of the questions, plus a few observations, raised by his dubious tale, in black. Fielder gives his account just after 33 minutes into the video linked below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcTvqLk0MWU "We got a call from erm Jeremy Bamber's friend Brett Collins saying that Jeremy Bamber had some photographs to sell of his late sister, and would we, the Sun newspaper, be interested in buying them. What was the rest of this conversation? How did you come to be meeting in the pub? What was your answer to Brett's query? Did you ask him to bring any of the photos? If not, why not? Surely if Brett called to make this offer and you ended up meeting then there was some indication from you that you were interested, otherwise what was said in reply to make Brett go forward with the meeting? Did he say what sort of money they wanted? Did you ask at the meeting why they had not brought even one example of the photos that they supposedly set up the meeting to sell? I could go on.
"It was a bizarre situation. We were in an olde worlde pub and we were talking about the photos. What were they and what did they show?"
Interesting choice of words that belie the more likely situation. Had Bamber offered him the pictures, as Fielder claims, then it would be along the lines of, "He/they were talking about the photos, what they were and what they showed" Instead it is framed as questions by Fielder rather than statements by Bamber. This is telling. Think about it. A barrister would absolutely annihilate him in cross examination. His tale bears no scrutiny whatsoever.
"Well there's apparently shots with a vibrator and erm with a cucumber being used as a sex toy and would the Sun be interested in buying them?" Where to begin? This is a goldmine. Why would anyone imagine that a newspaper, even one as sleazy as the Sun, would buy pornographic pictures so explicit that they would not be able to publish them? Why would Bamber even contemplate that they would be of any value to even the Sun given that they couldn't publish them? Back to the non appearance of even a single example photo. This convenient but inexplicable circumstance in a meeting specifically, supposedly, set up for the sale of said photos means that Fielder's description of the photo need not be accurate. How fortunate
He only needs to relate Bamber's description of the photos. Isn't it convenient that Fielder never has to give an accurate description of a single photo despite him allegedly being asked for £20,000 to purchase the not present or even known to exist photos. Did you not tape record this exclusive interview with the person at the centre of a tabloid storm? Why not? Did you intend buying the pictures and the price was too high? Did you always intend to run the story of his intentions? Again, if so, why didn't you record this bound to be explosive revelation? The lurid descriptions, by Fielder, of Bamber's supposed words to him beg even further questions.
We know that the photos show no such thing. So either Bamber lied about what the pictures showed to Fielder, or Fielder lied.
If Bamber lied then we are to believe he set up a meeting to sell pictures but took none with him despite wanting money "very quickly". He then lied about their content in such a way that meant they were of no value to a newspaper meaning by definition that the only story was his supposed attempt to sell the pictures. His alleged descriptions of them are so disrespectful that it is not credible that he related this tale to a reporter from, "the Sun", one of the most egregious offenders in writing lurid tales about himself and his family in the weeks prior to this meeting.
For us to believe that Fielder lied, on the other hand, we need to believe nothing other than that he followed his usual MO of writing sexually charged lies about participants in court proceedings. Basically a sleazy lying hack was telling sleazy lies. Occams razor anyone?
Fielder goes on;
They said, " well we want cash and we'd like it to conclude this, very quickly."
They said! We want! ? What is Fielder saying here? They both said? At the same time? Or did only one say? Such a sketchy recollection. It is invented and this sort of language betrays that. Were it true then Fielder would say who specifically said this. If it is true then one of them did. Why is the recollection "we" and "they said". These are Fielder's own words and he is such an obvious liar that I am not surprised that he wasn't called as a witness.
We are five or so sentences into Fielder's recollections and the questions raised by a random bloke in Hull with nothing more than an enquiring mind, an internet connection and a crappy laptop would have already turned Fielder into a bumbling mess, exposing as they do, the holes in his unlikely tale.
Now imagine him getting cross examined in court,in front of a jury, by an even half competent barrister. Seriously imagine it.
Five sentences in!! This is too easy, so I am going to leave the rest of Fielder's obvious lies without further comment or questions. Something for all the forum to join in and contribute any pertinent comments or questions raised by the self evidently bullshit recollections of a proven liar and perjurer. There's little wonder he did get caught lying when put before a court.
"I never did see the photographs, I must say, so whether they existed or not I don't know. I reported back to the office what the situation was, erm, and got the message back from the editor. "Turn the bastard over". We did a front page the next day saying, "Jeremy Bamber tries to sell porno pictures of his sister".
I was appalled. You've got this very cool young man completely unperturbed by the facts of the situation. You know there's a massacre. There's these dead people. People that have given him a home. Completely unconcerned about them. He talked about Bambi particularly as a kind of inanimate object.
It wasn't a sister that he'd known and loved. He seemed completely unconcerned about them as people. He wanted money and he wanted it quick." There is plenty to go at there for anyone who has anything to add. Those are Fielder's exact words. I could have, and mentally already have, listed many more questions raised by and observations on Fielder's unbelievable tale but I would be typing forever and anyway it leaves plenty to be discussed for other members who have the inclination/can be arsed to dissect Fielder's words. It is truly like shooting fish in a barrel, he is such an obvious liar.
Another thing that I am sure the collective skills of the forum could crack is the contents of Fielder's article. The front page of the offending article is displayed on the video linked earlier at the end of Fielder's piece. It may be a job for Lookout's magnifier
, or alternatively any forum member with better tech skills and not such a crappy laptop as me(so basically all of you). There are certainly a few paragraphs visible but unreadable to me on aforementioned crappy laptop. It would be interesting to see the rest of Fielder's claims and how much is focused on him being able to describe sexually explicit photos of a dead model. Perhaps it will belie Fielder's true motives.
Intrepid journalist seeking the truth wielding nothing more than his pen? or Low rent sleazy hack?
At 45 minutes into the video we get a second contribution which also raises questions that members can dissect.
"He will continue to protest his innocence. I'm sure he will for the rest of his time in prison. I can't ever see a day when Jeremy Bamber will put up his hands and say, "Yeah okay, I did it. I killed them."
Hopefully plenty to be going on with to thoroughly debunk, once and for all, this clearly fabricated tale of sleaze and sex from a guy whose actual MO is fabricating tales of sleaze and sex. And good luck in reading the front page in the video.
