The meeting with The Sun newspaper:

[lookout]

I'm not making excuses, and I can't prove the article is a fraud any more than you can prove it isn't.
Are there really more innocent supporters? It seems the other way round to me but I could be wrong

I'm the only supporter who is 100% sure of his innocence.

[lookout]

Anyone read about the corrupt ( crime reporter ) Sun journalist who developed a corrupt relationship with a cop,over 4 years ? He was spared jail  after he'd paid the cop £22,000 for information.

[Caroline]

I'm not making excuses, and I can't prove the article is a fraud any more than you can prove it isn't.
Are there really more innocent supporters? It seems the other way round to me but I could be wrong

The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.

Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.

The case against

People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)

Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! 

[Caroline]

Anyone read about the corrupt ( crime reporter ) Sun journalist who developed a corrupt relationship with a cop,over 4 years ? He was spared jail  after he'd paid the cop £22,000 for information.

Oh right, so that means the the journalist who wrote about Jeremy must be corrupt? 

[lookout]

Oh right, so that means the the journalist who wrote about Jeremy must be corrupt? 

One never knows,does one ? Would you trust the press ?

[SaraT]

The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.

Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.

The case against

People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)

Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! 

We won't agree. And none of that is proof.

[Caroline]

We won't agree. And none of that is proof.

No, we won't agree but just what would you call proof?

[lookout]

9 out of 12 staff of the Sun,are awaiting trial as we speak.
The cop who was involved along with the journalist was given a 2 year sentence last year.

[Caroline]

9 out of 12 staff of the Sun,are awaiting trial as we speak.
The cop who was involved along with the journalist was given a 2 year sentence last year.

What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! 

[lookout]

What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! 

Corruption ? It might have everything to do with what happened 30 years ago.

[guest154]

What has that got to do with a story written 30 years ago? You're smoke screening Lookout and although it's thick - it's transparent! 

Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can  all diverge though.

What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?

Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.

We won't agree. And none of that is proof.

It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.

The case for Jeremy trying to sell the pictures.

Jeremy told Colin he had explicit photographs of Sheila
A meeting is set between Jeremy, Brett and a Sun reporter
Reporter claims that Jeremy offered explicit pictures of his dead sister
Colin confirms that the description reported in The Sun is EXACTLY the same as the description given to him by Jeremy.
Jeremy IGNORES Colin's letter asking for an explanation.
Neither Jeremy or Brett disputed the article.

The case against

People don't like The Sun
Jeremy's OS now states that the pictures didn't exist (although the author of the article is careful to state that the opinions written do no come from Jeremy)

Well, it's a tough one - but I think the case FOR just about has it!! 

Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.

[Caroline]

Corruption ? It might have everything to do with what happened 30 years ago.

Or absolutely nothing!

[Caroline]

Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can  all diverge though.

What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?

Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.

It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.

Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.

Cheers Mat

It will be interesting to see what Sara (or any one else for that matter) would consider as 'proof'?

[lookout]

Anything to diverge and protect Bamber.......We can  all diverge though.

What about her source (who knows more about the case than us) that told her the WRONG information about Nevilles top?
What about the WRONG belief that scratch marks were on all victims?
Or the WRONG words Lookout put into AE's mouth regarding her COLP statement?

Lookout supports a convicted child killers innocence on WRONG information and flawed beliefs.

It's proof enough, SaraT - but I doubt there is ANYTHING that would convince you.

Excellent and OBVIOUS points. It's very clear that it happened, a few supporters won't believe it but that means nothing.

[lookout]

 So SaraT is now coming in for a bashing.