The meeting with The Sun newspaper:

[Caroline]

I think they a "false" if you know what I mean

If they are the same letters that posters were trying to decipher about 6 months ago, I totally agree. I think they are about as genuine as the the email about the monastery   

[susan]

Yes that's what I said - June had some photos of Sheila  and I remember Colin saying he thought they had been kept for a reason - so Susan has agreed with what I said.

I never said there were not photos in existence.

I think elsewhere in the book he also said ( not in a creepy way ) that Jeremy used to be proud of his sisters model photos and would show his friends. And they were not pornographic before you misinterpret that comment.

Hello Jan

I seem to recall that Colin did say that Jeremy in his younger days was proud of Sheila and  her photo's as you said not nude or anything and he liked to show off to his friends. The book is out I will do some skimming

[Caroline]

Yes that's what I said - June had some photos of Sheila  and I remember Colin saying he thought they had been kept for a reason - so Susan has agreed with what I said.

I never said there were not photos in existence.

I think elsewhere in the book he also said ( not in a creepy way ) that Jeremy used to be proud of his sisters model photos and would show his friends. And they were not pornographic before you misinterpret that comment.

I didn't say you did. My post was in responses to Susan's who kindly looked through Colin's book and found that Jeremy mentioned 'other explicit' pictures. This is how the reporter explained the photographs that Jeremy offered him. So we know such photo's existed and that Jeremy bragged about having them - for me this is enough proof that he did indeed try to sell then to The Sun. The Sun couldn't have printed such pictures so they did the next best thing - they nailed Jeremy. Did he sue them or come out and deny the accusation? Nope. This doesn't mean he's a killer but it does show you what kind of mind he has and what little respect he had for at least one of the victims.

[susan]

I didn't say you did. My post was in responses to Susan's who kindly looked through Colin's book and found that Jeremy mentioned 'other explicit' pictures. This is how the reporter explained the photographs that Jeremy offered him. So we know such photo's existed and that Jeremy bragged about having them - for me this is enough proof that he did indeed try to sell then to The Sun. The Sun couldn't have printed such pictures so they did the next best thing - they nailed Jeremy. Did he sue them or come out and deny the accusation? Nope. This doesn't mean he's a killer but it does show you what kind of mind he has and what little respect he had for at least one of the victims.

Caroline I was going to add to my post just because he took the explicit pictures of Sheila and refused to let Colin have them does not make him a killer but to me it shows he was lacking in morals and feelings and respect even if Sheila was not his biological sister what kind of person would be prepared to try and profit from splashing her photo's all over the paper her life had been brutally taken from her and her little boys and Mum & Dad I just cannot get my head round this.

[Caroline]

Caroline I was going to add to my post just because he took the explicit pictures of Sheila and refused to let Colin have them does not make him a killer but to me it shows he was lacking in morals and feelings and respect even if Sheila was not his biological sister what kind of person would be prepared to try and profit from splashing her photo's all over the paper her life had been brutally taken from her and her little boys and Mum & Dad I just cannot get my head round this.

Me either. It's cold, callous and sickening.

[Alias]

Totally agree Susan and how he thought he could sell explicit pictures to a newspaper it totally naive on his part. They can't publish explicit photographs so he was nailed from the off. Obviously the £££££ signs were flashing and (again) he didn't think it through.

They can crop pictures and they can "bar" them (black bar over certain areas).
This is not a reason for not publishing the pictures.

[lookout]

I thought the " myra hindley "lookalike pic of JM after winning her cash was sickening !!

[Caroline]

They can crop pictures and they can "bar" them (black bar over certain areas).
This is not a reason for not publishing the pictures.

What would the point of that be? 'Here are some cropped pictures of ex model Bambi' or 'Brother of Bambi tries to sell Compromising pictures of Dead Sister' - which one do you think would really be the headline grabber? But that's besides the point, how did the journalist know that Jeremy had such pictures of Sheila? And why has Jeremy made no attempt to challenge the story?

[Caroline]

I thought the " myra hindley "lookalike pic of JM after winning her cash was sickening !!

So you don't think Jeremy peddling pornographic pictures of his dead recently sister is sickening?

[Alias]

What would the point of that be? 'Here are some cropped pictures of ex model Bambi' or 'Brother of Bambi tries to sell Compromising pictures of Dead Sister' - which one do you think would really be the headline grabber? But that's besides the point, how did the journalist know that Jeremy had such pictures of Sheila? And why has Jeremy made no attempt to challenge the story?

Or barred out.

They allegedly refused the pictures without even seeing them, I really do find that hard to believe.

I already answered how the journalist might have known.

You ask Jeremy, you are the one in correspondance with him, not me.

[Caroline]

Or barred out.

They allegedly refused the pictures without even seeing them, I really do find that hard to believe.

I already answered how the journalist might have known.

You ask Jeremy, you are the one in correspondance with him, not me.

They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.

I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.

[guest2181]

So you don't think Jeremy peddling pornographic pictures of his dead recently sister is sickening?

If it's true, it's also an amazingly stupid thing for JB to have done.

[Alias]

They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.

I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.

Ask him again - you have done that before with success!

The Sun refusing pictures because they were described as explicit (without even seeing them)? Uh, oh, then we don´t want them!  I don´t think so!

[gringo]

I am afraid Jeremy's supporters have to provide proof that The Sun lied and put it on their front page. And that Fielding lied 20 years later when interviewed on camera.

These are both primary sources of proof that the meeting happened. Jeremy has refused to discuss this. Even when asked about it.

I appreciate supporters cannot try to justify Jeremy's attempt. So will automatically say a newspaper and individuals are lying. But proof is needed.

   What is really required Adam, is further sources that Jeremy did try to sell pictures to the Sun. With only the Sun as a source the allegation cannot be taken too seriously.
     Before the Barry George trial the Sun printed a number of "stories" about George that were clearly in contempt of court. Among the various allegations made by the Sun was the claim that Barry George had an obsession with Jill Dando and that he had many pictures of her and articles about her. This story can only have come from the investigating police and it appears to be an attempt to influence a trial by smearing the suspect.
     The supposed obsession was obviously nothing of the sort and the Sun story was so different to the actual truth as to be laughable.
    Barry George had hoarded over a number of years hundreds of magazines and newspapers. Jill Dando appeared in only a handful of them. There was no suggestion of George gathering or saving articles about Jill Dando, but obviously as a public figure she would be in the paper sometimes.
     So the Sun, with information from the Met, printed a story that they knew to be untrue and which supported a guilty scenario. To be perfectly clear here both the Met and the Sun were pushing the same lies in collusion with each other.
     This is not even unusual and I could post about dozens of cases where the Sun has knowingly lied on behalf of the police stretching over more than 30 years.
    Fielder has no credibility as a purveyor of truth given that he made his living doing Murdoch's bidding and working on the most disreputable paper in the country.
    The Sun and the truth are strangers.

[lookout]

They were described as 'explicit' - obviously the reporter would know they wouldn't be printable.

I have asked Jeremy - I told you that yesterday.

I understood that Sheila hadn't wanted that type of photography carried out. I know she was desperate for money,but not that desperate.