The meeting with The Sun newspaper:

[susan]

what i cant figure out is why he would have brett aprouch the sun and then do the deal himself why dident he aprouch them.

nugnug

Colin stated in his book that the words the Sun printed about these photo's were the very same words Jeremy had used to him previously regarding the photo's so I think maybe Brett set up the meeting for Jeremy who them took over.  I have no proof that this happened but it appears that way to me.

[Adam]

The Sun were in a win win win situation.

Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.

Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.

They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.

[nugnug]

i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.

[Caroline]

The Sun were in a win win win situation.

Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.

Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.

They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.

Plus, it was a far better story than a one which reported that Sheila had some nude shots taken - big deal! Most models have. Jeremy probably USED BC to contact The Sun to keep his name out of it until the money meeting was set up. He simply wasn't as clever as he thought he was.

[susan]

The Sun were in a win win win situation.

Jeremy approaching them gave them a front page story. Which 30 years later people are still discussing.

Refusing to accept Jeremy's offer also gave them brownie points and showed they had moral standards.

They also saved 25k in not paying Jeremy.

Adam I tend to agree with you.

[susan]

i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.

nugnug they kinda grassed him up without buying anything did not have to pay him a penny and got front page story out of it

[Adam]

They can't buy and publish the pictures, then grass him up.

That's double standards.

[nugnug]

its the sun we are talking about yes they could do that.

[Caroline]

its the sun we are talking about yes they could do that.

For what purpose? They couldn't use the pictures so why would they pay Jeremy for them? That makes no sense at all! They got their story and didn't have to pay a penny for it!!

[gringo]

i think they would of bought and then grassed him up.

   Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
      Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie and backed by nothing else.
        The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
       This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
       It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
       If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive"
       

[maggie]

   Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
      Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie and backed by nothing else.
        The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
       This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
       It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
       If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive"
       

I have to agree gringo, I really don't trust the Sun an inch and would never have a copy anywhere near me or in my house. 

[Caroline]

   Had the alleged offer really happened then yes the Sun would have bought the pictures. It would have proven their unlikely tale if they had some evidence of the offer. Had the pictures really been offered then buying them would prove that Jeremy had sold them.
      Alternatively Fielder could have recorded the conversation and captured on tape irrefutable evidence of Bamber attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister but he appears not to have done so. I say "appears not to..." because I find it difficult to believe that the meeting with Bamber wasn't recorded if only in the hope of encouraging loose words from him and having undeniable evidence. However the only evidence presented of this offer having taken place is a story in the Sun on the word of a sleazy hack encouraged by the well known defender of truth and justice, Kelvin Mckenzie and backed by nothing else.
        The motives for the Sun colluding in lies and misinformation on behalf of the police are something we don't even need to speculate on. It is a matter of public record since Leveson as are the criminal charges and sentences given to Sun reporters and police officers partly as a result of Leveson.
       This allegation is raised often but funnily enough is never backed up with any evidence which as has been demonstrated would have been simple to acquire had the offer really taken place. The Sun demonstrably disseminated lies and misinformation on behalf of the police at this time on a regular basis and without real evidence (the pictures or a recording of the conversation) it is worthless.
      It just shows that some people are prepared to believe any negative story no matter how unlikely. Even those who believe Bamber guilty should question this story. It sounds too good to be true that the alleged killer is attempting to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the publication, which we now know ran negative stories about those charged on behalf of the police.
       If I believed Bamber guilty I would still not believe this story because of it's provenance and what we know of this publication regarding their relationship with the police. It seems incredible that so many are willing to believe as fact something based on a "Sun exclusive"
       

No, it shows how desperate SOME people are to try and quash any negativity written about Jeremy and are using recent history as proof of the past. The evidence that he tried to sell the pictures is concrete - not because of The Sun but because of Colin! He confirms that the description written in The Sun was the same as the description given to him or was Colin part of the great conspiracy too?

Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - you can deny it all you want but the proof it there!

[gringo]

No, it shows how desperate SOME people are to try and quash any negativity written about Jeremy and are using recent history as proof of the past. The evidence that he tried to sell the pictures is concrete - not because of The Sun but because of Colin! He confirms that the description written in The Sun was the same as the description given to him or was Colin part of the great conspiracy too?

Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister to The Sun - you can deny it all you want but the proof it there!

  The evidence that he attempted to sell explicit pictures is non existent and you could do with raising the bar somewhat on what constitutes "concrete proof".
      Don't you question why the Sun has no recording or actual "concrete evidence" of this alleged meeting and offer given the ease of acquiring this evidence,if it really happened?
      The idea that the Sun story is true based on the weak reasoning that they attributed to Jeremy the same words that Colin attributes to him is laughable. The Sun would have been all over this story talking to everyone and using the "dark arts" of their trade to get "exclusive sleazy stories". The Sun hacks would have not been doing their "job" if they were not looking for sleazy pictures of a now dead model in a high profile case/story. The Sun cannot be relied upon by anyone as a reliable source of information and if any innocent argument relied on a Sun story as back up it would be rightly derided by guilty supporters as a sign of desperation. The Sun are sleaze merchants not reporters of truth and allegations made by the Sun are less than worthless unless supported by other "concrete" evidence which these aren't.

[Caroline]

  The evidence that he attempted to sell explicit pictures is non existent and you could do with raising the bar somewhat on what constitutes "concrete proof".
      Don't you question why the Sun has no recording or actual "concrete evidence" of this alleged meeting and offer given the ease of acquiring this evidence,if it really happened?
      The idea that the Sun story is true based on the weak reasoning that they attributed to Jeremy the same words that Colin attributes to him is laughable. The Sun would have been all over this story talking to everyone and using the "dark arts" of their trade to get "exclusive sleazy stories". The Sun hacks would have not been doing their "job" if they were not looking for sleazy pictures of a now dead model in a high profile case/story. The Sun cannot be relied upon by anyone as a reliable source of information and if any innocent argument relied on a Sun story as back up it would be rightly derided by guilty supporters as a sign of desperation. The Sun are sleaze merchants not reporters of truth and allegations made by the Sun are less than worthless unless supported by other "concrete" evidence which these aren't.

Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and none of your foot stamping will change that. He described the pictures to both Fielding and Colin in the SAME way. The Sun would not have been allowed to print the pictures so they decided to run the story of Jeremy trying to sell 'sleazy' pictures of his dead sister - a far more juicy story.

[Caroline]

Further evidence that Jeremy is lying comes from his own campaign site which Lookout posted earlier;

"After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story.  Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it.  Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story.  Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic.  Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those.  The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper."

And yet we KNOW they did because he described them to Colin and Fielding in the same way. This makes it even more certain that he's lying.