0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I'm sure you can think of even more excuses if you try hard enough. He tried to sell them and if now trying to suggest that they didn't even exist - priceless!! . What is funnier, is that article on the OS goes on to suggest the ONLY person not to change their story, is Jeremy and how he was trying to juggle the estate, managing the farm etc. He buggered of and left it all to Peter Eaton!!
Colin told the world in his book. If Jeremy did or didn't tell anyone else, what difference does it make ?
It's been said plenty of times now but (again), it doesn't matter, if Colin SAW the pictures, Jeremy 'described' them and the description written in The Sun MATCHED what was said to Colin. Therefore, the person who described the pictures to Colin, MUST be the same person who told the reporter and that person was JEREMY.
Clearly this is BS because he wouldn't have had to pay any money until AFTER probate. He was selling the stuff for himself!
Because Jeremy put down towels and cushions so the blood of his dead father wouldn't spread. It wasn't known from the outset that it was Jeremy. Not sure where you got that from AGAIN, you have been given the evidence time after time but you dismiss it and start changing the subject. Just like now, the topic of the thread is about The Sun article - you can't argue the point so you just change the subject!!
its not making excuses its called considring all possbilitys thats what a discusen forum is supposed to be about.
No point in me being here really seeing it's another anti-Bamber forum.
The reason I've switched subjects/threads is because like ALL the others----------it's getting nowhere, except in repeating the same thing all the time. Perhaps I've missed the legal documents that went with this subject---------statements from Fielder,etc etc. Recorded conversations or whatever. Seeing these things is believing and I imagine that a lot of recorded conversations were made too which are made during a murder case,but unless such are produced,I'm not interested. As long as something concerns slagging off Jeremy,then everyone's happy. No point in me being here really seeing it's another anti-Bamber forum.
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.I can´t see this as proof.What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
jeremy hasnt confirmed anything as far as i know.
It's not like every reporter films/records every time they meet with someone, crazy! But even if they had there would still be an excuse as to why you can't trust!
