Michael Fielder Proven liar

[lookout]

 Say no more !

[Caroline]

How and why did david Boutflour know on the 9th September what the newspaper was going to publish on the 10th September?

I imagine because the newspaper asked them for comment.

[Caroline]

Is seven days after the article appeared in the newspaper close enough? He went to the police and gave a statement just after the article appeared. Statement is from 24th September 1985 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925

This is where he states that what he read and what was told to him by Jeremy were 'exactly the same' (You can see everything, right down to the last detail).

A further mention of the comment is in Claire Powell's book (which I posted on the thread below (top of page 167)), in an interview with Fielder himself. There really is no denying it happened.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6696.msg309275.html#msg309275

And a copy of the relevant part of Colin's statement (in case it gets lost  )

[Alias]

I wouldn't describe Jeremy as being in 'his right mind'. Colin confirms that Jeremy described the pictures as pornographic - it doesn't just come from Fielder. Selling the pictures is the whole point - what kind of a person would do such a thing?

Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?

[scipio_usmc]

Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?

Brett was just an opportunistic scumbag. It wasn't his sister, he had no allegiance to her. Upon hearing everyone was dead and thus that Jeremy would be the sole heir he ran right over so he could party with his friend who would have the means to party and no responsibilities to stand in the way.   

Jeremy obliged and had Cock appoint someone else to manage the day to day operations of WHF while he went off to have fun with his pal Brett.  They stayed at Sheila's flat because this way they were in London near the scene they wanted to be a part of and since it would be some time before Jeremy would get the estate he and Brett looked for things to sell (at the flat and at WHF) to get money to fund
their escapades. They didn't want to wait until the estate was settled before going on such escapades.  Brett showed up for instant partying not to wait a long time for fun.

[Jan]

I imagine because the newspaper asked them for comment.

about what? the photos - why would he know anything about them?

[Adam]

The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.

There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.

[Alias]

The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.

There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.

Jeremy wasn´t involved in the cheque book fraud.

[Caroline]

about what? the photos - why would he know anything about them?

I'm not sure what you're talking about to be honest. The Sun didn't call DB to tell him the pictures would be published. The article about the pictures was published on 17th September not 10th.

[Caroline]

Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?

There is  MASSIVE difference;

It was Jeremy's sister, not Bretts.

Jeremy was SUPPOSED to be grieving, Brett didn't know the family from Adam.

Jeremy talked about being able to 'see everything' about his dead sister, Brett went along for the ride.

I can't believe that people are still making excuses for Jeremy after what he did and it's clear that he did try and sell those pictures!!

[lookout]

The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.

There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.

"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.

[Caroline]

Brett was just an opportunistic scumbag. It wasn't his sister, he had no allegiance to her. Upon hearing everyone was dead and thus that Jeremy would be the sole heir he ran right over so he could party with his friend who would have the means to party and no responsibilities to stand in the way.   

Jeremy obliged and had Cock appoint someone else to manage the day to day operations of WHF while he went off to have fun with his pal Brett.  They stayed at Sheila's flat because this way they were in London near the scene they wanted to be a part of and since it would be some time before Jeremy would get the estate he and Brett looked for things to sell (at the flat and at WHF) to get money to fund
their escapades. They didn't want to wait until the estate was settled before going on such escapades.  Brett showed up for instant partying not to wait a long time for fun.

Exactly!!

[Caroline]

"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.

Although it was less than the grand Jeremy nicked from the family business and not quite as distasteful as trying to sell pictures of your recently murdered sister!!

[susan]

"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.

Hi lookout you are so right now she would have got 100 hours Community Service at least.

[Caroline]

The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.

There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.

I agree because it shows/proves a sinister, uncaring, lack of empathy dark side to his character!