Michael Fielder Proven liar

[gringo]

I asked him - got an excuse for that also?

If you had been accused of something so hideous, wouldn't you take the opportunity to set the record straight or just wait until someone asked you (then ignore the question). I find your argument bewildering!

    I don't think that your letters 25 or 30 years after the event have any relevance whatsoever. JB has denied it and quite frankly after your claims regarding the wallet question and the alleged non answering of that question, your interpretations are worthless.
    How many questions have you asked JB? And how many has he answered?
    Why would you think that he avoided rather than overlooked your question? You claim that he "does that with difficult questions", but the question isn't difficult. Nor was your previous one.
     So how many questions did he avoid and how many did he answer?
     Your ridiculous letters are not evidence of something that occurred 30+ years ago. They say more about you than JB.
   

    I hadn't missed your claims, it's just that they have no credence given your previous.

[Steve_uk]

    I don't think that your letters 25 or 30 years after the event have any relevance whatsoever. JB has denied it and quite frankly after your claims regarding the wallet question and the alleged non answering of that question, your interpretations are worthless.
    How many questions have you asked JB? And how many has he answered?
    Why would you think that he avoided rather than overlooked your question? You claim that he "does that with difficult questions", but the question isn't difficult. Nor was your previous one.
     So how many questions did he avoid and how many did he answer?
     Your ridiculous letters are not evidence of something that occurred 30+ years ago. They say more about you than JB.
   

    I hadn't missed your claims, it's just that they have no credence given your previous.

You and a few others are in denial over the whole business of Bamber and Collins attempting to negotiate a price for nude photographs of Sheila Caffell with a representative from the Sun newspaper. It's really not worth the candle because it's not relevant to the crime (the admission by Collins that Bamber hated his parents is far more telling) but I think you should all admit the incident happened and move on.

[gringo]

You and a few others are in denial over the whole business of Bamber and Collins attempting to negotiate a price for nude photographs of Sheila Caffell with a representative from the Sun newspaper. It's really not worth the candle because it's not relevant to the crime (the admission by Collins that Bamber hated his parents is far more telling) but I think you should all admit the incident happened and move on.

   Brilliant incisive argument, Steve. The only ones in denial are those who lend credence to Fielder and the Sun.

[Steve_uk]

   Brilliant incisive argument, Steve. The only ones in denial are those who lend credence to Fielder and the Sun.

Brett Collins would have sued for libel at the drop of a hat..

[Caroline]

   Brilliant incisive argument, Steve. The only ones in denial are those who lend credence to Fielder and the Sun.

You keep telling yourself that. I have asked him out right and he didn't answer, You know that Bamber selling such pictures makes him look really bad so you have to deny what is staring you in the face. It's pointless arguing the toss with people who are in denial so I not going to bother replying to any more posts on this subject. He did try to sell the pictures and deep down you know he did! Some of you people are unbelievable!

[Caroline]

    I don't think that your letters 25 or 30 years after the event have any relevance whatsoever. JB has denied it and quite frankly after your claims regarding the wallet question and the alleged non answering of that question, your interpretations are worthless.
    How many questions have you asked JB? And how many has he answered?
    Why would you think that he avoided rather than overlooked your question? You claim that he "does that with difficult questions", but the question isn't difficult. Nor was your previous one.
     So how many questions did he avoid and how many did he answer?
     Your ridiculous letters are not evidence of something that occurred 30+ years ago. They say more about you than JB.
   

    I hadn't missed your claims, it's just that they have no credence given your previous.

More denial - pathetic.

[David1819]

    I don't think that your letters 25 or 30 years after the event have any relevance whatsoever. JB has denied it and quite frankly after your claims regarding the wallet question and the alleged non answering of that question, your interpretations are worthless.
    How many questions have you asked JB? And how many has he answered?
    Why would you think that he avoided rather than overlooked your question? You claim that he "does that with difficult questions", but the question isn't difficult. Nor was your previous one.
     So how many questions did he avoid and how many did he answer?
     Your ridiculous letters are not evidence of something that occurred 30+ years ago. They say more about you than JB.
   

    I hadn't missed your claims, it's just that they have no credence given your previous.

Ask Roch how damning Caroline's letters are.

[gringo]

Brett Collins would have sued for libel at the drop of a hat..

  For what? When was Brett Collins libelled? How would he have afforded it? Do you think you can sue for libel on a no win no fee basis?
    These are pretty dreadful arguments, Steve.
    Had JB been found not guilty then I am sure that a lot of papers would have been sued.
    Remember Chris Jeffries? Had the frame up of him been successful then I am sure that his suing of the tabloids would not have been successful. In fact had Chris Jeffries been convicted of murder then he wouldn't have got as far as issuing a writ. You do know that to successfully sue for libel that you have to show that both the published article was false and that it was damaging to your reputation. Convicted murderers tend to struggle with the damage to reputation part, funnily enough. This is how it works in reality. Cost is also an issue, it is not cheap to sue for libel. Those who claim that the lack of a writ is somehow a tacit admission by the target of the story show not only their ignorance of the libel laws but also betray a simplistic mindset.
    If you believe that the absence of a writ supports yous argument then you are simply betraying a lack of knowledge on your part.
   

[nugnug]

You keep telling yourself that. I have asked him out right and he didn't answer, You know that Bamber selling such pictures makes him look really bad so you have to deny what is staring you in the face. It's pointless arguing the toss with people who are in denial so I not going to bother replying to any more posts on this subject. He did try to sell the pictures and deep down you know he did! Some of you people are unbelievable!

if i found out the only people backing my argument were news internationol id give up.

[Caroline]

Ask Roch how damning Caroline's letters are.

Knew you would turn up like a bad smell. Totally predictable  . I suppose you're another one who doesn't have the bollocks to admit he tried to sell the pictures? 

[gringo]

Ask Roch how damning Caroline's letters are.

   I have discussed these letters enough to know exactly how much credence I should lend any claims emanating from them.

[Caroline]

if i found out the only people backing my argument were news internationol id give up.

but they aren't the only ones and I haven never needed ANYONE to back my argument. I can hold my own with you lot 

[Caroline]

   I have discussed these letters enough to know exactly how much credence I should lend any claims emanating from them.

Difference is, I KNOW the truth, you only think you do, 

[Steve_uk]

  For what? When was Brett Collins libelled? How would he have afforded it? Do you think you can sue for libel on a no win no fee basis?
    These are pretty dreadful arguments, Steve.
    Had JB been found not guilty then I am sure that a lot of papers would have been sued.
    Remember Chris Jeffries? Had the frame up of him been successful then I am sure that his suing of the tabloids would not have been successful. In fact had Chris Jeffries been convicted of murder then he wouldn't have got as far as issuing a writ. You do know that to successfully sue for libel that you have to show that both the published article was false and that it was damaging to your reputation. Convicted murderers tend to struggle with the damage to reputation part, funnily enough. This is how it works in reality. Cost is also an issue, it is not cheap to sue for libel. Those who claim that the lack of a writ is somehow a tacit admission by the target of the story show not only their ignorance of the libel laws but also betray a simplistic mindset.
    If you believe that the absence of a writ supports yous argument then you are simply betraying a lack of knowledge on your part.
 

But he wasn't a convicted murderer at that stage. He was an eligible bachelor with all the Bamber money and name behind him.

[JackieD]

      Much has been of the allegations made by Michael Fielder. Those who believe Jeremy Bamber innocent largely disbelieve Fielder's story on the grounds that he plied his trade for such a disreputable rag and his story does not really appear credible and in fact bears an uncanny resemblance to the type of stories that appeared in the Sun that were nothing more than propaganda pieces on behalf of those in authority.
      Those who believe Bamber guilty tend to believe Fielder. I have said before that even if I believed him guilty that this story is so unbelievable and it's source so unreliable that I would dismiss it anyway.
      Proponents of Bamber's guilt claim that just because Fielder worked for the Sun that it doesn't prove that he is a liar and his willingness to give a witness statement and to appear on a trashy documentary repeating his story somehow supports his claims.
      After a little research on Fielder it appears that guilty supporters ought now to perhaps think twice before defending him.
      The following is an example of Fielder's "journalism" or what more objective observers would describe as propagandising for those in authority.
     On 6th March 1988 three IRA members were killed by a SAS squad in Gibraltar. The killings caused much noise and controversy at the time and were reported on with the usual restraint that you expect from the tabloid press. MOD and British Government press briefings were reported uncritically by most of the media without question claiming the men were armed and were in possession of a 500lb bomb. A documentary was aired two months after the killings called "Death on the Rock" which cast doubt on the official claims.
     The following is lifted verbatim from "Murder on the Rock".
     "Of all the civilian witnesses to the Gibraltar murders, Carmen Proetta's evidence was potentially some of the most damning for the government.
  Carmen Proetta told Death on the Rock that she had seen McCann and Farrell shot without warning with their hands in the air. As soon as her evidence became publicly known she was subjected to a campaign of threats and a barrage of press lies. The pressure on her was so enormous, that despite being one of the most strongly determined of the witnesses to speak out, she told the inquest:
  "Let me tell you one thing, sir, if this happened again I would not be here to give evidence"
  The day after Death on the Rock was broadcast, her husband received a phone call from a man claiming to be a policeman. He told him that the family's lives would be "made a misery". The Proetta children also received threats.
  But it was left to the British press to apply the real pressure. For no other reason than that she had inconvenient testimony, the press, particularly the Murdoch owned press, viciously attacked her. The Sunday Times launched a series of articles purporting to show that her story was untrue and saying that other witnesses had called her testimony ridiculous. This, like virtually every other word published by the Sunday Times about Gibraltar, was a pack of lies.
  The Sun, however, went even further. Two days after Death on the Rock was broadcast they printed a front page with a picture of  Carmen Proetta headlined "Tart of Gib". It said in bold letters: "Sun discovers shock truth about IRA witness Carmen... she's an ex prostitute, runs an escort agency and is married to a sleazy drug peddler". As well as suddenly making Carmen an "IRA" witness they also said that both she and her husband were anti British.
  As is normal the Sun had concocted a story based on distortions and outright lies. For example, the escort agency was a tourist agency and Proetta's only connection was that she lent her name as a director in order that the company could comply with Spanish law.....
  In December 1988 Mrs Proetta was awarded £50,000 damages against the Sun. However this came too late to undo the damage done to her evidence at the inquest. Not only was she put under enormous pressure but her testimony, when it finally came at the inquest, must have been devalued in the eyes of the jury. The British press, remembering the "Tart of Gib" headline were more interested in her split skirt than her evidence.
   The Sun reporter who wrote the "Tart of Gib" story was none other than Michael Fielding.
   It is now established that Fielder is a liar who worked for a newspaper that peddled lies on behalf of the authorities and that he in fact peddled those lies on their behalf.
   We are then expected to believe that Jeremy Bamber having killed all of his family then attempted to sell nude/pornographic pictures of his dead sister to a reporter who worked for a news organisation that routinely colluded with the police to pervert the course of justice all on the say so of a proven liar and professional smearer who worked for a newspaper that routinely lies on behalf of those in power.
  The defence that Fielder has never been shown to be a liar is no longer valid. He has knowingly lied about and smeared innocent people on behalf of powerful vested interests and this has been established by the successful libel action of Carmen Proetta. The paper that he worked for routinely lie on behalf of the police and powerful interests.
  Fielder's word and that of the Sun are both worth less than nothing and those who believe the Fielder allegations do so because they believe it helps their cause rather than based on an honest and objective appraisal of what is known.
  Believing Fielder flies in the face of reason. There are more sleaze and lies that he is involved in but I am sure that posters can discover this for themselves.

At last, the voice of reason, thank you
I never ever believed the story