Author Topic: Michael Fielder Proven liar  (Read 95414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #615 on: September 20, 2017, 12:17:AM »
You didn't ask him about the pictures Jackie - pull the other one!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

we only have your word that you did.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #616 on: September 20, 2017, 03:23:AM »
Astounding! It never ceases to amaze me how far some people will bend, twist and squirm in order to defend in indefensible. By the way, I have gone into great detail about the wallet, and still you don't get it - how do you answer a question if you can't remember what the question is? I'm not going into this again. Like I said, I KNOW what happened whereas you don't.
   The trouble is that the more detail you go into the more your claims fall apart. Why do you miss out the word "specific" when you ask; "how do you answer a question if you can't remember what the question is" ?
    The most important detail about the wallet saga is your disingenuous claim that JB avoided answering for two years when this is not actually true. JB's words to you when you pointed out that he hadn't answered a question were, "I don't remember the specific question but the answer is no, or I didn't, why would I" or words to that effect. This was according to you, and my memory, some six weeks or so after the initial letter.
    What can we infer from this reply, assuming that our comprehension skills are at least that of a reasonably intelligent adult.

     First thing to notice is that the reply he gives does in fact answer the question that Caroline asked and that JB's reply covers the two different ways that Caroline herself has framed the question. The question was posed to Jeremy, "how did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" and also "did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" This is from Caroline's own posts on this matter. The distinction is important and telling. Telling because Caroline can't even bother to get right her own question but expects total recall from JB. From JB's reply it can be inferred that he remembers the question is about the contents of his father's wallet but cannot remember whether he was asked "how he knew?" or "if he knew?". This can be deduced from the fact that he felt confident enough to answer anyway. Also this is identical to the reply he gave when asked for the third time two years later. So Caroline presumably believes that this was just massive coincidence. What other explanation could there be for JB giving the same reply, when according to Caroline, JB didn't remember the question.
    Maybe that word "specific" is important and that is why you miss it out in order to misrepresent and dissemble, or perhaps your comprehension skills really are that poor.
    To claim that he still hasn't answered the question after this reply is absurd. To back your claim up by missing out important qualifying caveats ie. the word "specific" betrays either a woeful lack of comprehension skills or wilful dissembling.
    This is why your claimed insights from your now notorious and selectively quoted letters raise nothing more than eyebrows to the discerning reader on here and are widely seen as a joke. 
    That you wrote again anyway two years later and asked again about the contents of his murdered father's wallet after being told "no, or I didn't. Why would I?" is preposterous and crass.
     Didn't really want to get sidetracked  onto this again but you did bring it up so only fair to point out that it was debunked long ago as a gross misrepresentation.

    You also still haven't told us how many questions JB allegedly "avoided answering", nor how many you asked and there is still no response as to why you conclude that he overlooked rather than avoided.
     
     
   
     
   

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #617 on: September 20, 2017, 06:23:AM »
You didn't ask him about the pictures Jackie - pull the other one!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course I did are you completely mad
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #618 on: September 20, 2017, 06:26:AM »
we only have your word that you did.


She obviously didn't or she would post proof

At no time did she ever talk to him on the phone
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #619 on: September 20, 2017, 06:27:AM »
would he xxxxxxxx they never print the suspects version or let him have his say ask colin stagg ask chris jefres/

ask the McKay sisters after the stitch up they did on them  that led to there conviction.


Brilliant
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 07:38:AM by maggie »
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #620 on: September 20, 2017, 06:33:AM »
So why did you (as you say you did  ::)) ask Jeremy about it?


I have never believed the story from the first time I read about the case and I appreciate the details Gringo has posted to show the dodgy reporter was a pathological liar
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #621 on: September 20, 2017, 06:38:AM »
   The trouble is that the more detail you go into the more your claims fall apart. Why do you miss out the word "specific" when you ask; "how do you answer a question if you can't remember what the question is" ?
    The most important detail about the wallet saga is your disingenuous claim that JB avoided answering for two years when this is not actually true. JB's words to you when you pointed out that he hadn't answered a question were, "I don't remember the specific question but the answer is no, or I didn't, why would I" or words to that effect. This was according to you, and my memory, some six weeks or so after the initial letter.
    What can we infer from this reply, assuming that our comprehension skills are at least that of a reasonably intelligent adult.

     First thing to notice is that the reply he gives does in fact answer the question that Caroline asked and that JB's reply covers the two different ways that Caroline herself has framed the question. The question was posed to Jeremy, "how did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" and also "did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" This is from Caroline's own posts on this matter. The distinction is important and telling. Telling because Caroline can't even bother to get right her own question but expects total recall from JB. From JB's reply it can be inferred that he remembers the question is about the contents of his father's wallet but cannot remember whether he was asked "how he knew?" or "if he knew?". This can be deduced from the fact that he felt confident enough to answer anyway. Also this is identical to the reply he gave when asked for the third time two years later. So Caroline presumably believes that this was just massive coincidence. What other explanation could there be for JB giving the same reply, when according to Caroline, JB didn't remember the question.
    Maybe that word "specific" is important and that is why you miss it out in order to misrepresent and dissemble, or perhaps your comprehension skills really are that poor.
    To claim that he still hasn't answered the question after this reply is absurd. To back your claim up by missing out important qualifying caveats ie. the word "specific" betrays either a woeful lack of comprehension skills or wilful dissembling.
    This is why your claimed insights from your now notorious and selectively quoted letters raise nothing more than eyebrows to the discerning reader on here and are widely seen as a joke. 
    That you wrote again anyway two years later and asked again about the contents of his murdered father's wallet after being told "no, or I didn't. Why would I?" is preposterous and crass.
     Didn't really want to get sidetracked  onto this again but you did bring it up so only fair to point out that it was debunked long ago as a gross misrepresentation.

    You also still haven't told us how many questions JB allegedly "avoided answering", nor how many you asked and there is still no response as to why you conclude that he overlooked rather than avoided.
     
     
   
     
   

Brilliant post and the wallet saga has not changed a single persons stance from JB being innocent to guilty
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #622 on: September 20, 2017, 08:41:AM »
Because they would rather sit back and watch them make fools of themselves.






Ooooh,they're not the type to sit back. Remember how they ferreted around looking for anything that might convict Jeremy ? I bet they never slept for a month !

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #623 on: September 20, 2017, 10:03:AM »





Ooooh,they're not the type to sit back. Remember how they ferreted around looking for anything that might convict Jeremy ? I bet they never slept for a month !

You don't know what 'type' they are, you don't know them.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #624 on: September 20, 2017, 12:33:PM »
You didn't ask him about the pictures Jackie - pull the other one!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

she has done hes denied it in fact hes allways denied it theres a bit on his officail site about i belive.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #625 on: September 20, 2017, 01:06:PM »
she has done hes denied it in fact hes allways denied it theres a bit on his officail site about i belive.
[/quote


Thank you Nug nug
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #626 on: September 20, 2017, 02:25:PM »
as adam has helpfully pointed out on another feilder youd probely taped the conversation so very funny hes never realsed the tape to back up his story.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44292
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #627 on: September 20, 2017, 02:31:PM »
as adam has helpfully pointed out on another feilder youd probely taped the conversation so very funny hes never realsed the tape to back up his story.

Adam & Gringo.

Nugs you're theory has already been dismissed.

Tape recorder or not, The Sun would not turn down a free, big, true & exclusive story from Bamber in 1985.

No one else has ever suggested The Sun had already written an article regarding photo's which existed & £20,000. And no one ever will.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44292
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #628 on: September 20, 2017, 02:34:PM »
as adam has helpfully pointed out on another feilder youd probely taped the conversation so very funny hes never realsed the tape to back up his story.

You believe reporters should be releasing tapes to the media they don't need to. Although I can't think of any examples.

Bamber & Brett obviously didn't tape the conversation.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17250
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Michael Fielder Proven liar
« Reply #629 on: September 20, 2017, 02:34:PM »
Adam & Gringo.

Nugs you're theory has already been dismissed.

Tape recorder or not, The Sun would not turn down a free, big, true & exclusive story from Bamber in 1985.

No one else has ever suggested The Sun had already written an article regarding photo's which existed & £20,000. And no one ever will.

how many times have you made the same comment now  do you never get bored with repeating yourself.