Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: guest29835 on July 13, 2020, 08:53:PM
-
Here's something that been knocking about in my mind and I keep meaning to ask:
Was a video made of the crime scene? If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial? If not, why?
I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs. Is that true?
On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer? If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?
Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back?
Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?
Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?
Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio? Has it been disclosed?
-
Here's something that been knocking about in my mind and I keep meaning to ask:
Was a video made of the crime scene? If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial? If not, why?
I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs. Is that true?
Mike Tesko used to claim there was a video of the crime scene, however, he was criticised for doing so. Perhaps there was a video made up of crime scene stills instead.
On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer? If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?
Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back??
I think I have read before there are crime scene photographs taken by another officer. Did somebody take a polaroid? There are a lot of crime scene photographs not disclosed. For the ones that have been disclosed, there was a gruelling slog for the defence to obtain them, over a number of years. The CCRC always accept the police explanations that are provided, regarding any anomalies.
Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?
Somebody will know.
Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?
I cant answer that - don't know.
Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio? Has it been disclosed?
Audio recordings were made and copied. The TFG had open mics. However, the police ignore requests to disclose these copies. The police also claimed the original telephone conversation recordings were taped over, as a matter of course.
This alleged non-disclosure booklet has more info:
https://simplebooklet.com/disclosurebookletjeremybamber
-
Thanks - do you know for sure if that disclosure booklet is up-to-date in representing the current position on disclosure so far as Jeremy is concerned?
-
Thanks - do you know for sure if that disclosure booklet is up-to-date in representing the current position on disclosure so far as Jeremy is concerned?
I'm afraid I unable confirm that. There may have been developments I am unaware of and I'm not sure if the booklet has been kept up to date. If I would hazard a guess, my hunch would be it hasn't been updated. If anyone from the CT is reading, they may be able to confirm. I'm not even sure whether the CT is now defunct or whether it has metemorphosised in to something else.
-
I'm afraid I unable confirm that. There may have been developments I am unaware of and I'm not sure if the booklet has been kept up to date. If I would hazard a guess, my hunch would be it hasn't been updated. If anyone from the CT is reading, they may be able to confirm. I'm not even sure whether the CT is now defunct or whether it has metemorphosised in to something else.
OK, thanks anyway.
-
Back to David Bird - It seems to me that the original film negatives are evidence in their own right. I assume they were exhibited at court? It also seems to me that the chain of custody of the negatives and resultant photographs, the camera equipment used at the scene (including the camera make and model and flash equipment) and the specification of the film roll and the development techniques used and type of paper, etc. are all relevant considerations, simply because they affect how the end result will appear.
Do the original photographs and negatives still exist somewhere?
-
Back to David Bird - It seems to me that the original film negatives are evidence in their own right. I assume they were exhibited at court? It also seems to me that the chain of custody of the negatives and resultant photographs, the camera equipment used at the scene (including the camera make and model and flash equipment) and the specification of the film roll and the development techniques used and type of paper, etc. are all relevant considerations, simply because they affect how the end result will appear.
Do the original photographs and negatives still exist somewhere?
The negatives were not produced in court. Some of the photographic prints (not all) were included in a bound bundle and presented in court. Some of the negatives have since the trial been destroyed by Essex Police, contrary to their own guidelines. We do not know what the missing negatives show. The surviving negatives were provided to the defence in 2011 on instruction of the CCRC.
-
The negatives were not produced in court. Some of the photographic prints (not all) were included in a bound bundle and presented in court. Some of the negatives have since the trial been destroyed by Essex Police, contrary to their own guidelines. We do not know what the missing negatives show. The surviving negatives were provided to the defence in 2011 on instruction of the CCRC.
I'm just curious as to why the defence never asked for access for their own photographic experts to those negatives (assuming they didn't)? I'd be screaming for them. It's absolutely fundamental and I'm surprised there wasn't a big legal battle over disclosure before trial.
To me, photography is a pivotal element of the whole case because a lot of the glib-sounding conclusions of the pro-guilt side are based on what we see of Sheila in those crime scene photographs, which seem on their face to be consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings: i.e. that Sheila had minimal or no injuries other than the gunshot wounds and nothing on her hands or feet. For all we know, she might have had bruises and cuts up her arms and we would be oblivious because of the way the photographs came out of development.
I suppose those were different times with a certain amount of deference to the authorities, and maybe even defence lawyers didn't question things like that.
As for the police destroying crime scene photographs in a case where it is known the convicted offender protests his innocence, I'm astonished. Surely that should be illegal? Surely the conviction is, potentially, legally unsatisfactory on that basis alone?
And how can they withhold photographs from a trial? I could understand it if they said that the withheld photographs are non-material and in the interests of trial efficiency are not disclosed for that reason, but can be examined by the defence on request; but didn't the defence ask about them?
-
I'm just curious as to why the defence never asked for access for their own photographic experts to those negatives (assuming they didn't)? I'd be screaming for them. It's absolutely fundamental and I'm surprised there wasn't a big legal battle over disclosure before trial.
To me, photography is a pivotal element of the whole case because a lot of the glib-sounding conclusions of the pro-guilt side are based on what we see of Sheila in those crime scene photographs, which seem on their face to be consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings: i.e. that Sheila had minimal or no injuries other than the gunshot wounds and nothing on her hands or feet. For all we know, she might have had bruises and cuts up her arms and we would be oblivious because of the way the photographs came out of development.
I suppose those were different times with a certain amount of deference to the authorities, and maybe even defence lawyers didn't question things like that.
As for the police destroying crime scene photographs in a case where it is known the convicted offender protests his innocence, I'm astonished. Surely that should be illegal? Surely the conviction is, potentially, legally unsatisfactory on that basis alone?
And how can they withhold photographs from a trial? I could understand it if they said that the withheld photographs are non-material and in the interests of trial efficiency are not disclosed for that reason, but can be examined by the defence on request; but didn't the defence ask about them?
I do not believe that before trial the defence asked to inspect the negatives and they did not instruct a photographic expert. I think this is one of several areas where the original defence team could be criticised. There were two contributing factors. The solicitors were Kingsley Napley and this was the first case they had conducted on legal aid. It is possible to get legal approval to instruct experts but Kingsley Napley were not adept at this. Their use of experts in the run up to trial and at trial was weak.
The second problem was that although the defence leading counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, was very experienced he was a prosecutor. This was the first defence case he had undertaken.
I agree that destruction of negatives by Essex Police, together with the destruction of other trial exhibits was wrong and very suspicious. Unfortunately the CCRC have not been very helpful.
-
I do not believe that before trial the defence asked to inspect the negatives and they did not instruct a photographic expert.
?? I really don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless.
It is possible to get legal approval to instruct experts but Kingsley Napley were not adept at this. Their use of experts in the run up to trial and at trial was weak.
This is one thing I've already independently noted myself. It stands out when I read the transcripts - the weakness of the defence expert evidence and the lack of depth and scope. It's almost like they just couldn't be bothered.
The second problem was that although the defence leading counsel, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, was very experienced he was a prosecutor. This was the first defence case he had undertaken.
You mean, this was the first major defence case he had led? Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial? Please tell me that is so. I'd hate to think the defence solicitors appointed a barrister with no relevant defence experience. That's just asking for it. I realise most of the criminal bar tend to verge towards one side or the other, but he must have had substantial defence experience to become a Queen's Counsel, surely?
I also note that at the time of the trial, he was a part-time judge: it's quite common, I understand, for barristers in practice to also accept appointment as recorders and sit as judge in Crown Court hearings. Nothing wrong with that - in fact, the experience and kudos it gave him must have helped with his trial work for both prosecution and defence - but it also suggests somebody who was hedging his bets career-wise and perhaps wasn't fully committed. I can't imagine George Carmen doing the same, and I gather than Anthony Arlidge never took up a recordership or served as a deputy master, though I could be wrong.
What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate? I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel. That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis. However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases. The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.
Then there's Lawson. I have found at least one newspaper article where he is quoted as bad-mouthing Jeremy. Was he indiscreet?
-
?? I really don't know what to say to that. I'm speechless.
You mean, this was the first major defence case he had led? Surely he'd led the defence in less serious cases and sat as a defence junior in at least one or two serious/major cases and at least one homicide trial? Please tell me that is so. I'd hate to think the defence solicitors appointed a barrister with no relevant defence experience. That's just asking for it. I realise most of the criminal bar tend to verge towards one side or the other, but he must have had substantial defence experience to become a Queen's Counsel, surely?
What are your views of Rivlin as an advocate? I've read about him and listened to a recording of him in the spy trial, and my impression is that he was very good but the quiet type of counsel. That can be apt in some situations and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with his cross-examination of Dr Vanezis. However, I can't help but think that his under-stated style was more suited to a prosecutor and perhaps only really works for the defence in 'technical' trials involving major fraud or where the evidence is very specialist and complicated, such as medical cases. The Bamber case needed somebody a bit more extrovert: yet the defence solicitors thought the opposite and selected Rivlin for the very qualities I have just outlined.
There is no need to have conducted any defence cases to become a QC. Some barristers take prosecution and defence work, others only prosecute or defend. Whether Rivlin had ever conducted a defence case as a junior barrister I am not sure, but he had not undertaken any defence work as a QC before the Bamber case.
Rivlin was well regarded but I am not sure he was the ideal choice for this case.
-
That just sums about sums up the whole bloody mess ???
-
Mr Rivlin was sadly lacking I'm afraid, unless perhaps after a quick study of the case he may have thought he'd sail through without the need for much fighting on his part. I don't know what he was thinking on that day but he certainly allowed the prosecution to win the case without putting up much of a fight. Very disappointing.
I wonder what he said to Jeremy in the aftermath before he, Jeremy, was taken to the cell as seemingly a conversation between the two had taken place.
-
Mr Rivlin was sadly lacking I'm afraid, unless perhaps after a quick study of the case he may have thought he'd sail through without the need for much fighting on his part. I don't know what he was thinking on that day but he certainly allowed the prosecution to win the case without putting up much of a fight. Very disappointing.
I wonder what he said to Jeremy in the aftermath before he, Jeremy, was taken to the cell as seemingly a conversation between the two had taken place.
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.
-
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.
Steve I'm sure that nude pics and another woman in JB's bed would have been the least to have worried about during such a large murder case. No pics were ever sold, so no case anyway.
There was never any proof that Jeremy was in any kind of debt to have found himself wanting £436,000 inheritance, as is usually the case when a family member opens fire.
The last case being a man who shot his whole family including the dog because he was deeply in debt and couldn't tell the family.
I'm beginning to think it was a drug debt but nothing to do with Jeremy. There were some ruthless people around Essex during that time. Rettendon and the murder of John Palmer. Diane Jones, the doctor's wife before any of that. Sheila, I believe had mixed with the wrong crowd.
-
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.
Absolute rubbish
There was nothing overwhelming??
Jeremy would never have been convicted if the jury were aware of the deal Mugford had already made with the NOW
It’s been established that Mugford was a pathological liar
She would literally have done anything for money or fame
Why the police ever allowed her to go to Canada and work with children beggars beieve
-
What else could he have done, faced with the overwhelming evidence that Jeremy was guilty? As it was the latter wanted not only a £436000 inheritance, he wanted a £100000 newspaper deal, a large sum for nude photographs of his dead sister, and Anji Greaves in his bed to boot.
If Jeremy is innocent as he has always claimed he deserves the biggest payout ever given out in a miscarriage of justice case especially as this case has seen so much vital evidence witheld for no good reason
You seem to be very jealous about Anjie Greaves???
-
If Jeremy is innocent as he has always claimed he deserves the biggest payout ever given out in a miscarriage of justice case especially as this case has seen so much vital evidence witheld for no good reason
You seem to be very jealous about Anjie Greaves???
Julie was a bit plain and it's surprising Jeremy - who is supposed to be a psychopath, according to Dr. Steve and various other lettered "experts" - decided on a relationship with her. I should have thought that Anji Greaves was more Jeremy's speed, him being a ruthless murdering psycho and everything. I may have more to say on that topic, though. Notwithstanding Julie's moral faults in traditionalist June's eyes, I think Julie was a facsimile of June and the relationship with this plain-ish and aspirant local girl came about as a result of a subconscious drive to placate his adoptive mother. With his mother dead, the funeral marked the end of not just Jeremy's adoptive family but also the end (or the beginning of the end) of the relationship with Julie.
Anyway, regarding this whole thing about Jeremy trying to sell nude/pornographic pictures of his deceased adoptive sister, is there any serious evidence for the allegation? For the record, I don't accept the word of The Sun or its journalists as serious evidence. If a Sun journalist told me it's 3 a.m. and it's Jeremy on the line, I'd write a formal letter of complaint to the Curator of Horology at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, arguing that their clocks are wrong.
In short, I cannot believe a single word Mike Fielder says. I also wonder if he actually even met with Jeremy or just with Brett Collins. But that is not to say the allegation is untrue. In fact, there are some points to commend Mike Fielder's story and he may be telling the truth on this occasion, it's just that I can't rely on his word. Is there corroboration from Brett Collins?
-
Anyway, regarding this whole thing about Jeremy trying to sell nude/pornographic pictures of his deceased adoptive sister, is there any serious evidence for the allegation?
No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.
-
No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.
Thanks.
-
No evidence for it. A user on this forum called Gringo is the expert on this subject if you want to know more.
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson. But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.
-
Thanks.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html
The above two threads discuss in detail Fielder's previous libel and perjury and his own words when interviewed some years later about the alleged photos.
Hope they are helpful.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6754.0.html
The above two threads discuss in detail Fielder's previous libel and perjury and his own words when interviewed some years later about the alleged photos.
Hope they are helpful.
Thanks.
-
Just going back to the photographs, I find this video commentary very helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-asOtK6ot0&t=16s
-
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy. It's frightening. There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics.
I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.
I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional? I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you. It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.
Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that. You have move on.
I really don't understand the mentality.
-
Just going back to the photographs, I find this video commentary very helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-asOtK6ot0&t=16s
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html The video is discussed at length in thread above
-
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy. It's frightening. There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics.
I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.
I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional? I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you. It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.
Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that. You have move on.
I really don't understand the mentality.
You should see the state of them before the more hysterical rants are removed by moderators
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.0.html The video is discussed at length in thread above
Thank you for all your trouble.
I gather from the thread that the voice is Peter Tatchell's. I don't share his views on things generally, but I have to say, he does a good job with the narration in my opinion and the video is interesting and informative. It puts me in the picture, if you'll pardon the pun.
As for the thread, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through a lengthy thread like that and I can quickly see that most of it consists of disruption and goading posts from anti-Bamber people, so I'll stick to reading your own posts on it, skipping the rest. I am not biased in the Bamber case. I just want to read about the evidence and facts and come to my own conclusions.
-
You should see the state of them before the more hysterical rants are removed by moderators
I kind of lean towards viewing Jeremy as guilty, but what is the point of getting so worked up about it? I just don't understand it. I could maybe understand if a poster is a family member, but even then, why let Jeremy run your life like that?
-
Thank you for all your trouble.
I gather from the thread that the voice is Peter Tatchell's. I don't share his views on things generally, but I have to say, he does a good job with the narration in my opinion and the video is interesting and informative. It puts me in the picture, if you'll pardon the pun.
As for the thread, unfortunately I don't have time to wade through a lengthy thread like that and I can quickly see that most of it consists of disruption and goading posts from anti-Bamber people, so I'll stick to reading your own posts on it, skipping the rest. I am not biased in the Bamber case. I just want to read about the evidence and facts and come to my own conclusions.
That is, unfortunately, the playbook of most anti Bamber posters. Most are here to disrupt rather than discuss.
The non disclosure thread being a particularly egregious example of the disruptive tactics employed to derail informative debates. It is impossible to view the gradual removal of negatives over the years and the circumstances and timing surrounding those removals as anything but sinister.
The destruction and withholding of evidence over the years has been deliberate and seems specifically targeted and timed which makes it difficult to accept innocent explanations for the destruction/removal.
As an example; the Peter Tatchell narrated video gives the timeline of the ongoing "curation" of the photographic record by Essex Police. Negatives of the gun cupboard taken on 7/8/85 are removed by Essex Police prior to an inspection of the negatives by a defence expert. The CCRC themselves admitted that the missing negatives were significant to the safety of the conviction, albeit in a roundabout way. A comment regarding this from the previously mentioned thread below;
Interesting to see that Peter Tatchell is getting more involved. His narration seemed lacklustre to me, given his experience in public speaking, but he is high profile so his apparent growing involvement in the campaign should give it a boost.
The mendacity of EP is exposed for anyone who cares to look. Full strips of negatives in 2001 turning into partial and sliced strips by 2012 along with explanations which contradict earlier claims. The CCRC acceptance of the the explanations offered by Mr. Eastbrook, on behalf of EP, show the CCRC as nothing more than gatekeepers.
The following gem from the CCRC cannot be left unremarked.
"As stated above, on the occasions when the negative strips have been cut short the subject matter (with the exception of the gun cupboard) is not of significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction"
The exact protocols used by the CCRC to discern that photographs they hadn't seen from negatives that no longer existed were of no evidential value is something we can only guess at. Even worse though is the admission shoved into brackets as if it doesn't matter.
The tacit admission that the negative strips of the gun cupboard were not only cut short but were of "significance to the issues which may affect the safety of the conviction".
So the CCRC are aware that strips have been cut some time between 2001 and 2012. They apply some mysterious test which shows that the missing negatives are not important, except for the ones that are, but dismiss the ones that are, even though they themselves concede that these missing negatives are of evidential value. No further reasoning is offered.
I am sure that it is all a huge coincidence that the negative strips containing pictures of the gun cupboard have been cut short. I imagine EP and those relatives involved in the "finding of the silencer" ::) must be disappointed that the pictures showing the gun cupboard were cut short. They would be able to prove once and for all that the silencer had been there all along and that it wasn't a fabrication by dishonest and greedy relatives with the connivance of dishonest officers. If only... ;D
The gun cupboard and its contents are clearly of the utmost importance in this case given the dubious and much disputed chain of custody of the contents of said cupboard. That the CCRC dismiss the fact of the missing negatives without explanation, despite recognising the "significance to the safety of the conviction", does nothing to inspire confidence in either their integrity or competence.
-
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson. But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.
I never knew you were the sarcastic type Roch.
-
I never knew you were the sarcastic type Roch.
Gringo, yourself and Bill have been top posters but on this issue, Caroline seemed able to persuade that there were more sets of images, thus allowing for JB to have attempted the sale. I remain open minded regarding the truth of this particular incident.
-
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson. But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.
Caroline also backed Carol Anne Lee even making it clear that they were in contact.
It is a FACT that Cal was putting untrue stories through the media to sensualise her book. There is also points in the recent documentary regarding the holiday in the south of France that are untrue.
-
No disrespect to Gringo - but Caroline is also a strong poster on this subject, as is Bill Robertson. But in all honesty, Caroline might edge it.
Your wrong and Caroline was wrong. Gringo showed what a liar Fielder was. Fact. Another point Colin was not known for his honesty in fact his marriage showed that . Jeremy being found guilty of the murders suited him for many reasons that were obvious
-
Just looking at those threads linked above, I have to say some of the anti-Bamber posters come across as hysterical and really quite barmy. It's frightening. There are reams of posts in which people are basically ranting and raving like psychotic lunatics.
I have never known a case that gets people worked up like this - with the exception of the McCann case, which I steer clear of mainly for that reason.
I wonder why anti-Bamber people who have no connection to the family are so emotional? I do appreciate that two little boys were killed and it's appalling, but getting yourself into such a state can't be healthy for you. It's almost like Jeremy Bamber runs these people's lives, yet they don't realise it.
Even if you were connected to the case, and it was somebody in your family who had been killed, it can't be healthy for you to allow it to take over your life like that. You have move on.
I really don't understand the mentality.
Spot on
Apparently Jeremy is definitely guilty and on a full life tariff yet these people spend 7 days a week on these forums insulting anyone that questions Jeremy’s guilt. This behaviour has made some really good posters leave the forum
-
Gringo, yourself and Bill have been top posters but on this issue, Caroline seemed able to persuade that there were more sets of images, thus allowing for JB to have attempted the sale. I remain open minded regarding the truth of this particular incident.
Persuade who?
-
Spot on
Apparently Jeremy is definitely guilty and on a full life tariff yet these people spend 7 days a week on these forums insulting anyone that questions Jeremy’s guilt. This behaviour has made some really good posters leave the forum
Yes, this is sad. I've been browsing some of the old threads, and there have been some excellent posters.
-
Your wrong and Caroline was wrong. Gringo showed what a liar Fielder was. Fact. Another point Colin was not known for his honesty in fact his marriage showed that . Jeremy being found guilty of the murders suited him for many reasons that were obvious
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.
What I am trying to express is that there has been a previous dialogue on here, regarding how many different sets of images existed and the locations of these different sets. Caroline counted more sets than the ones accounted for by defence based posters.
-
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.
What I am trying to express is that there has been a previous dialogue on here, regarding how many different sets of images existed and the locations of these different sets. Caroline counted more sets than the ones accounted for by defence based posters.
Are you talking about the naked pictures of Sheila? Are you implying that you agree with Caroline and believe Fielders version of events?
From what I have read Gringo has proved Fielder to be a pathological liar just like Mugford.
I don’t trust Colin because he originally believed Sheila committed suicide and he is another person making money out of this case. I doubt his conscience is clear over Sheila’s mental health issues.
-
Are you talking about the naked pictures of Sheila? Are you implying that you agree with Caroline and believe Fielders version of events?
From what I have read Gringo has proved Fielder to be a pathological liar just like Mugford.
I don’t trust Colin because he originally believed Sheila committed suicide and he is another person making money out of this case. I doubt his conscience is clear over Sheila’s mental health issues.
I'm not saying I belive Fielder per se. But the number separate batches of images has been contested. The defence based posters' arguments have all the batches accounted for and Caroline's argument had an extra batch, the existence of which, was then not contested by the defence based posters. So in essence, the argument was left up in the air.
-
I'm not saying I belive Fielder per se. But the number separate batches of images has been contested. The defence based posters' arguments have all the batches accounted for and Caroline's argument had an extra batch, the existence of which, was then not contested by the defence based posters. So in essence, the argument was left up in the air.
Where were these batches from and who had custody of them?
-
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.
I’m not an expert on this subject. As I find it rather trivial. But Colin has not mislead anyone. Colin cannot prove anything as he was not at the meeting. He only believes it because he read about it in the Sun.
If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.
I’m sure Gringo would correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
-
If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.
That does seem quite likely. Another possibility is that it was Brett Collins doing this on his own. The whole relationship between Jeremy and Brett is another under-explored area.
-
I’m not an expert on this subject. As I find it rather trivial. But Colin has not mislead anyone. Colin cannot prove anything as he was not at the meeting. He only believes it because he read about it in the Sun.
If I remember correctly, Gringos argument was that the meeting was setup under a totally different pretence. And it was Fielder who brought up the photos and asked about buying them. Then spun the story the other way round.
I’m sure Gringo would correct me if I’ve got this wrong.
Pretty well sums it up, David.
You are also correct that it is rather trivial. It is one of those aspects of the case that guilters often cited to demonstrate that JB was heartless and cold. For years the argument was that Fielder would not be prepared to perjure himself ergo the accusation against JB was believable and demonstrated his callousness and greed. Fielder's willingness to testify supposedly bolstered his accusation.
Once we established that not only was Fielder prepared to perjure himself but in fact had previous for doing so, the arguments changed. There is literally zero evidence to back up Fielder's claims. There are no photos and never were any photos. There are certainly not some extra batches unaccounted for.
-
Pretty well sums it up, David.
You are also correct that it is rather trivial. It is one of those aspects of the case that guilters often cited to demonstrate that JB was heartless and cold. For years the argument was that Fielder would not be prepared to perjure himself ergo the accusation against JB was believable and demonstrated his callousness and greed. Fielder's willingness to testify supposedly bolstered his accusation.
Once we established that not only was Fielder prepared to perjure himself but in fact had previous for doing so, the arguments changed. There is literally zero evidence to back up Fielder's claims. There are no photos and never were any photos. There are certainly not some extra batches unaccounted for.
Thank you Gringo
-
Where were these batches from and who had custody of them?
They might be differentiated, somewhere on this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html
-
They might be differentiated, somewhere on this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10127.0.html
I find it virtually impossible to make any sense of that thread as there's lots of bickering.
It's not a crucial issue, though I do wonder how much it affected Jeremy's trial. due to the influence of the story on public perception of the accused. The jury would surely have heard of the case and read The Sun's story or picked up its gist from elsewhere.
-
(http://)
I find it virtually impossible to make any sense of that thread as there's lots of bickering.
It's not a crucial issue, though I do wonder how much it affected Jeremy's trial. due to the influence of the story on public perception of the accused. The jury would surely have heard of the case and read The Sun's story or picked up its gist from elsewhere.
Exactly
-
(http://)
Exactly
By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo. His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.
-
By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo. His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.
I've found one of Bill's relevant posts on this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7958.msg377478.html#msg377478
But I cant find Caroline's response.
-
I've found one of Bill's relevant posts on this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7958.msg377478.html#msg377478
But I cant find Caroline's response.
If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral. The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.
-
If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral. The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.
Have you blocked pm's? If not, please check your pm's.
-
I don't think Colin would deliberately mislead regarding JB, however, it is certainly possible he could be mistaken or mislead by others or by recollected circs on certain issues.
What I am trying to express is that there has been a previous dialogue on here, regarding how many different sets of images existed and the locations of these different sets. Caroline counted more sets than the ones accounted for by defence based posters.
See what happens when you mention my name? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Have you blocked pm's? If not, please check your pm's.
Thanks.
-
http://
Have you blocked pm's? If not, please check your pm's.
Here we go with the pm’s
More trouble
-
If this whole thing really was a lie, then I'm not convinced this is peripheral. The coverage was prior to the trial and would have affected public perception of the accused.
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.
This was Mike Fielder's job. It's what he was paid to do; smear suspects/witnesses in a national newspaper prior to proceedings in order to influence opinion.
We have thus far found only three examples of Fielder's reporting. Two of those examples (Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) are entirely dishonest and made up wholly of lies and misinformation. It is not disputed that his reporting on these cases was dishonest or that he perjured himself in the case of Carmen Proetta during the libel trial. It is also beyond dispute that his lies happened to support the CPS/Police/official government position and smeared suspects/witnesses on their behalf.
Whether he held those views in good faith or merely did so for money is unknown and for yourself to decide. The smear jobs on the Proetta and Stagg were also, coincidentally or not, prior to judicial proceedings.
Nobody has found any example of a Fielder report that is undisputed fact. Which brings us to the third
known example of a Fielder story.
We are to believe that a hack whose only known reporting thus far has been smearing with sexual allegations and innuendo, one of those times leading to him committing perjury, is this time telling the truth with his sleazy allegations and innuendo. His admission that he saw no photos could be seen by those with a cynical disposition as convenient, giving him licence to not have to accurately describe any of the pictures. Funnily enough he didn't accurately describe any of the pictures and instead, the hack with a track record for writing wild and sleazy smears and innuendo, described some non existent photos involving sex toys that nobody claims existed ever.
It should be clear what Fielder was and his role. There is no mystery.
-
By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo. His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.
Thank you, Chevalier. For the removal of doubt they are his insights.
-
This was Mike Fielder's job. It's what he was paid to do; smear suspects/witnesses in a national newspaper prior to proceedings in order to influence opinion.
We have thus far found only three examples of Fielder's reporting. Two of those examples (Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) are entirely dishonest and made up wholly of lies and misinformation. It is not disputed that his reporting on these cases was dishonest or that he perjured himself in the case of Carmen Proetta during the libel trial. It is also beyond dispute that his lies happened to support the CPS/Police/official government position and smeared suspects/witnesses on their behalf.
Whether he held those views in good faith or merely did so for money is unknown and for yourself to decide. The smear jobs on the Proetta and Stagg were also, coincidentally or not, prior to judicial proceedings.
Nobody has found any example of a Fielder report that is undisputed fact. Which brings us to the third
known example of a Fielder story.
We are to believe that a hack whose only known reporting thus far has been smearing with sexual allegations and innuendo, one of those times leading to him committing perjury, is this time telling the truth with his sleazy allegations and innuendo. His admission that he saw no photos could be seen by those with a cynical disposition as convenient, giving him licence to not have to accurately describe any of the pictures. Funnily enough he didn't accurately describe any of the pictures and instead, the hack with a track record for writing wild and sleazy smears and innuendo, described some non existent photos involving sex toys that nobody claims existed ever.
It should be clear what Fielder was and his role. There is no mystery.
It would be interesting to ask Brett Collins.
-
(http://)
By the way, when I refer to bickering on that thread, I'm not insulting Gringo. His/Her insights and dissection on that thread are excellent.
Always
-
It would be interesting to ask Brett Collins.
One of the oft repeated arguments is a comment made by another reporter regarding this issue. This really is how piss weak the whole story is relying as it does on second and third hand innuendo.
From memory, Peter Gruder/Gruber who was an Express hack, I believe. He says that Jeremy never denied it when speaking to him. When you dig down further into this seeming refusal by JB to deny the allegation, it turns out that he wasn't asked/accused. Gruder? had put to JB that the Sun were leading with this accusation and JB had replied, "Interesting", or something like that.
So, not denying something that he was not being asked counts as evidence that he definitely did it. Fielder's tale was clearly a smear job on behalf of those that he usually did paid smear jobs for. I see no evidence that his role was anything but this and nobody has yet presented any examples of Fielder's writing which do not contain lies and sexual smears and innuendo.
It isn't even reasonably disputed that the tale told of the photos of Sheila by Fielder is demonstrably made up of lies invented by him.
-
I'm not saying I belive Fielder per se. But the number separate batches of images has been contested. The defence based posters' arguments have all the batches accounted for and Caroline's argument had an extra batch, the existence of which, was then not contested by the defence based posters. So in essence, the argument was left up in the air.
There are no batches of images unaccounted for and I am unsure how you have concluded this, Roch.
-
There are no batches of images unaccounted for and I am unsure how you have concluded this, Roch.
Why would "unaccounted for batches" make a difference anyway? No images were taken to or seen by Fielder. How does a so called unaccounted for batch affect this?
You have been misled by information, which even if correct(it isn't) would have zero relevance anyway.
-
One of the oft repeated arguments is a comment made by another reporter regarding this issue. This really is how piss weak the whole story is relying as it does on second and third hand innuendo.
From memory, Peter Gruder/Gruber who was an Express hack, I believe. He says that Jeremy never denied it when speaking to him. When you dig down further into this seeming refusal by JB to deny the allegation, it turns out that he wasn't asked/accused. Gruder? had put to JB that the Sun were leading with this accusation and JB had replied, "Interesting", or something like that.
So, not denying something that he was not being asked counts as evidence that he definitely did it. Fielder's tale was clearly a smear job on behalf of those that he usually did paid smear jobs for. I see no evidence that his role was anything but this and nobody has yet presented any examples of Fielder's writing which do not contain lies and sexual smears and innuendo.
It isn't even reasonably disputed that the tale told of the photos of Sheila by Fielder is demonstrably made up of lies invented by him.
I wonder who was behind this?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8624.msg411858.html#msg411858
-
I wonder who was behind this?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8624.msg411858.html#msg411858
Demonstrates the point about who these paid hacks are and their role. Thanks for the link. The story is laughable, as you say, but some people are clearly employed for just this reason. Smearing on behalf of some other authority.
-
Why would "unaccounted for batches" make a difference anyway? No images were taken to or seen by Fielder. How does a so called unaccounted for batch affect this?
You have been misled by information, which even if correct(it isn't) would have zero relevance anyway.
OK, the reason why accounting for batches was relevant in the previous forum discussion I am referring to, is because the argument centered around whether Bamber had access to any images in the first place.
According to Caroline, there were three sets discussed by Jeremy and Colin: the modelling pictures from her portfolio (which Bamber wanted to keep); the nude shots taken by Colin; and the more explicit shots taken by an Australian photographer in a friend's back garden. Apparently, it is the last set that Jeremy described to both Fielder and Colin as 'seeing everything down to the last detail'. The argument was that, if Fielder is lying, then so is Colin and at that point, Colin thought Bamber was innocent.
Bamber now denies that the shots exist but Sheila's friends confirmed they did and so did Colin.
-
OK, the reason why accounting for batches was relevant in the previous forum discussion I am referring to, is because the argument centered around whether Bamber had access to any images in the first place.
According to Caroline, there were three sets discussed by Jeremy and Colin: the modelling pictures from her portfolio (which Bamber wanted to keep); the nude shots taken by Colin; and the more explicit shots taken by an Australian photographer in a friend's back garden. Apparently, it is the last set that Jeremy described to both Fielder and Colin as 'seeing everything down to the last detail'. The argument was that, if Fielder is lying, then so is Colin and at that point, Colin thought Bamber was innocent.
Bamber now denies that the shots exist but Sheila's friends confirmed they did and so did Colin.
Ok Roch, Here is why it is clearly a non relevant point.
According to everybody there were three sets of slides(an important but overlooked point) not photos. The last set that you claim, as proxy, is "apparently" the set that "Jeremy described to both Fielder and Colin as seeing everything down to the last detail". Well, I have to say that, "apparently", is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Fielder's own words and descriptions of the photos(not slides) did not in any way resemble the slides that Jeremy had discussed with Colin. You can view Fielder talking about the photos that he never saw and his descriptions involve sex toys and other objects. Only Fielder has ever described these photos. They didn't exist and they are not the same set, apparently or otherwise, that Jeremy and Colin discussed. Which makes the photos that Fielder described a mere figment of his own seedy imagination.
Hence, unaccounted batches are irrelevant because Fielder described non existent rather than unaccounted for batches.
The most simple test is this, Roch, using the verified and not reasonably disagreed on points.
You either believe that
1) Jeremy gave Colin the first set of slides to dispose of. Remember that Colin was very much Sheila's ex. Jeremy described further more explicit sets, which Colin was unaware of, and agreed that Colin could arrange also to collect and dispose of.
Colin went away to Cornwall the day after this and did not contact Jeremy to arrange collection beforehand.
Whilst he was away, Brett Collins contacted the Sun hack Mike Fielder to arrange a meeting to sell explicit photos of Sheila which Bamber had helpfully informed Colin about, unnecessarily and stupidly if we are to believe stranger to the truth Fielder. Fielder arranged a meeting via Collins but he asked for no photos to be brought to this meeting set up specifically for this reason. Neither Collins or Bamber thought that it would be a good idea either, it seems, to take the photos that they wished to sell to the meeting set up by them for this specific purpose. This is made odder by Fielder's claim that they wanted cash and quickly.
At this photo free meeting Fielder claims that "they" described pictures so pornographic that they would be utterly unusable even in the Sun. The descriptions given by Fielder do not, even in the loosest sense, resemble the slides discussed by Colin and Jeremy.
It is beyond dispute that the press had been sensationalising the murders and the lives of the deceased, particularly Sheila, and had also been giving negative coverage to JB.
or
2) Collins set up the meeting according to Bamber for Jeremy to put his side of the story. He claims that Fielder just wanted to ask about nude pictures of Sheila and the next day led with his infamous article.
The lack of photos at the meeting does fit Jeremy's version of events but is incongruous with Fielders.
There is no real dispute that Fielder described entirely different photos. The ridiculous "show everything to the last detail" is one turn of phrase and it is not alleged to have been uttered directly by Bamber. The rest of Fielder's description of the photos in no way resembles the actual slides.
The slides/photos gives it away. Fielder never once speaks of slides only non existent photos. Were his story true, he would have been offered explicit slides.
Fielder is a liar.
Every article ever found written by Fielder is full of demonstrable and proven lies.
Even those who believe that this time his sleazy allegations against a suspect are true, despite his only known previous being sleazy allegations against suspects later proven to have been untrue and entirely invented by him have to acknowledge the demonstrable lies in this article.
It seems that some believe that Fielder told the truth for exactly nine words in his entire shabby career.
Oh! and Fielder is a liar.
-
Ok Roch, Here is why it is clearly a non relevant point.
According to everybody there were three sets of slides(an important but overlooked point) not photos. The last set that you claim, as proxy, is "apparently" the set that "Jeremy described to both Fielder and Colin as seeing everything down to the last detail". Well, I have to say that, "apparently", is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Fielder's own words and descriptions of the photos(not slides) did not in any way resemble the slides that Jeremy had discussed with Colin. You can view Fielder talking about the photos that he never saw and his descriptions involve sex toys and other objects. Only Fielder has ever described these photos. They didn't exist and they are not the same set, apparently or otherwise, that Jeremy and Colin discussed. Which makes the photos that Fielder described a mere figment of his own seedy imagination.
Hence, unaccounted batches are irrelevant because Fielder described non existent rather than unaccounted for batches.
The most simple test is this, Roch, using the verified and not reasonably disagreed on points.
You either believe that
1) Jeremy gave Colin the first set of slides to dispose of. Remember that Colin was very much Sheila's ex. Jeremy described further more explicit sets, which Colin was unaware of, and agreed that Colin could arrange also to collect and dispose of.
Colin went away to Cornwall the day after this and did not contact Jeremy to arrange collection beforehand.
Whilst he was away, Brett Collins contacted the Sun hack Mike Fielder to arrange a meeting to sell explicit photos of Sheila which Bamber had helpfully informed Colin about, unnecessarily and stupidly if we are to believe stranger to the truth Fielder. Fielder arranged a meeting via Collins but he asked for no photos to be brought to this meeting set up specifically for this reason. Neither Collins or Bamber thought that it would be a good idea either, it seems, to take the photos that they wished to sell to the meeting set up by them for this specific purpose. This is made odder by Fielder's claim that they wanted cash and quickly.
At this photo free meeting Fielder claims that "they" described pictures so pornographic that they would be utterly unusable even in the Sun. The descriptions given by Fielder do not, even in the loosest sense, resemble the slides discussed by Colin and Jeremy.
It is beyond dispute that the press had been sensationalising the murders and the lives of the deceased, particularly Sheila, and had also been giving negative coverage to JB.
or
2) Collins set up the meeting according to Bamber for Jeremy to put his side of the story. He claims that Fielder just wanted to ask about nude pictures of Sheila and the next day led with his infamous article.
The lack of photos at the meeting does fit Jeremy's version of events but is incongruous with Fielders.
There is no real dispute that Fielder described entirely different photos. The ridiculous "show everything to the last detail" is one turn of phrase and it is not alleged to have been uttered directly by Bamber. The rest of Fielder's description of the photos in no way resembles the actual slides.
The slides/photos gives it away. Fielder never once speaks of slides only non existent photos. Were his story true, he would have been offered explicit slides.
Fielder is a liar.
Every article ever found written by Fielder is full of demonstrable and proven lies.
Even those who believe that this time his sleazy allegations against a suspect are true, despite his only known previous being sleazy allegations against suspects later proven to have been untrue and entirely invented by him have to acknowledge the demonstrable lies in this article.
It seems that some believe that Fielder told the truth for exactly nine words in his entire shabby career.
Oh! and Fielder is a liar.
But you can change slides into photographs. Jeremy Bamber has never denied the meeting between Fielder and himself at the Nag's Head, Chelmsford. The remark "they show everything, right down to the last detail" was uttered by Jeremy to both Fielder and Colin. How do you explain this when Fielder and Colin never communicated with each other? Only Fielder has ever described these photos? Jeremy declared: "They are really good pictures of Bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw."
Are you suggesting that Colin is lying here?
-
But you can change slides into photographs. Jeremy Bamber has never denied the meeting between Fielder and himself at the Nag's Head, Chelmsford. The remark "they show everything, right down to the last detail" was uttered by Jeremy to both Fielder and Colin. How do you explain this when Fielder and Colin never communicated with each other? Only Fielder has ever described these photos? Jeremy declared: "They are really good pictures of Bambi-with the biggest vibrator you ever saw."
Are you suggesting that Colin is lying here?
The remark about showing everything down to the last detail has been covered many times before. Colin claimed in his statement that this was how Jeremy had described the slides to him. He did not say that these were the exact words used. Colin was not asked if the continued descriptions by Fielder were accurate. But that will be because we already know the answer to that.
Your second alleged quote of Jeremy's to Fielder, "They are really good pictures of Bambi with the biggest vibrator you ever saw". Colin nor anybody else has claimed to hear these words from Jeremy, except Fielder. It sounds oddly like the language a sensationalist tabloid "journalist" would use rather than Bamber. Nor has anyone other than Fielder claimed that these photos exist.
Those words are all you have and it is piss weak.
Nobody has offered reasonable explanations why no photos were at this meeting.
Why Fielder in his own words is so vague as to who offered the pictures.
Why did Bamber or Collins or both (Fielder is vague) describe pictures that they didn't have which would be unpublishable, given their pornographic description by Fielder, instead of the ones they did have. It makes no sense to offer pictures that don't exist(vibrators etc.) and couldn't be published even if they did.
Why would Jeremy offer to sell pornographic pictures of his sister to a newspaper that had been giving him negative press already.
Why would he give Colin the publishable slides and tell him about the others and arrange for Colin to collect them at a later time.
Are you not at all suspicious of the fact that the allegations are being made by a reporter whose only reporting we know of consists entirely of lies made up of sexual smears and innuendo against suspects/witnesses before major trials.
Have you not detected the pattern yet?
-
The remark about showing everything down to the last detail has been covered many times before. Colin claimed in his statement that this was how Jeremy had described the slides to him. He did not say that these were the exact words used. Colin was not asked if the continued descriptions by Fielder were accurate. But that will be because we already know the answer to that.
Your second alleged quote of Jeremy's to Fielder, "They are really good pictures of Bambi with the biggest vibrator you ever saw". Colin nor anybody else has claimed to hear these words from Jeremy, except Fielder. It sounds oddly like the language a sensationalist tabloid "journalist" would use rather than Bamber. Nor has anyone other than Fielder claimed that these photos exist.
Those words are all you have and it is piss weak.
Nobody has offered reasonable explanations why no photos were at this meeting.
Why Fielder in his own words is so vague as to who offered the pictures.
Why did Bamber or Collins or both (Fielder is vague) describe pictures that they didn't have which would be unpublishable, given their pornographic description by Fielder, instead of the ones they did have. It makes no sense to offer pictures that don't exist(vibrators etc.) and couldn't be published even if they did.
Why would Jeremy offer to sell pornographic pictures of his sister to a newspaper that had been giving him negative press already.
Why would he give Colin the publishable slides and tell him about the others and arrange for Colin to collect them at a later time.
Are you not at all suspicious of the fact that the allegations are being made by a reporter whose only reporting we know of consists entirely of lies made up of sexual smears and innuendo against suspects/witnesses before major trials.
Have you not detected the pattern yet?
Yes I'm afraid the pattern is all too typical for those familiar with the case. It's the same pattern which Jeremy used at the funeral when he told Colin what he would like to do to Julie sexually, it's the same pattern which existed in his relationship with Suzette and his brash, indiscreet behaviour at the London nightclubs which he frequented, and of course it's the same pattern with the desire for money at any cost, as evidenced by the Osea Road break-in, and of course the ultimate act of mass murder for substantial financial gain.
-
Ok Roch, Here is why it is clearly a non relevant point.
According to everybody there were three sets of slides(an important but overlooked point) not photos. The last set that you claim, as proxy, is "apparently" the set that "Jeremy described to both Fielder and Colin as seeing everything down to the last detail". Well, I have to say that, "apparently", is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Fielder's own words and descriptions of the photos(not slides) did not in any way resemble the slides that Jeremy had discussed with Colin. You can view Fielder talking about the photos that he never saw and his descriptions involve sex toys and other objects. Only Fielder has ever described these photos. They didn't exist and they are not the same set, apparently or otherwise, that Jeremy and Colin discussed. Which makes the photos that Fielder described a mere figment of his own seedy imagination.
Hence, unaccounted batches are irrelevant because Fielder described non existent rather than unaccounted for batches.
The most simple test is this, Roch, using the verified and not reasonably disagreed on points.
You either believe that
1) Jeremy gave Colin the first set of slides to dispose of. Remember that Colin was very much Sheila's ex. Jeremy described further more explicit sets, which Colin was unaware of, and agreed that Colin could arrange also to collect and dispose of.
Colin went away to Cornwall the day after this and did not contact Jeremy to arrange collection beforehand.
Whilst he was away, Brett Collins contacted the Sun hack Mike Fielder to arrange a meeting to sell explicit photos of Sheila which Bamber had helpfully informed Colin about, unnecessarily and stupidly if we are to believe stranger to the truth Fielder. Fielder arranged a meeting via Collins but he asked for no photos to be brought to this meeting set up specifically for this reason. Neither Collins or Bamber thought that it would be a good idea either, it seems, to take the photos that they wished to sell to the meeting set up by them for this specific purpose. This is made odder by Fielder's claim that they wanted cash and quickly.
At this photo free meeting Fielder claims that "they" described pictures so pornographic that they would be utterly unusable even in the Sun. The descriptions given by Fielder do not, even in the loosest sense, resemble the slides discussed by Colin and Jeremy.
It is beyond dispute that the press had been sensationalising the murders and the lives of the deceased, particularly Sheila, and had also been giving negative coverage to JB.
or
2) Collins set up the meeting according to Bamber for Jeremy to put his side of the story. He claims that Fielder just wanted to ask about nude pictures of Sheila and the next day led with his infamous article.
The lack of photos at the meeting does fit Jeremy's version of events but is incongruous with Fielders.
There is no real dispute that Fielder described entirely different photos. The ridiculous "show everything to the last detail" is one turn of phrase and it is not alleged to have been uttered directly by Bamber. The rest of Fielder's description of the photos in no way resembles the actual slides.
The slides/photos gives it away. Fielder never once speaks of slides only non existent photos. Were his story true, he would have been offered explicit slides.
Fielder is a liar.
Every article ever found written by Fielder is full of demonstrable and proven lies.
Even those who believe that this time his sleazy allegations against a suspect are true, despite his only known previous being sleazy allegations against suspects later proven to have been untrue and entirely invented by him have to acknowledge the demonstrable lies in this article.
It seems that some believe that Fielder told the truth for exactly nine words in his entire shabby career.
Oh! and Fielder is a liar.
Thank you Gringo, I know you have gone into detail about this before but there are always new people viewing the forum.
I think the main focus on any photos should be the missing negatives and the photos Julie Mugford got paid for as part of her NOTW deal
-
Yes I'm afraid the pattern is all too typical for those familiar with the case. It's the same pattern which Jeremy used at the funeral when he told Colin what he would like to do to Julie sexually, it's the same pattern which existed in his relationship with Suzette and his brash, indiscreet behaviour at the London nightclubs which he frequented, and of course it's the same pattern with the desire for money at any cost, as evidenced by the Osea Road break-in, and of course the ultimate act of mass murder for substantial financial gain.
-
Thank you Gringo, I know you have gone into detail about this before but there are always new people viewing the forum.
I think the main focus on any photos should be the missing negatives and the photos Julie Mugford got paid for as part of her NOTW deal
I think there should be much more focus on Colin’s brash indiscreet behaviour during his marriage to Sheila which probably must have contributed heavily to her mental health issues and her ultimate suicide.
Do you think Colin ever heard or knew the vows ‘in sickness and in health’
Colin was fully aware of Sheila vulnerability for a very long time
-
I think there should be much more focus on Colin’s brash indiscreet behaviour during his marriage to Sheila which probably must have contributed heavily to her mental health issues and her ultimate suicide.
Do you think Colin ever heard or knew the vows ‘in sickness and in health’
Colin was fully aware of Sheila vulnerability for a very long time
It's easy to condemn someone, and I take my precept from Matthew 7:1..judge not, lest ye be judged. If anyone is facing domestic abuse it's far better to remove oneself from the marital home if possible rather than let the animosity fester and escalate.
-
You are joking
How low can you sink
You are now trying to make excuses for Colin’s attitude and behaviour towards the mother of his children by hinting to readers on this forum that he suffered domestic abuse
If the silencer was not used in the murders and when the general public get to learn more about Julie Mugfords deal with the NOTW and it is agreed this is an unsafe conviction I hope Julie Mugford crawls back under that stone beer to show her face again
How dare you quote the bible and promote Julie at the same time
You have truly lost the plot
-
You are joking
How low can you sink
You are now trying to make excuses for Colin’s attitude and behaviour towards the mother of his children by hinting to readers on this forum that he suffered domestic abuse
If the silencer was not used in the murders and when the general public get to learn more about Julie Mugfords deal with the NOTW and it is agreed this is an unsafe conviction I hope Julie Mugford crawls back under that stone beer to show her face again
How dare you quote the bible and promote Julie at the same time
You have truly lost the plot
I'm not hinting that Colin suffered domestic abuse at all: I'm telling you. You're a complete ignoramus on this case, you have read very little if anything about it and rely on picking other people's brains who have half a brain at best. As for Julie, if I want to believe her statements and trial evidence I will do so.
-
I'm not hinting that Colin suffered domestic abuse at all: I'm telling you. You're a complete ignoramus on this case, you have read very little if anything about it and rely on picking other people's brains who have half a brain at best. As for Julie, if I want to believe her statements and trial evidence I will do so.
Thanks Steve. I always thought, of the two of us, I'm the one with beauty. You're the brains of the operation.
-
I'm not hinting that Colin suffered domestic abuse at all: I'm telling you. You're a complete ignoramus on this case, you have read very little if anything about it and rely on picking other people's brains who have half a brain at best. As for Julie, if I want to believe her statements and trial evidence I will do so.
You had better supply the proof of how the womanising creep suffered domestic abuse
-
What an absolute natural beauty like Sheila was even doing staying with Colin is a complete mystery
Just shows how low her self esteem was. No wonder she took her own life
Depression, two babies and a cheating husband
-
You had better supply the proof of how the womanising creep suffered domestic abuse
If you spent more time reading witness statements like any other serious studier of the case and less time corresponding with the likes of Jeremy Bamber and Mark Williams-Thomas you might get a better understanding of what this case is about.
-
If you spent more time reading witness statements like any other serious studier of the case and less time corresponding with the likes of Jeremy Bamber and Mark Williams-Thomas you might get a better understanding of what this case is about.
Answer the fucking question
-
Answer the fucking question
She threw pots and pans at him and destroyed his artwork. Not just physical but emotional abuse. For anyone caught up in this scenario one of the solutions is to remove oneself from the marital home.
-
She threw pots and pans at him and destroyed his artwork. Not just physical but emotional abuse. For anyone caught up in this scenario one of the solutions is to remove oneself from the marital home.
You absolutely disgust me!! It’s clear he is a not very good looking cheating and your blaming his infidelity on Sheila.
Can you get any lower.
That poor poor girl no wonder he made that statement to the police when he heard of her suicide
Just so we are clear in your mind Julie Mugford is a pillar of society and Sheila was a domestic abuser
How things would have been different if She had never met Colin
-
You absolutely disgust me!! It’s clear he is a not very good looking cheating and your blaming his infidelity on Sheila.
Can you get any lower.
That poor poor girl no wonder he made that statement to the police when he heard of her suicide
Just so we are clear in your mind Julie Mugford is a pillar of society and Sheila was a domestic abuser
How things would have been different if She had never met Colin
Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia? Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage? This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.
-
Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia? Isn't it true that she first saw a psychiatrist during or after the marriage? This probably needs a new thread, though, as with respect we are majorly going off on a tangent here.
There has been a lot of threads on this before but we could start a new thread as there has been a lot in the press this year on mental health and there are also new members
It appears Steve might have some sort of ‘connection with Colin’ as he seems to be giving the free light to any men to have affairs if there wife is suffering metal health problems
I personally had a friend who was in a top job spend Six months as an inpatient in a psychiatric hospital after having a baby
My friend recovered 100%
Sheila had twins and had mental health problems
The amount of information regarding post natal depression since the Bamber case has been huge and grows everyday
-
Here's something that been knocking about in my mind and I keep meaning to ask:
Was a video made of the crime scene? If there is such a video, was it exhibited at trial? If not, why?
I believe there may have been a video montage made of the crime scene photographs. Is that true?
On the photographs, were any photographs taken by anybody other than David Bird, the crime scene photographer? If so, have these been catalogued and disclosed?
Is there any evidence to suggest that any of David Bird's photographs have been held back?
Do we know what cameras David Bird used and what type of film and what procedures he followed for storage and production of the film?
Do we have David Bird's pocketbook?
Audio evidence - If the police lines were being recorded during the incident, then where is the audio? Has it been disclosed?
Now these are questions to keep you busy.
-
Now these are questions to keep you busy.
Thanks Adam. I'm relying on you to crack the case.
I'll just put my feet up.