Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: gringo on June 06, 2015, 11:18:PM
-
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.
-
oh yes i remember that it was totally made up i dident know it was filder who wrote it though.
-
oh yes i remember that it was totally made up i dident know it was filder who wrote it though.
Nor did I until I read up on it today nugs. Just google fielder tart of gib and you get a few links.
-
very good find.
-
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.
No, you fly in the face of reason - you ignore the FACT that it has been stated MANY times that in order to dismiss the Sun article, you have to suggest that Colin is a liar. I don't know what this is supposed to prove other than you have spent some time searching for dirt on Fielder. Jeremy tried to sell the pictures no matter how many stories you post about Fielder - he tried to sell the story because COLIN confirms it!
-
No, you fly in the face of reason - you ignore the FACT that it has been stated MANY times that in order to dismiss the Sun article, you have to suggest that Colin is a liar. I don't know what this is supposed to prove other than you have spend some time searching for dirt on Fielder. Jeremy tried to sell the pictures no matter how many stories you post about Fielder - he tried to sell the story because COLIN confirms it!
Colin is not in a position to confirm that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures because he wasn't there. No matter how much you shout, or how many times that you state that in order to dismiss the Sun article that you have to suggest that Colin is a liar does not make it fact, or FACT as you prefer.
It is established beyond doubt that the Sun and Fielder are liars and deliberate smearers of reputations on behalf of powerful interests. The Sun then publishes a barely credible story of a murder suspect attempting to sell some pictures of one of his victims to a reporter who is a proven liar. You believe it credible because the reporter, who is a proven liar, claims that Jeremy used some words that were the same as those used to Colin to describe the pictures.
The only things that are established are that a known to be dishonest reporter made some outlandish claims in a known to be dishonest newspaper. I think it wiser to treat those claims with scepticism whatever your view on Bamber's guilt.
-
No, you fly in the face of reason - you ignore the FACT that it has been stated MANY times that in order to dismiss the Sun article, you have to suggest that Colin is a liar. I don't know what this is supposed to prove other than you have spent some time searching for dirt on Fielder. Jeremy tried to sell the pictures no matter how many stories you post about Fielder - he tried to sell the story because COLIN confirms it!
I explained in the post that you quote that some guilty posters have claimed that there is no evidence that Fielder is a liar. This has been used to suggest that Fielder is an honest witness with no evidence of lying against him personally.
Self evidently this is supposed to prove, some would argue does prove, that Fielder is a proven liar and if you had read the post that you quote then you would realise this. I did clearly explain this at the start of the post.
-
I explained in the post that you quote that some guilty posters have claimed that there is no evidence that Fielder is a liar. This has been used to suggest that Fielder is an honest witness with no evidence of lying against him personally.
Self evidently this is supposed to prove, some would argue does prove, that Fielder is a proven liar and if you had read the post that you quote then you would realise this. I did clearly explain this at the start of the post.
He's a Sun reporter, no one said he was honest as the day is long. This doesn't prove he lied (in fact far from it) in Bamber's case. Bamber tried to sell th photographs and I even think you know it.
-
He's a Sun reporter, no one said he was honest as the day is long. This doesn't prove he lied (in fact far from it) in Bamber's case. Bamber tried to sell th photographs and I even think you know it.
You didn't previously accept that Fielder's honesty was in question.
Fielder and the Sun made the story up in all likelihood and even you know that the claims made by Fielder are unlikely to be true. Just face up to the fact that your source of information is a proven liar and smearer rather than an actual reporter.
His claims are worthless, I know it, you know it.
-
You didn't previously accept that Fielder's honesty was in question.
Fielder and the Sun made the story up in all likelihood and even you know that the claims made by Fielder are unlikely to be true. Just face up to the fact that your source of information is a proven liar and smearer rather than an actual reporter.
His claims are worthless, I know it, you know it.
BS - Jeremy tried to sell the pictures, Colin proves it and you can try to deny it as much as you like, you can peddle your smoke and mirrors but it will get you nowhere. The claims are true and you know it - this has got you worked up, just like the (bogus) call from Nevill to police ;D ;D ;D ;D - Your slip is showing!! ;)
-
You have just killed your family, whoohoo, thougt you got away with it, even said to the police you didn´t like your sister much.
Went on to party ( like Colin did - not an accusation, a normal reaction from a young bereaved persaon)
THEN went on to a newspaper trying to sell pornographic pictures of your dead sister.
It just did not happen because it is too crazy
-
You have just killed your family, whoohoo, thougt you got away with it, even said to the police you didn´t like your sister much.
Went on to party ( like Colin did - not an accusation, a normal reaction from a young bereaved persaon)
THEN went on to a newspaper trying to sell pornographic pictures of your dead sister.
It just did not happen because it is too crazy
It did happen, the story was printed and Colin backs it up. A case of 'read it and weep'!
-
None of the supporters can stand the fact that Jeremy tried selling pictures of his dead sister because it paints him as a complete shit! Refuting it simply accuses Colin of lying and why would he?
-
BS - Jeremy tried to sell the pictures, Colin proves it and you can try to deny it as much as you like, you can peddle your smoke and mirrors but it will get you nowhere. The claims are true and you know it - this has got you worked up, just like the (bogus) call from Nevill to police ;D ;D ;D ;D - Your slip is showing!! ;)
Colin's claim that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures of Sheila to him that Fielder attributed to Bamber proves nothing at all. If it were the case that this proved the story then Colin's statement of 11th September by the same logic would prove some sort of manipulation on the part of EP.
From his statement of 11th September:
"During the following Friday Jeremy and Julie came to stay at my address for the weekend, they left on the Sunday.
On the Friday night a discussion took place at my house between myself, Jeremy, Julie(Jeremy's girlfriend) and Janice Flowers(an ex girlfriend of mine).
We were trying to put together the facts of what had happened at the farm that night. As a result Jeremy told us that after he'd left during the conversation about fostering the children he'd gone home. He stated that he'd been woken up by the phone at about 3am by Mr. Bamber saying something like "Sheila's gone berserk with a gun"."
According to EP the "gone berserk with a gun" quote was never made by Jeremy or Neville but in fact was paraphrasing from one officer to another. How coincidental that Jeremy then uses the same words to Colin that West allegedly paraphrased to Bonnet.
Does that prove anything in your world or does it only apply when it suits your agenda?
-
It did happen, the story was printed and Colin backs it up. A case of 'read it and weep'!
If it was JUST The Sun, I would be sceptical. But Colin backs it up - I believe Colin over ANY supporter who's mantra is JEREMY GOOD. EVERYONE ELSE BAD. supporters deny it more than Bamber ever has. ;D
-
Colin's claim that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures of Sheila to him that Fielder attributed to Bamber proves nothing at all. If it were the case that this proved the story then Colin's statement of 11th September by the same logic would prove some sort of manipulation on the part of EP.
From his statement of 11th September:
"During the following Friday Jeremy and Julie came to stay at my address for the weekend, they left on the Sunday.
On the Friday night a discussion took place at my house between myself, Jeremy, Julie(Jeremy's girlfriend) and Janice Flowers(an ex girlfriend of mine).
We were trying to put together the facts of what had happened at the farm that night. As a result Jeremy told us that after he'd left during the conversation about fostering the children he'd gone home. He stated that he'd been woken up by the phone at about 3am by Mr. Bamber saying something like "Sheila's gone berserk with a gun"."
According to EP the "gone berserk with a gun" quote was never made by Jeremy or Neville but in fact was paraphrasing from one officer to another. How coincidental that Jeremy then uses the same words to Colin that West allegedly paraphrased to Bonnet.
Does that prove anything in your world or does it only apply when it suits your agenda?
It proves absolutely nothing whatsoever and the only one with an agenda here is you - which is why you often sift through my posts - I seem to be the only person who rattles your cage. You are clearly bothered by the arguments I make - I should be flattered but I also find it a bit weird. You try too hard gringo - Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and nothing will change that!
-
If it was JUST The Sun, I would be sceptical. But Colin backs it up - I believe Colin over ANY supporter who's mantra is JEREMY GOOD. EVERYONE ELSE BAD. supporters deny it more than Bamber ever has. ;D
Exactly Mat - gringo knows that Bamber tried to sell the pictures but he'd never admit it because it shows that he was capable of some pretty vile behaviour!
-
If it was JUST The Sun, I would be sceptical. But Colin backs it up - I believe Colin over ANY supporter who's mantra is JEREMY GOOD. EVERYONE ELSE BAD. supporters deny it more than Bamber ever has. ;D
Colin does not back it up Mat because he can't. He wasn't at the meeting with Fielder. He attributes the same words to Jeremy that Fielder does in his article. We have now established that Fielder is a proven liar. Previously you have claimed that Fielder cannot be tarred with the same brush as other low rent hacks because he hadn't been shown to be dishonest or a liar. That position is no longer tenable as Fielder is now known to be a sleazy lying hack.
It is much easier to believe that a known liar, and falsifier of evidence on behalf of the authorities, who works for a publication with a sorry catalogue of proven criminal collusion with police officers knowingly lied and falsified statements colluded with EP to smear their suspect. It's their MO. Read the first post and research it a bit more for yourself.
It is idiotic to believe that Bamber would attempt to sell nude/pornographic pictures to one of the papers that was already running negative stories on him.
He has claimed that the meeting was to put his side of the story because of the negative press he was receiving. It is just beyond belief that he would attempt to sell the pictures to a newspaper that was already trashing him.
-
It proves absolutely nothing whatsoever and the only one with an agenda here is you - which is why you often sift through my posts - I seem to be the only person who rattles your cage. You are clearly bothered by the arguments I make - I should be flattered but I also find it a bit weird. You try too hard gringo - Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and nothing will change that!
No sifting of any posts is required to know that your argument is that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and that this is proven by the fact that he allegedly used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. You repeat it parrot fashion every other post so no sifting required, Caroline.
So how does Jeremy allegedly using the same words to Colin and Fielder prove that he tried to sell porn pictures of his dead sister?, but Colin attributing the same words to Jeremy as the police had supposedly paraphrased on a log prove nothing? Why is one suspicious and not the other? How is it that you are not suspicious of a story by proven serial liars that has no corroboration despite your spurious claim that Colin can in any way prove this story. He can't, he wasn't there and the alleged coincidence of them being described in the same way doesn't prove a thing. It is desperate that all that is left of the argument now is one piece of, at best, circumstantial evidence.
I can assure you that you amuse me (albeit unintentionally) rather than rattle my cage. Your arguments, such as they are, consist largely of ad hom attacks and misrepresentations of others views rather than actual debate.
-
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.
What I see is that you and others who so desperately want to pretend Jeremy is innocent will do anything to try to pretend he would do nothing wrong.
Which is more likely- correctly guessing that Jeremy had nude pics of his sister and making up tha the wanted to sell them or Jeremy actually looking to try to sell them?
You want to talk logic well logic suggests someone would not simply make up out of the blue that someone has nude pics of his sister and offering to sell them.
But your posts are anything but logical and biased beyond all rationality so no real surprises here.
-
I appreciate supporters have to not believe Fielder. The story being true strongly highlights a guilty Jeremy.
But The Sun wrote a front page article. Fielder gave a witness statement and was prepared to testify. He also repeated his story on TV 20 years later. Not showing a flicker of hesitation.
The story is true.
-
The OS confirms the meeting happened.
It confirms nude pictures were discussed. Jeremy claimed he didn't have any. This was a lie as CC says. The Sun also published a front page article saying he tried to sell nude pictures to them.
-
The OS confirms the meeting happened.
It confirms nude pictures were discussed. Jeremy claimed he didn't have any. This was a lie as CC says. The Sun also published a front page article saying he tried to sell nude pictures to them.
Adam I agree with you and as I keep saying how did the Sun know about these pictures if they were not told so it had to be Jeremy or Colin and I know where my money would go.
-
No sifting of any posts is required to know that your argument is that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and that this is proven by the fact that he allegedly used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. You repeat it parrot fashion every other post so no sifting required, Caroline.
So how does Jeremy allegedly using the same words to Colin and Fielder prove that he tried to sell porn pictures of his dead sister?, but Colin attributing the same words to Jeremy as the police had supposedly paraphrased on a log prove nothing? Why is one suspicious and not the other? How is it that you are not suspicious of a story by proven serial liars that has no corroboration despite your spurious claim that Colin can in any way prove this story. He can't, he wasn't there and the alleged coincidence of them being described in the same way doesn't prove a thing. It is desperate that all that is left of the argument now is one piece of, at best, circumstantial evidence.
I can assure you that you amuse me (albeit unintentionally) rather than rattle my cage. Your arguments, such as they are, consist largely of ad hom attacks and misrepresentations of others views rather than actual debate.
I'm not just talking about this topic gringo, you regularly 'sift' though my posts and others have noticed too! However, what you have written has nothing to do with the Bamber case, it's a distraction "Look at this everyone, he was involved in this story so must be lying about Bamber". There is NO logic in that whatsoever because there are other people (INCLUDING JEREMY) who corroborate the event happened. You're wasting your time trying to deny it and you simply sound fanatical and desperate.
-
There was good reason why June didn't approve of CC,and for JM for that matter.Perhaps she could see right through the pair of them----------who turned out to be traitors.
BTW,I couldn't give a flying fig about any backlash because it's how I see it !!
-
Adam I agree with you and as I keep saying how did the Sun know about these pictures if they were not told so it had to be Jeremy or Colin and I know where my money would go.
Colin was obviously part of the BIG conspiracy Susan ::)
-
What I see is that you and others who so desperately want to pretend Jeremy is innocent will do anything to try to pretend he would do nothing wrong.
Which is more likely- correctly guessing that Jeremy had nude pics of his sister and making up tha the wanted to sell them or Jeremy actually looking to try to sell them?
You want to talk logic well logic suggests someone would not simply make up out of the blue that someone has nude pics of his sister and offering to sell them.
But your posts are anything but logical and biased beyond all rationality so no real surprises here.
Why do you assume that the Sun would have to guess about nude pics? The Sun would have found out about them. Read the first post, Fielder is a proven liar and fabricator of evidence. All you have to "prove" this story is the word of Fielder.
Colin had spoken to the police about the pictures so I don't think that Fielder "guessed" that there were some. The smearing of witnesses/suspects on behalf of the police was the MO of the Sun and it has been shown that Fielder was one of their attack dogs but you think it logical that on this occasion they are telling the truth, in the Sun.
-
I am sorry but everything fits.
Bamber had been spending a lot of money. He was putting it on the farm account. Which he couldn't keep doing.
The selling off of items to Sotherby's and the finalising of the will was a long way off. He needed more money to continue living the life he wanted.
It is also fact that he had been checking out his new London base. And would have come across photos of Sheila. As CC confirmed.
The OS confirms the meeting happened, Brett having contacts at The Sun. A front page story was then published.
Fielding was prepared to testify and repeated the story 20 years later.
-
What I see is that you and others who so desperately want to pretend Jeremy is innocent will do anything to try to pretend he would do nothing wrong.
Which is more likely- correctly guessing that Jeremy had nude pics of his sister and making up tha the wanted to sell them or Jeremy actually looking to try to sell them?
You want to talk logic well logic suggests someone would not simply make up out of the blue that someone has nude pics of his sister and offering to sell them.
But your posts are anything but logical and biased beyond all rationality so no real surprises here.
I cannot agree that anyone is 'desperate' to prove JB's innocence, unless they are in some way emotionally attached to him and I don't believe most supporters or people unsure one way or the other, are emotionally attached to him, have never met him and are never likely to. It is just difference of opinion imo.
There is nothing biased or illogical about disbelieving anything the Sun newspaper prints and with respect scipio you live in the USA and are not maybe quite as clued up about that rag, especially back in the 1980s.
I can see there is a valid argument from Colin's account in his book but you need to also accept there is a valid argument that the Sun lied, that's what they did, they lied for the police and for the government, small wonder people aren't happy to take anything they wrote as a truth.
-
Why would Fielding be prepared to testify ?
He had nothing to gain, and everything to lose. He would have also discredited The Sun newspaper, the paper he represented.
Perhaps he had taped the conversation, it has been known for reporters to do this.
-
Why would Fielding be prepared to testify ?
He had nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Perhaps he had taped the conversation.
Who knows but why did the Sun lie anyway and they did, they lied on their front page about other things, one being the grotesque distortion and lies about Hillsborough, you cannot deny that even though you choose to ignore it. You are entitled to your own opinion but surely you have a more valid argument than repeating the Sun wouldn't have lied. Whether they did or didn't lie they were certainly capable of doing so about anything no matter how cruel and vindictive it may have been..... Why? I don't know maybe because it sold more papers, sometimes to cover for the police..... whatever suited them.....
-
Seems that one reporter is putting everything on the line. For nothing.
Printing a front page story. Risking libel action from a soon to be rich man. Bamber could have gone after Fielding or The Sun newspaper. Or both. Whichever had the best returns.
Agreeing to testify knowing he would be cross examined. It could be his word against Bamber's. Unless Fielding had a tape recording. A 'not guilty' verdict would reflect badly on The Sun and Fielding. Bamber would no doubt sue upon acquittal.
Repeating the same lies, for Claire Powell's book and the documentary.
-
Seems that one reporter is putting everything on the line. For nothing.
Printing a front page story. Risking libel action from a soon to be rich man. Bamber could have gone after Fielding or The Sun newspaper. Or both. Whichever had the best returns.
Agreeing to testify knowing he would be cross examined. It could be his word against Bamber's. Unless Fielding had a tape recording. A 'not guilty' verdict would reflect badly on The Sun and Fielding. Bamber would no doubt sue upon acquittal.
Repeating the same lies, for Claire Powell's book and the documentary.
They still burn the Sun on Merseyside, that's their opinion of it......... please yourself. ::)
-
Fielders story had to go through The Sun editor and other people.
If they thought it was not true, or even if it was true but Bamber could discredit the story, or win a libel case, the story wouldn't have been published.
The Sun felt the story was watertight.
-
Fielders story had to go through The Sun editor and other people.
If they thought it was not true, or even if it was true but Bamber could discredit the story, or win a libel case, the story wouldn't have been published.
The Sun felt the story was watertight.
Other people's opinions are just white noise to you aren't they? :'( :'( :'(
-
Fielder's and The Sun's confidence in the what happened suggests they had a tape recording.
They published a story discrediting a man who had just lost his family. They wouldn't make up the story just to sell a few more copies. Not that it would. The hype had died down.
-
Water-tight my eye. It certainly wasn't water-tight when Kelvin Mackenzie was editor during the Hillsborough disaster.!
He who joined in the knees-up after JB was jailed. Crooks the lot of them.
-
Fielder's and The Sun's confidence in the what happened suggests they had a tape recording.
They published a story discrediting a man who had just lost his family. They wouldn't make up the story just to sell a few more copies. Not that it would. The hype had died down.
if they had im sure it would of surficed by now.
-
if they had im sure it would of surficed by now.
So am I nugs, Adam is just being Adam, I think. :'( :'(
-
if they had im sure it would of surficed by now.
It will surface if Jeremy sues. He hasn't.
-
It will surface if Jeremy sues. He hasn't.
Apart from anything else, JB can't sue even if he wanted to because he doesn't have the money.
Think you just put your fingers in your ears and hum when people disagree with you. ;D
-
Colin does not back it up Mat because he can't. He wasn't at the meeting with Fielder. He attributes the same words to Jeremy that Fielder does in his article. We have now established that Fielder is a proven liar. Previously you have claimed that Fielder cannot be tarred with the same brush as other low rent hacks because he hadn't been shown to be dishonest or a liar. That position is no longer tenable as Fielder is now known to be a sleazy lying hack.
It is much easier to believe that a known liar, and falsifier of evidence on behalf of the authorities, who works for a publication with a sorry catalogue of proven criminal collusion with police officers knowingly lied and falsified statements colluded with EP to smear their suspect. It's their MO. Read the first post and research it a bit more for yourself.
It is idiotic to believe that Bamber would attempt to sell nude/pornographic pictures to one of the papers that was already running negative stories on him.
He has claimed that the meeting was to put his side of the story because of the negative press he was receiving. It is just beyond belief that he would attempt to sell the pictures to a newspaper that was already trashing him.
welll hes been conclusivlyproved as a dinhonest liar funny none of the authers who tell this story see fit mention this fact.
-
The Sun is saying Brett Collins contacted them. Collins had contacts with The Sun.
It is true that Brett was hanging around Jeremy at the time. And attended the meeting with Fielder.
If The Sun or Brett establishes that Jeremy/Brett made the first contact, then that's it. There would be only one reason why Jeremy/Brett would make the first move and request a meeting. Who needs a tape recorder ?
Brett disappeared as quickly as he arrived after Jeremy got arrested. He wouldn't lie for Jeremy. What a pity he is not about, so many questions for him.
-
It will surface if Jeremy sues. He hasn't.
well if thse tapes existed they would of been major evedence and should of been heard by a jury as the appeal court touched on the subject of the photos they could of mentioned this to the cps at appeal but they dident they have had 30 to realse such tapes and stop the appeal in its tracks funny they havent.
-
Apart from anything else, JB can't sue even if he wanted to because he doesn't have the money.
Think you just put your fingers in your ears and hum when people disagree with you. ;D
He has money for expensive Arizona tests. Couldn't the lawyers who work for him, for free assist ?
Anyway, a bit late now.
-
well we could allways ask the sun if they have such tapes and if they do why they have missed out on such a good story by not publishing them.
-
He has money for expensive Arizona tests. Couldn't the lawyers who work for him, for free assist ?
Anyway, a bit late now.
No he doesn't have money Adam and you surely know this, others paid for the tests. Fact is even if he proved he didn't try to sell the photos it wouldn't make much difference to his sentence.
-
Water-tight my eye. It certainly wasn't water-tight when Kelvin Mackenzie was editor during the Hillsborough disaster.!
He who joined in the knees-up after JB was jailed. Crooks the lot of them.
Nothing to do with the Hillsborough disaster Lookout - I don't care how many times I have to say it. no one has to take The Sun's word for anything, but unless you want to call Colin a liar, you can't argue that he doesn't confirm the sale of the pictures!! It happened!!
-
Nothing to do with the Hillsborough disaster Lookout - I don't care how many times I have to say it. no one has to take The Sun's word for anything, but unless you want to call Colin a liar, you can't arge that he doesn't confirm the sale of the pictures!! It happened!!
Exactly.
It's the same faces - deny all - support Bamber. Doesn't make any difference though.
-
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.
Your words fit better here gringo!
Those who believe Bamber do so because they are obsessed and willing to believe anything if it helps their cause rather than based on an honest and objective appraisal of what is known.
Believing Bamber 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 - most won't want to. ;)
-
Exactly.
It's the same faces - deny all - support Bamber. Doesn't make any difference though.
What same faces? Just because someone questions things doesn't make them 'biased' 'in denial' or anything else. You tar anyone who has a different opinion than yourself with the same brush.
-
Exactly.
It's the same faces - deny all - support Bamber. Doesn't make any difference though.
Is that all you've got to offer ? No explanation ? It's the same faces in opposition,so what's different ?
-
I cannot agree that anyone is 'desperate' to prove JB's innocence, unless they are in some way emotionally attached to him and I don't believe most supporters or people unsure one way or the other, are emotionally attached to him, have never met him and are never likely to. It is just difference of opinion imo.
There is nothing biased or illogical about disbelieving anything the Sun newspaper prints and with respect scipio you live in the USA and are not maybe quite as clued up about that rag, especially back in the 1980s.
I can see there is a valid argument from Colin's account in his book but you need to also accept there is a valid argument that the Sun lied, that's what they did, they lied for the police and for the government, small wonder people aren't happy to take anything they wrote as a truth.
I see many people emotionally attached to their belief he is innocent. They base their position on the belief that a crazy person would commit murder not someone like Jeremy and ignore all the evidence which establishes his guilt. Out of desperation they attach the police and mention any wrongdoing done in other cases to try to pretend the police did wrong in this case though there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case only other cases. The same exact thing is being done with the Sun saying they posted false things in the past so they refuse to believe the Sun could be telling the truth though it is not credible that the Sun invented he had nude pics and tried to sell them. It is all part of the desire not to face they have been conned by Jeremy in their initial assessments of Jeremy's innocence.
I initially thought maybe Jeremy was innocent based on all the claims made by Bamber's campaign team but I didn't accept the claims as Gospel and decide he definitely was innocent. I researched to see if indeed he was thus I had no emotional attachment to him being innocent. All the spectacular claims fell apart on scrutiny from the claim Sheila was seen alive in the house while police were there, to the claim the gun was seen in the window to the claim the police moved Sheila's body, to the claim there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, to the claim they were having a conversation with people inside the house, to the claim SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were 3 different moderators, to the claim there is evidence Nevill phoned 999, to claims there is proof Sheila's blood was wet and her injuries were delivered not long from the time of the raid, to the claim Sheila's medicine ran out, to...
All the things cited that had potential of establishing Sheila really didn't do it all turned out to be lies and nonsense. The official site doesn't go through all the evidence against Jeremy and once one actually sees the evidence it becomes clear the campaign team doesn't attack any of it head on but rather tries to dance around it and hopes people won't be aware of it and will simply believe the smoke and mirrors.
Some Jeremy supporters are the ones actively engaging in the deceptions. Others simply were taken in by such and much like the women who appeared on the Dr Phil show who didn't want to admit they were taken in by Nigerian con-artists and still insisted the men were "real", we see a number of Jeremy supporters trying anything to try to avoid admitting they were taken in and now see that.
-
What same faces? Just because someone questions things doesn't make them 'biased' 'in denial' or anything else. You tar anyone who has a different opinion than yourself with the same brush.
No I don't. What are you questioning? Colin?
It has nothing to do with the paper. Colin backs the story up. Simply not believing the story because of the sun ignores what Colin wrote in his book, so it is biased.
I didn't mention anything about being in denial, but if the shoe fits, Maggie.
But supporters DO peddle myths, they post things that aren't true- because they are biased .
-
I see many people emotionally attached to their belief he is innocent. They base their position on the belief that a crazy person would commit murder not someone like Jeremy and ignore all the evidence which establishes his guilt. Out of desperation they attach the police and mention any wrongdoing done in other cases to try to pretend the police did wrong in this case though there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case only other cases. The same exact thing is being done with the Sun saying they posted false things in the past so they refuse to believe the Sun could be telling the truth though it is not credible that the Sun invented he had nude pics and tried to sell them. It is all part of the desire not to face they have been conned by Jeremy in their initial assessments of Jeremy's innocence.
I initially thought maybe Jeremy was innocent based on all the claims made by Bamber's campaign team but I didn't accept the claims as Gospel and decide he definitely was innocent. I researched to see if indeed he was thus I had no emotional attachment to him being innocent. All the spectacular claims fell apart on scrutiny from the claim Sheila was seen alive in the house while police were there, to the claim the gun was seen in the window to the claim the police moved Sheila's body, to the claim there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, to the claim they were having a conversation with people inside the house, to the claim SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were 3 different moderators, to the claim there is evidence Nevill phoned 999, to claims there is proof Sheila's blood was wet and her injuries were delivered not long from the time of the raid, to the claim Sheila's medicine ran out, to...
All the things cited that had potential of establishing Sheila really didn't do it all turned out to be lies and nonsense. The official site doesn't go through all the evidence against Jeremy and once one actually sees the evidence it becomes clear the campaign team doesn't attack any of it head on but rather tries to dance around it and hopes people won't be aware of it and will simply believe the smoke and mirrors.
Some Jeremy supporters are the ones actively engaging in the deceptions. Others simply were taken in by such and much like the women who appeared on the Dr Phil show who didn't want to admit they were taken in by Nigerian con-artists and still insisted the men were "real", we see a number of Jeremy supporters trying anything to try to avoid admitting they were taken in and now see that.
Great points.
-
Exactly.
It's the same faces - deny all - support Bamber. Doesn't make any difference though.
They cannot deny the meeting happened. Even the OS agreed it happened.
Supporters can just claim that it was a big entrapment Jeremy stupidly walked into.
-
What same faces? Just because someone questions things doesn't make them 'biased' 'in denial' or anything else. You tar anyone who has a different opinion than yourself with the same brush.
I think Mat is referring to those who WON'T admit that Colin's word is the important thing, not Fielder. Harping on about the sleaze of The Sun to mask the FACT that Colin said he KNEW it was true. You have already acknowledged that, as have a few others but in the main, it's ignored. People also feel that dropping the Hillsborough bomb gives their argument a firmer basis, but it doesn't. Feilder could be the biggest lying creep on the planet - but I don't believe that Colin is.
-
I see many people emotionally attached to their belief he is innocent. They base their position on the belief that a crazy person would commit murder not someone like Jeremy and ignore all the evidence which establishes his guilt. Out of desperation they attach the police and mention any wrongdoing done in other cases to try to pretend the police did wrong in this case though there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case only other cases. The same exact thing is being done with the Sun saying they posted false things in the past so they refuse to believe the Sun could be telling the truth though it is not credible that the Sun invented he had nude pics and tried to sell them. It is all part of the desire not to face they have been conned by Jeremy in their initial assessments of Jeremy's innocence.
I initially thought maybe Jeremy was innocent based on all the claims made by Bamber's campaign team but I didn't accept the claims as Gospel and decide he definitely was innocent. I researched to see if indeed he was thus I had no emotional attachment to him being innocent. All the spectacular claims fell apart on scrutiny from the claim Sheila was seen alive in the house while police were there, to the claim the gun was seen in the window to the claim the police moved Sheila's body, to the claim there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, to the claim they were having a conversation with people inside the house, to the claim SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were 3 different moderators, to the claim there is evidence Nevill phoned 999, to claims there is proof Sheila's blood was wet and her injuries were delivered not long from the time of the raid, to the claim Sheila's medicine ran out, to...
All the things cited that had potential of establishing Sheila really didn't do it all turned out to be lies and nonsense. The official site doesn't go through all the evidence against Jeremy and once one actually sees the evidence it becomes clear the campaign team doesn't attack any of it head on but rather tries to dance around it and hopes people won't be aware of it and will simply believe the smoke and mirrors.
Some Jeremy supporters are the ones actively engaging in the deceptions. Others simply were taken in by such and much like the women who appeared on the Dr Phil show who didn't want to admit they were taken in by Nigerian con-artists and still insisted the men were "real", we see a number of Jeremy supporters trying anything to try to avoid admitting they were taken in and now see that.
That is really insulting scipio.
You are entitled to your opinion and others are entitled to theirs, just because their opinions are different or they are not as convinced as you are does not make them naïve or stupid, thy are following a train of thought, maybe different than yours but that is not a sin.
-
I think Mat is referring to those who WON'T admit that Colin's word is the important thing, not Fielder. Harping on about the sleaze of The Sun to mask the FACT that Colin said he KNEW it was true. You have already acknowledged that, as have a few others but in the main, it's ignored. People also feel that dropping the Hillsborough bomb gives their argument a firmer basis, but it doesn't. Feilder could be the biggest lying creep on the planet - but I don't believe that Colin is.
Exactly, thanks Caroline I am glad you read it properly. It's constant diversion. Oh, the sun is a bad paper - what about Colin backing it up? - hillsborough! ::)
-
I think Mat is referring to those who WON'T admit that Colin's word is the important thing, not Fielder. Harping on about the sleaze of The Sun to mask the FACT that Colin said he KNEW it was true. You have already acknowledged that, as have a few others but in the main, it's ignored. People also feel that dropping the Hillsborough bomb gives their argument a firmer basis, but it doesn't. Feilder could be the biggest lying creep on the planet - but I don't believe that Colin is.
My argument about the Sun is mainly with Adam because he won't accept the Sun in the 1980s was corrupt and for that reason his arguments are flawed. I know I'm banging my head against a brick wall but somehow I can't seem to help it. :'( :'( :'(
-
I see many people emotionally attached to their belief he is innocent. They base their position on the belief that a crazy person would commit murder not someone like Jeremy and ignore all the evidence which establishes his guilt. Out of desperation they attach the police and mention any wrongdoing done in other cases to try to pretend the police did wrong in this case though there is no evidence of wrongdoing in this case only other cases. The same exact thing is being done with the Sun saying they posted false things in the past so they refuse to believe the Sun could be telling the truth though it is not credible that the Sun invented he had nude pics and tried to sell them. It is all part of the desire not to face they have been conned by Jeremy in their initial assessments of Jeremy's innocence.
I initially thought maybe Jeremy was innocent based on all the claims made by Bamber's campaign team but I didn't accept the claims as Gospel and decide he definitely was innocent. I researched to see if indeed he was thus I had no emotional attachment to him being innocent. All the spectacular claims fell apart on scrutiny from the claim Sheila was seen alive in the house while police were there, to the claim the gun was seen in the window to the claim the police moved Sheila's body, to the claim there were 2 bodies in the kitchen, to the claim they were having a conversation with people inside the house, to the claim SBJ/1, DB/1 and DRB/1 were 3 different moderators, to the claim there is evidence Nevill phoned 999, to claims there is proof Sheila's blood was wet and her injuries were delivered not long from the time of the raid, to the claim Sheila's medicine ran out, to...
All the things cited that had potential of establishing Sheila really didn't do it all turned out to be lies and nonsense. The official site doesn't go through all the evidence against Jeremy and once one actually sees the evidence it becomes clear the campaign team doesn't attack any of it head on but rather tries to dance around it and hopes people won't be aware of it and will simply believe the smoke and mirrors.
Some Jeremy supporters are the ones actively engaging in the deceptions. Others simply were taken in by such and much like the women who appeared on the Dr Phil show who didn't want to admit they were taken in by Nigerian con-artists and still insisted the men were "real", we see a number of Jeremy supporters trying anything to try to avoid admitting they were taken in and now see that.
I agree and most fall into the latter (me included for a while). I find those who belong to the former, quite disturbing!
-
Exactly, thanks Caroline I am glad you read it properly. It's constant diversion. Oh, the sun is a bad paper - what about Colin backing it up? - hillsborough! ::)
Are you inferring I didn't read it properly? I am as capable as anyone else of reading things and absorbing them.
-
Are you inferring I didn't read it properly? I am as capable as anyone else of reading things and absorbing them.
Well from how you reacted, I guessed you didn't!
-
Nothing to do with the Hillsborough disaster Lookout - I don't care how many times I have to say it. no one has to take The Sun's word for anything, but unless you want to call Colin a liar, you can't argue that he doesn't confirm the sale of the pictures!! It happened!!
who calling him a liar he wasnt at this meeting and never cliamed to be he allso never cliamed to have seen the pictures fielder was talking about.
-
I agree and most fall into the latter (me included for a while). I find those who belong to the former, quite disturbing!
I think Apes said it best, that she believed what was written because WHY would supporters/the official site lie.
who calling him a liar he wasnt at this meeting and never cliamed to be he allso never cliamed to have seen the pictures fielder was talking about.
He didn't need to be.
-
My argument about the Sun is mainly with Adam because he won't accept the Sun in the 1980s was corrupt and for that reason his arguments are flawed. I know I'm banging my head against a brick wall but somehow I can't seem to help it. :'( :'( :'(
I know The Sun has a sleazy reputation and I wouldn't have my chips wrapped in it and I agree with what you say above. However, not everything they have ever written is lies but as far as the Bamber story goes, I think it's pretty water tight. gringo said he didn't have to look very far to discredit Fielder but it's took him a month to find ONE example ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
the point is the reporter in qustion has been proven to have lied before and theres no dispute he did.
-
I know The Sun has a sleazy reputation and I wouldn't have my chips wrapped in it and I agree with what you say above. However, not everything they have ever written is lies but as far as the Bamber story goes, I think it's pretty water tight. gringo said he didn't have to look very far to discredit Fielder but it's took him a month to find ONE example ;D ;D ;D ;D
Took me 10 minutes actually. There are more ;)
-
who calling him a liar he wasnt at this meeting and never cliamed to be he allso never cliamed to have seen the pictures fielder was talking about.
Colin said that he KNEW the story was true because Jeremy had described the pictures using the SAME words as Fielder described. Did he drag that out of thin air? Did he imagine being told about the pictures? Two people told the same thing by the same person, two people able to corroborate the same words were used by such person in the description and that one NOW denying there were any pictures.
He's banged to rights because Colin Supports what Fielder wrote!!
-
the point is the reporter in qustion has been proven to have lied before and theres no dispute he did.
So has Bamber - but there is no proof Colin has!
-
Took me 10 minutes actually. There are more ;)
Yeah right! You can find 300 for all that matters, Colin corroborates his story so your finding are MOOOOOOOT!
-
I agree and most fall into the latter (me included for a while). I find those who belong to the former, quite disturbing!
I don't understand most people who actively set out to distort. I suppose some hate the police so much that they want to insist the police always lie and distort but it is hard to see what motivates others. TI suppose some like being part of an effort- but they could channel such into a real effort for someone where there is actual evidence of innocence, and some seek out attention- I am convinced that Mike is trying to garner attention with his claims of being so intimately involved including claiming to have seen bombshell photos. He uses such claims and claims of possessing evidence no one else does to attain minor celebrity status. Most of the campaign team are not identified anywhere so don't get notoriety so their exact angle is a mystery.
-
So has Bamber - but there is no proof Colin has!
dont you think the authours concerned should of mentioned this about fielder before using him as a source.
-
Colin said that he KNEW the story was true because Jeremy had described the pictures using the SAME words as Fielder described. Did he drag that out of thin air? Did he imagine being told about the pictures? Two people told the same thing by the same person, two people able to corroborate the same words were used by such person in the description and that one NOW denying there were any pictures.
He's banged to rights because Colin Supports what Fielder wrote!!
That is what makes it very hard to believe it was simply made up and coincidence that nude photos actually existed. This is not something natural to make up and if it had simply been made up from whole cloth then there would have been no evidence at all of such photos existing and no evidence of Jeremy being aware of them even if they did exist.
-
the point is the reporter in qustion has been proven to have lied before and theres no dispute he did.
Oh, by the way, something gringo forgot to mention in his vilification of Michael Fielder (and The Sun); The Sun was NOT the only newspaper to print the madame article about Carmen Proetta but they were the FIRST to admit libel and make payment. The other newspapers who ran similar stories were the Star, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail and Daily Mirror.
I suppose it suits the agenda to miss out such information - but it still doesn't dismiss the fact that Colin corroborated the Sun's story (pieces of eight! pieces of eight! ;) ).
-
That is what makes it very hard to believe it was simply made up and coincidence that nude photos actually existed. This is not something natural to make up and if it had simply been made up from whole cloth then there would have been no evidence at all of such photos existing and no evidence of Jeremy being aware of them even if they did exist.
And no stories about Jeremy and Brett 'giggling like a couple of schoolgirls' about them.
-
Oh, by the way, something gringo forgot to mention in his vilification of Michael Fielder (and The Sun); The Sun was NOT the only newspaper to print the madame article about Carmen Proetta but they were the FIRST to admit libel and make payment. The other newspapers who ran similar stories were the Star, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Sunday Mail and Daily Mirror.
I suppose it suits the agenda to miss out such information - but it still doesn't dismiss the fact that Colin corroborated the Sun's story (pieces of eight! pieces of eight! ;) ).
whats that got to do with anything it was feilder who made it up in the first place they just reprinted his lies.
-
It's believable that Jeremy would choose The Sun.
He's not going to contact The Times now, is he. Anyway Brett had contacts.
-
The problem supporters have is they can't just say 'ok, he tried to sell pictures of Sheila to The Sun. That doesn't make him guilty'.
They know it makes him look very very guilty.
-
Colin said that he KNEW the story was true because Jeremy had described the pictures using the SAME words as Fielder described. Did he drag that out of thin air? Did he imagine being told about the pictures? Two people told the same thing by the same person, two people able to corroborate the same words were used by such person in the description and that one NOW denying there were any pictures.
He's banged to rights because Colin Supports what Fielder wrote!!
We know that the allegation is that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. This proves nothing at all though. Colin himself uses the same words to describe the pictures that he took possession of from jeremy in his statement of 24th September: "I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail"
Collins, Mugford, EP... lots of people would have or could have found out about the existence of the photos. They were not the best kept secret were they?
The Sun and Fielder would not have had to rely on Bamber as the source for the existence of these photos and the description used by Fielder was also the same as Colin described them himself.
Fielder has previously been shown to have reported that an innocent witness to a shooting was an ex prostitute who ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies in order to discredit an inconvenient witness on behalf of the MOD and police. Or as Adam would put it "the editor will have made sure the story was watertight".
He has been shown to be a lying propagandist for vested interests but you cling to the belief that perhaps he did some proper reporting on his weekends off ::)
-
We know that the allegation is that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. This proves nothing at all though. Colin himself uses the same words to describe the pictures that he took possession of from jeremy in his statement of 24th September: "I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail"
Collins, Mugford, EP... lots of people would have or could have found out about the existence of the photos. They were not the best kept secret were they? The relatives were
The Sun and Fielder would not have had to rely on Bamber as the source for the existence of these photos and the description used by Fielder was also the same as Colin described them himself.
Fielder has previously been shown to have reported that an innocent witness to a shooting was an ex prostitute who ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies in order to discredit an inconvenient witness on behalf of the MOD and police. Or as Adam would put it "the editor will have made sure the story was watertight".
He has been shown to be a lying propagandist for vested interests but you cling to the belief that perhaps he did some proper reporting on his weekends off ::)
Do you not think what you've written here is propaganda?
-
Do you not think what you've written here is propaganda?
No
-
No
Then clearly you do not understand it's meaning.
-
No I don't. What are you questioning? Colin?
It has nothing to do with the paper. Colin backs the story up. Simply not believing the story because of the sun ignores what Colin wrote in his book, so it is biased.
I didn't mention anything about being in denial, but if the shoe fits, Maggie.
But supporters DO peddle myths, they post things that aren't true- because they are biased .
I have never said I don't believe Colin, I admit I am totally biased against the Sun with very good reason imo. My argument with Adam is not whether Colin is lying but the fact that Adam refuses to admit the Sun has lied and deceived and behaved appallingly badly on other occasions so it is a false argument he is making, and note I said HE is making.
As for me being in denial, why ever should I be? What difference does it make to me if JB is guilty? What does matter to me is that he may be innocent and if there is the slightest chance of that it is a cause for concern imo.
-
We know that the allegation is that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. This proves nothing at all though. Colin himself uses the same words to describe the pictures that he took possession of from jeremy in his statement of 24th September: "I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail"
Collins, Mugford, EP... lots of people would have or could have found out about the existence of the photos. They were not the best kept secret were they?
The Sun and Fielder would not have had to rely on Bamber as the source for the existence of these photos and the description used by Fielder was also the same as Colin described them himself.
Fielder has previously been shown to have reported that an innocent witness to a shooting was an ex prostitute who ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies in order to discredit an inconvenient witness on behalf of the MOD and police. Or as Adam would put it "the editor will have made sure the story was watertight".
He has been shown to be a lying propagandist for vested interests but you cling to the belief that perhaps he did some proper reporting on his weekends off ::)
colins statements probely the best thing to go on as he made that while the events were still fresh in his mind.
-
I have never said I don't believe Colin, I admit I am totally biased against the Sun with very good reason imo. My argument with Adam is not whether Colin is lying but the fact that Adam refuses to admit the Sun has lied and deceived and behaved appallingly badly on other occasions so it is a false argument he is making, and note I said HE is making.
As for me being in denial, why ever should I be? What difference does it make to me if JB is guilty? What does matter to me is that he may be innocent and if there is the slightest chance of that it is a cause for concern imo.
We are not arguing. You just keep mentioning Hillsborough.
The Sun have got it wrong before. So have other papers.
There have been corrupt police before.
Julie committed minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby. A year before the massacre.
Relatives have been scheming before where money is involved.
Does that mean any of them or all of lied in this case ? No.
-
no but it makes it a hell of a lot more likely.
-
We are not arguing. You just keep mentioning Hillsborough.
The Sun have got it wrong before. So have other papers.
There have been corrupt police before.
Julie committed minor cheque book fraud with Susan Battersby. A year before the massacre.
Relatives have been scheming before where money is involved.
Does that mean any of them or all of lied in this case ? No.
OK we aren't arguing, I have given up anyway as I am flogging a dead horse, you are never going to acknowledge my point.
-
no but it makes it a hell of a lot more likely.
There is no proof.
All supporters can do is claim the evidence is wrong and mention previous cases.
-
Colin's claim that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures of Sheila to him that Fielder attributed to Bamber proves nothing at all. If it were the case that this proved the story then Colin's statement of 11th September by the same logic would prove some sort of manipulation on the part of EP.
From his statement of 11th September:
"During the following Friday Jeremy and Julie came to stay at my address for the weekend, they left on the Sunday.
On the Friday night a discussion took place at my house between myself, Jeremy, Julie(Jeremy's girlfriend) and Janice Flowers(an ex girlfriend of mine).
We were trying to put together the facts of what had happened at the farm that night. As a result Jeremy told us that after he'd left during the conversation about fostering the children he'd gone home. He stated that he'd been woken up by the phone at about 3am by Mr. Bamber saying something like "Sheila's gone berserk with a gun"."
According to EP the "gone berserk with a gun" quote was never made by Jeremy or Neville but in fact was paraphrasing from one officer to another. How coincidental that Jeremy then uses the same words to Colin that West allegedly paraphrased to Bonnet.
Does that prove anything in your world or does it only apply when it suits your agenda?
Having not read Colin's book, I do find the fact that JB and JM stayed with Colin for the weekend and had a discussion about the events of the night his ex wife and children were murdered quite shocking considering that JM claimed later she knew Jeremy had murdered the two boys but was apparently happy to spend the whole weekend accompanied by Jeremy as a guest of Colin, sharing a bed with the murderer of his children....... this is hard to believe and inexcusable imo
-
Forgive us for not having our OWN views ::)
-
I don't understand most people who actively set out to distort. I suppose some hate the police so much that they want to insist the police always lie and distort but it is hard to see what motivates others. TI suppose some like being part of an effort- but they could channel such into a real effort for someone where there is actual evidence of innocence, and some seek out attention- I am convinced that Mike is trying to garner attention with his claims of being so intimately involved including claiming to have seen bombshell photos. He uses such claims and claims of possessing evidence no one else does to attain minor celebrity status. Most of the campaign team are not identified anywhere so don't get notoriety so their exact angle is a mystery.
[/color]
yes they are there is a link on the website - meet the campaign team - and all their fields of expertise is listed.
-
The Sun is saying Brett Collins contacted them. Collins had contacts with The Sun.
It is true that Brett was hanging around Jeremy at the time. And attended the meeting with Fielder.
If The Sun or Brett establishes that Jeremy/Brett made the first contact, then that's it. There would be only one reason why Jeremy/Brett would make the first move and request a meeting. Who needs a tape recorder ?
Brett disappeared as quickly as he arrived after Jeremy got arrested. He wouldn't lie for Jeremy. What a pity he is not about, so many questions for him.
I do wonder how Brett would have had contacts of any worth with the Sun, he was a New Zealander over in the UK on holiday..... how did that work?
-
I do wonder how Brett would have had contacts of any worth with the Sun, he was a New Zealander over in the UK on holiday..... how did that work?
Maggie I did wonder about that I have only read it on here from some posts in 2011. I am sure Adam has a sauce he usually does :)
-
Maggie I did wonder about that I have only read it on here from some posts in 2011. I am sure Adam has a sauce he usually does :)
Think Adam has plenty of sauce, suse. :D Have heard it on several occasions but not sure where it comes from.
-
There is no proof.
All supporters can do is claim the evidence is wrong and mention previous cases.
you dont need proof to prove a proven liar is a liar its already been proved once somone has been proved to have lied before the burden is on them to prove there telling the truth.
-
whats that got to do with anything it was feilder who made it up in the first place they just reprinted his lies.
Who said Fielder made it up?
-
I do wonder how Brett would have had contacts of any worth with the Sun, he was a New Zealander over in the UK on holiday..... how did that work?
because when Jeremy was arrested the first time, Brett spoke to Fielder.
-
you dont need proof to prove a proven liar is a liar its already been proved once somone has been proved to have lied before the burden is on them to prove there telling the truth.
Just like Jeremy Bamber.
-
Who said Fielder made it up?
Fielder wrote the "Tart of Gib" story which alleged that she was an ex prostitute, ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies invented by Fielder, it's not even in dispute.
-
Who said Fielder made it up?
have you had a read of the opening post in full.
-
because when Jeremy was arrested the first time, Brett spoke to Fielder.
Oh, OK thanks for that Caroline.
-
We know that the allegation is that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. This proves nothing at all though. Colin himself uses the same words to describe the pictures that he took possession of from jeremy in his statement of 24th September: "I think I would describe these slides as "soft pornography" as they were quite explicit in detail"
Collins, Mugford, EP... lots of people would have or could have found out about the existence of the photos. They were not the best kept secret were they?
The Sun and Fielder would not have had to rely on Bamber as the source for the existence of these photos and the description used by Fielder was also the same as Colin described them himself.
Fielder has previously been shown to have reported that an innocent witness to a shooting was an ex prostitute who ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies in order to discredit an inconvenient witness on behalf of the MOD and police. Or as Adam would put it "the editor will have made sure the story was watertight".
He has been shown to be a lying propagandist for vested interests but you cling to the belief that perhaps he did some proper reporting on his weekends off ::)
The only propagandist around here is YOU gringo. Some people here will fall for your little distraction, some already realise Jeremy tried to sell the pictures although they won't admit it and the rest of us will continue to dismiss your distraction from the facts as desperate. Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his dead sister - and nothing you say will change that!
-
Fielder wrote the "Tart of Gib" story which alleged that she was an ex prostitute, ran an escort agency and was married to a drug peddler. All of this was lies invented by Fielder, it's not even in dispute.
Oh I think it is, you said yourself that he was working on behalf of the authorities!!
-
have you had a read of the opening post in full.
I tried but it turned into 'blah, blah, blah' - I guess I can see through what gringo is trying to do and it just doesn't wash. Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister - FACT!
-
fielder made up rubbish about a totaly inncont witness to a shooting.
-
Do you not think what you've written here is propaganda?
It's complete propaganda and a distraction from the fact that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister. Even Bamber didn't dispute t at the time!! ;D ;D ;D
-
It's complete propaganda and a distraction from the fact that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister. Even Bamber didn't dispute t at the time!! ;D ;D ;D
No one new has been convinced the story isn't true by this thread though, the only people convinced the story is false are the ones who were already convinced and who would be convinced no matter what.
The Suns reputation was well known before this topic, which is why those that believe the story of Bamber selling the photos is true have always said it wasn't THE SUN that convinced them the story had merit.
-
It's complete propaganda and a distraction from the fact that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister. Even Bamber didn't dispute t at the time!! ;D ;D ;D
when exactly was the piece written and you are saying that Jeremy did not deny any of it at the time - Or he said he did approach the paper to sell the photos but the rest was lies?
-
when exactly was the piece written and you are saying that Jeremy did not deny any of it at the time - Or he said he did approach the paper to sell the photos but the rest was lies?
It appeared in the Sun on 17th September 1985 - Jeremy didn't (at the time) dispute the allegations and neither did BC. The OS doesn't deny the meeting took place BUT now Jeremy is denying that Fielder instigated it and that he (Fielder) mentioned porno pictures; asking Jeremy if he had any? Now what kind of coincidence is that? He just mentions to Colin that he found such pictures and then a Sun journalist asks him if he has any? Fielder must be a mind reader! Of curse now Jeremy is saying that no such pictures existed and this might be believable had he not told Colin that they did!
-
fielder made up rubbish about a totaly inncont witness to a shooting.
Bamber made up total rubbish about his innocent dead sister and after shooting her and her two young boys, he then tried to further ruin her reputation by selling private porno pictures of her. Even a scum bag of a Sun reporter was disgusted and outed him. Good thing we have Colin to corroborate the story. which allows for rational thinking for those looking for the truth!
-
Bamber made up total rubbish about his innocent dead sister and after shooting her and her two young boys, he then tried to further ruin her reputation by selling private porno pictures of her. Even a scum bag of a Sun reporter was disgusted and outed him. Good thing we have Colin to corroborate the story. which allows for rational thinking for those looking for the truth!
How did Colin keep his sanity through the emotional rollercoaster of those first weeks,then learning the shocking truth as a black desolation encompassed his very being. It was at this time that he shrank back from the feelings of self-destruction by ingesting pills or throwing himself off Lizard Point as he resolved to live,and at the appropriate juncture lie down beside his boys at Highgate Cemetary where his heart to this day lies..
-
..Jeremy had destroyed his family,but he would not be responsible for destroying him,as Colin resolved once again to create life and attempt to resurrect what was left of that terrible emptiness and in this way scorn Jeremy's legacy.
-
Bamber made up total rubbish about his innocent dead sister and after shooting her and her two young boys, he then tried to further ruin her reputation by selling private porno pictures of her. Even a scum bag of a Sun reporter was disgusted and outed him. Good thing we have Colin to corroborate the story. which allows for rational thinking for those looking for the truth!
i find it hard to belive a man who makes up lies about a woman who is a witness to a shooting would be disgusted by anything.
-
How did Colin keep his sanity through the emotional rollercoaster of those first weeks,then learning the shocking truth as a black desolation encompassed his very being. It was at this time that he shrank back from the feelings of self-destruction by ingesting pills or throwing himself off Lizard Point as he resolved to live,and at the appropriate juncture lie down beside his boys at Highgate Cemetary where his heart to this day lies..
I guess he didn't want Jeremy to cause any more destruction. It's testament to Colin that he has been able to forgive. I know I wouldn't!
-
i find it hard to belive a man who makes up lies about a woman who is a witness to a shooting would be disgusted by anything.
And yet ........ ;)
-
when exactly was the piece written and you are saying that Jeremy did not deny any of it at the time - Or he said he did approach the paper to sell the photos but the rest was lies?
The piece was written or at least published on the 17th September 1985, Jan.
Jeremy has said that he approached the paper to put his side of the story. This was because of the negative press that he was getting. It is unlikely in the extreme that he would attempt to sell pornographic pictures of his dead sister when the press and the Sun were already printing smear stories about him.
How convenient for Fielder and the Sun that Jeremy offered them porno pictures and how stupid would Jeremy have to be to imagine that reporters who had been smearing him would stop smearing him and instead buy some nude pictures of his dead sister off him.
It has no credibility or believability as a story and is almost certainly untrue.
-
I guess he didn't want Jeremy to cause any more destruction. It's testament to Colin that he has been able to forgive. I know I wouldn't!
Being the cynic that I am,CC's " forgiveness " will be for Sheila,not Jeremy.
-
The piece was written or at least published on the 17th September 1985, Jan.
Jeremy has said that he approached the paper to put his side of the story. This was because of the negative press that he was getting. It is unlikely in the extreme that he would attempt to sell pornographic pictures of his dead sister when the press and the Sun were already printing smear stories about him.
How convenient for Fielder and the Sun that Jeremy offered them porno pictures and how stupid would Jeremy have to be to imagine that reporters who had been smearing him would stop smearing him and instead buy some nude pictures of his dead sister off him.
It has no credibility or believability as a story and is almost certainly untrue.
when did colin make his statement about the pictures to the police.
-
The piece was written or at least published on the 17th September 1985, Jan.
Jeremy has said that he approached the paper to put his side of the story. This was because of the negative press that he was getting. It is unlikely in the extreme that he would attempt to sell pornographic pictures of his dead sister when the press and the Sun were already printing smear stories about him.
How convenient for Fielder and the Sun that Jeremy offered them porno pictures and how stupid would Jeremy have to be to imagine that reporters who had been smearing him would stop smearing him and instead buy some nude pictures of his dead sister off him.
It has no credibility or believability as a story and is almost certainly untrue.
Jeremy said he approached The Sun ? I thought the OS is saying The Sun approached him.
If Jeremy is saying he approached The Sun. Then you know why. Moneeeey.
-
The piece was written or at least published on the 17th September 1985, Jan.
Jeremy has said that he approached the paper to put his side of the story. This was because of the negative press that he was getting. It is unlikely in the extreme that he would attempt to sell pornographic pictures of his dead sister when the press and the Sun were already printing smear stories about him.
How convenient for Fielder and the Sun that Jeremy offered them porno pictures and how stupid would Jeremy have to be to imagine that reporters who had been smearing him would stop smearing him and instead buy some nude pictures of his dead sister off him.
It has no credibility or believability as a story and is almost certainly untrue.
Jeremy has said eh? ;D ::)
And yet just prior to the story appearing in the Sun, he had mentioned the pictures to Colin so not really convenient at all! It is NOT unlikely in the extreme, it is clearly true, that's just you desperately trying to get the faithful on-board.
What smear stories were printed about Jeremy? Where are these headlines because the only story I have heard of is the one about when he tried to sell porno pics of his dead sister - a story made all the more credible because Colin backs it up. You have zero chance of discrediting it!
-
Jeremy has said eh? ;D ::)
And yet just prior to the story appearing in the Sun, he had mentioned the pictures to Colin so not really convenient at all! It is NOT unlikely in the extreme, it is clearly true, that's just you desperately trying to get the faithful on-board.
What smear stories were printed about Jeremy? Where are these headlines because the only story I have heard of is the one about when he tried to sell porno pics of his dead sister - a story made all the more credible because Colin backs it up. You have zero chance of discrediting it!
Caroline I don't know anything about the press and Jeremy but just reading Colin's book (again) and he states Sheila was the one getting the bad press after the murders and it continued even after Jeremy was arrested
-
Caroline I don't know anything about the press and Jeremy but just reading Colin's book (again) and he states Sheila was the one getting the bad press after the murders and it continued even after Jeremy was arrested
When it was first reported, all it said about Jeremy was that 'the brother received a call from his father'.
The story died a death straight afterwards. The press looking for the next story.
The relatives had gone to the police but not the press. The police had in unison said to the media it was murder/suicide.
-
Jeremy has said eh? ;D ::)
And yet just prior to the story appearing in the Sun, he had mentioned the pictures to Colin so not really convenient at all! It is NOT unlikely in the extreme, it is clearly true, that's just you desperately trying to get the faithful on-board.
What smear stories were printed about Jeremy? Where are these headlines because the only story I have heard of is the one about when he tried to sell porno pics of his dead sister - a story made all the more credible because Colin backs it up. You have zero chance of discrediting it!
im sure gringo will enlighten us soon.
-
im sure gringo will enlighten us soon.
On what? How to use smoke and mirrors to deflect from any factual negativity towards Bamber? He might enlighten you if you're will to buy into his propaganda and conspiracy theories but I live in the real world and can see that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to the Sun.
-
After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist.
The OS does say 'newspapers approached him'. Although I am not aware of any.
Gringo is saying Jeremy approached The Sun. If he has a good source, then that's it. There is no more debate as no one would believe Bamber would approach The Sun for decent reasons.
-
On what? How to use smoke and mirrors to deflect from any factual negativity towards Bamber? He might enlighten you if you're will to buy into his propaganda and conspiracy theories but I live in the real world and can see that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to the Sun.
gringo found the fielder stuff that was somthing we had all missed somthing that i certanly missed.
-
gringo found the fielder stuff that was somthing we had all missed somthing that i certanly missed.
He'd been searching for weeks to look for something to discredit the story - I find that odd because it doesn't discredit the story at all, gringo just pretends it does to deflect from the fact that the story stands up because of Colin.
-
He'd been searching for weeks to look for something to discredit the story - I find that odd because it doesn't discredit the story at all, gringo just pretends it does to deflect from the fact that the story stands up because of Colin.
`How can you possibly know how long I had been searching?
It took me minutes and it massively discredits the story. Colin is not in a position to confirm the story one way or the other.
-
`How can you possibly know how long I had been searching?
It took me minutes and it massively discredits the story. Colin is not in a position to confirm the story one way or the other.
Because I know ;D ;D ;D. You have been trying to discredit the porn story for weeks and this is the best you can come up with? Colin isn't in a position to confirm the story either way? And yet YOU, who has found an unrelated story thinks they are in a position to refute it. Get real! Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister, it's confirmed by Colin because the same pictures were described to him in the same way. As soon as he read the story he KNEW it was true. Nice try but you're not even in the small cheroot category!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He'd been searching for weeks to look for something to discredit the story - I find that odd because it doesn't discredit the story at all, gringo just pretends it does to deflect from the fact that the story stands up because of Colin.
how would how would you know. long hes been searching.
still somthing everybody else overlooked for years including me
-
how would how long hes been searching.
still somthing everybody else overlooked for years including me
It's an educated guess given his obsession with trying to crush all negative opinions about Bamber.
It wasn't overlooked, it has nothing to do with the fact that Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to the Sun.
-
No sifting of any posts is required to know that your argument is that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures and that this is proven by the fact that he allegedly used the same words to describe the pictures to Fielder as he had to Colin. You repeat it parrot fashion every other post so no sifting required, Caroline.
So how does Jeremy allegedly using the same words to Colin and Fielder prove that he tried to sell porn pictures of his dead sister?, but Colin attributing the same words to Jeremy as the police had supposedly paraphrased on a log prove nothing? Why is one suspicious and not the other? How is it that you are not suspicious of a story by proven serial liars that has no corroboration despite your spurious claim that Colin can in any way prove this story. He can't, he wasn't there and the alleged coincidence of them being described in the same way doesn't prove a thing. It is desperate that all that is left of the argument now is one piece of, at best, circumstantial evidence.
I can assure you that you amuse me (albeit unintentionally) rather than rattle my cage. Your arguments, such as they are, consist largely of ad hom attacks and misrepresentations of others views rather than actual debate.
Totally agree Gringo.
To be fair I do think that both Collins and Jeremy did try to sell some pics, but porno and sex aids are added on by Fielder in order to make a story that will sell newspapers...
Anyone in their right mind would not go to the press with such indecent photo's with the expectation that they would be published. Its just not cricket. ;D
-
I don't buy it either.
-
Totally agree Gringo.
To be fair I do think that both Collins and Jeremy did try to sell some pics, but porno and sex aids are added on by Fielder in order to make a story that will sell newspapers...
Anyone in their right mind would not go to the press with such indecent photo's with the expectation that they would be published. Its just not cricket. ;D
I wouldn't describe Jeremy as being in 'his right mind'. Colin confirms that Jeremy described the pictures as pornographic - it doesn't just come from Fielder. Selling the pictures is the whole point - what kind of a person would do such a thing?
-
I don't buy it either.
That went without saying Lookout! ;D ;D ;D
-
That went without saying Lookout! ;D ;D ;D
Glad we've got that straight. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I wouldn't describe Jeremy as being in 'his right mind'. Colin confirms that Jeremy described the pictures as pornographic - it doesn't just come from Fielder. Selling the pictures is the whole point - what kind of a person would do such a thing?
I can't see how you know what frame of mind anyone was in, whether it be Jeremy, Collins or Fielder. You/we was not there so how can we identify what their minds were like 30 years ago. :-\
I do not dispute the attempted sale of photographs of Sheila. I dispute they were with sex aids. Colin C. never mentioned sex aids the only person that mentions them is Fielder himself. A topless photo was deemed to be pornographic back then or eve a nude one. Surely neither Brett nor Jeremy would think they would publish ones that had sex aids being used...Nope, I don't believe it Caroline. I go so far as to say Fielder made it up to gain notoriety as a reporter, just as he did with the killings in Gibraltar. This type of reporting is where conspiracy theories are made up....IMO of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's what the police did Patti.What they didn't know they made up. It wasn't only them though.
-
That's what the police did Patti.What they didn't know they made up. It wasn't only them though.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Sorry...sorry.
:-[ ;D
-
Wind ??
-
I can't see how you know what frame of mind anyone was in, whether it be Jeremy, Collins or Fielder. You/we was not there so how can we identify what their minds were like 30 years ago. :-\
I do not dispute the attempted sale of photographs of Sheila. I dispute they were with sex aids. Colin C. never mentioned sex aids the only person that mentions them is Fielder himself. A topless photo was deemed to be pornographic back then or eve a nude one. Surely neither Brett nor Jeremy would think they would publish ones that had sex aids being used...Nope, I don't believe it Caroline. I go so far as to say Fielder made it up to gain notoriety as a reporter, just as he did with the killings in Gibraltar. This type of reporting is where conspiracy theories are made up....IMO of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Anyone who can kill 5 people isn't in their right mind! I don't think the sex aids is really the issue, the issue is Jeremy trying to peddle pictures of his dead sister to the press weeks after her death for cash to go off to St. Tropez. Fielder is a side issue, it's the intent that Jeremy had to sell the pictures in the first place that shows his character.
-
That's what the police did Patti.What they didn't know they made up. It wasn't only them though.
Everyone is lying except Jeremy! ::)
-
Everyone is lying except Jeremy! ::)
It would seem so,yes.
-
It would seem so,yes.
::)
-
It would seem so,yes.
Do you not realise how improbable that is?
-
Anyone who can kill 5 people isn't in their right mind! I don't think the sex aids is really the issue, the issue is Jeremy trying to peddle pictures of his dead sister to the press weeks after her death for cash to go off to St. Tropez. Fielder is a side issue, it's the intent that Jeremy had to sell the pictures in the first place that shows his character.
Yes of course it is wrong to sell pictures of your dead sister. I totally agree, but like I say the sex aids bit just adds to the story by Fielder...which in my opinion is far fetched and not true. There is always some element of truth in what they print, its picking out the true bits from the fantasy bits thats the problem...most people believe the fantasy bit.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes of course it is wrong to sell pictures of your dead sister. I totally agree, but like I say the sex aids bit just adds to the story by Fielder...which in my opinion is far fetched and not true. There is always some element of truth in what they print, its picking out the true bits from the fantasy bits thats the problem...most people believe the fantasy bit.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
it's totally reprehensible and shows a VERY dark side to his character.
-
Yes of course it is wrong to sell pictures of your dead sister. I totally agree, but like I say the sex aids bit just adds to the story by Fielder...which in my opinion is far fetched and not true. There is always some element of truth in what they print, its picking out the true bits from the fantasy bits thats the problem...most people believe the fantasy bit.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
its also wrong about witnesses to shootings being brothel madams.
i have had a google of fielder as well hes got form in murder cases he wrote a book called death on the comon in wich he vilifys colin stag who we now know was totally innocent of the crime.
-
its also wrong about witnesses to shootings being brothel madams.
i have had a google of fielder as well hes got form in murder cases he wrote a book called death on the comon in wich he vilifys colin stag who we now know was totally innocent of the crime.
It's not even close to trying to sell porno pics of your dead sister - some people have a strange view of right and wrong!
-
how would how long hes been searching.
still somthing everybody else overlooked for years including me
The source being a liar apparently counts for nothing anyway nugs. Even though previously we have been told that Fielder could not be discredited just because he wrote for the Sun. He hadn't personally been shown to lie so we couldn't tar him with the same brush. Now he is a known and proven liar on a grand scale, not some little white lie, it still doesn't discredit the story, or so some would have us believe.
Colin, for reasons too obvious to state, cannot confirm the story. The supposed use of the same words is not even close to proof that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures.
Colin himself described them this way. How many ways are there to describe sexually explicit pictures?
Colin knew of the pictures from the 7th September because Jeremy told him of their existence.
Colin definitely knew of the existence of photos prior to this because he took them in the fields of WHF when Sheila was a naive 17 year old and he was 23.
Colin took possession of one set of slides from Jeremy on 7th September and arranged to collect the others at a later unarranged date.
On the 9th September David Boutflour phoned Colin and told him that all of the family had been making statements to the police and that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He also told Colin to prepare for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday 10th September.
We are led to believe that Colin suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell the pictures but Colin's actions from the 7th onwards do not support this. After being informed of their existence Colin arranged with Jeremy to collect them at a later date. Despite supposedly being worried that Jeremy would attempt to sell them, Colin did nothing to arrange collecting them from Jeremy. He then went away for a break on the 13th September. Prior to all of this he had been on holiday and had left the cleaning of Sheila's flat to Jeremy, visiting for the first time on the 7th.
Finally Colin wrote to Jeremy, whilst on holiday on the 17th September, asking to collect the photos and saw the headline in the Sun after posting the letter.
It is pretty clear with all the contact going on between the relatives, Mugford, the press, EP and Colin that the knowledge of the slides was not some closely guarded secret and it would be more surprising if the Sun were unaware of the existence of nude photos.
-
The source being a liar apparently counts for nothing anyway nugs. Even though previously we have been told that Fielder could not be discredited just because he wrote for the Sun. He hadn't personally been shown to lie so we couldn't tar him with the same brush. Now he is a known and proven liar on a grand scale, not some little white lie, it still doesn't discredit the story, or so some would have us believe.
Colin, for reasons too obvious to state, cannot confirm the story. The supposed use of the same words is not even close to proof that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures.
Colin himself described them this way. How many ways are there to describe sexually explicit pictures?
Colin knew of the pictures from the 7th September because Jeremy told him of their existence.
Colin definitely knew of the existence of photos prior to this because he took them in the fields of WHF when Sheila was a naive 17 year old and he was 23.
Colin took possession of one set of slides from Jeremy on 7th September and arranged to collect the others at a later unarranged date.
On the 9th September David Boutflour phoned Colin and told him that all of the family had been making statements to the police and that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He also told Colin to prepare for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday 10th September.
We are led to believe that Colin suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell the pictures but Colin's actions from the 7th onwards do not support this. After being informed of their existence Colin arranged with Jeremy to collect them at a later date. Despite supposedly being worried that Jeremy would attempt to sell them, Colin did nothing to arrange collecting them from Jeremy. He then went away for a break on the 13th September. Prior to all of this he had been on holiday and had left the cleaning of Sheila's flat to Jeremy, visiting for the first time on the 7th.
Finally Colin wrote to Jeremy, whilst on holiday on the 17th September, asking to collect the photos and saw the headline in the Sun after posting the letter.
It is pretty clear with all the contact going on between the relatives, Mugford, the press, EP and Colin that the knowledge of the slides was not some closely guarded secret and it would be more surprising if the Sun were unaware of the existence of nude photos.
Colin can and did confirm that the he knew the story was true because of the dialogue used by Jeremy to describe the pictures to both himself and Fielder. You're not even talking about the same pictures, we're not talking about the pictures that Colin took! ::) Jeremy said he had found other far more explicit pictures. You're getting your wires crossed, we're not talking about them being described as simply pornographic or explicit - Jeremy told both Colin and Feilder that 'you can see everything, right down to the last detail'. THIS is the dialogue in question about photographs that neither Colin nor Feilder actually saw, just Jeremy and BC saw them but his description was explained using he SAME sentence (You can see everything right down to the last detail) to both Colin and Fielder. When Colin read THAT sentence, he KNEW the story was true! Nothing you have posted can alter that. Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister - FACT! Oh and you completely misrepresent what Colin said, playing down his concerns and your last sentence is just ridiculous - shame on you!
-
It's was always optimistic for supporters to claim Fielder lied on this issue. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
His story had to go through the top people at The Sun. Any chance of it being untrue or the potential of libel action and it would have been rejected. Instead it was put on the front page.
Fielder was prepared to testify on this and completed a witness statement. He has also repeated his story over the years. He either recorded the conversation or had proof that Jeremy/Brett made the first contact. Or both.
It was a sensitive subject, to suggest the The Sun tried to entrap a grieving son is not credible.
-
Colin can and did confirm that the he knew the story was true because of the dialogue used by Jeremy to describe the pictures to both himself and Fielder. You're not even talking about the same pictures, we're not talking about the pictures that Colin took! ::) Jeremy said he had found other far more explicit pictures. You're getting your wires crossed, we're not talking about them being described as simply pornographic or explicit - Jeremy told both Colin and Feilder that 'you can see everything, right down to the last detail'. THIS is the dialogue in question about photographs that neither Colin nor Feilder actually saw, just Jeremy and BC saw them but his description was explained using he SAME sentence (You can see everything right down to the last detail) to both Colin and Fielder. When Colin read THAT sentence, he KNEW the story was true! Nothing you have posted can alter that. Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister - FACT! Oh and you completely misrepresent what Colin said, playing down his concerns and your last sentence is just ridiculous - shame on you!
My wires aren't crossed but your comprehension skills have let you down again. I know which pictures are being discussed and that is made clear if you read before posting.
-
It's was always optimistic for supporters to claim Fielder lied on this issue. He had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
His story had to go through the top people at The Sun. Any chance of it being untrue or the potential of libel action and it would have been rejected. Instead it was put on the front page.
Fielder was prepared to testify on this and completed a witness statement. He has also repeated his story over the years. He either recorded the conversation or had proof that Jeremy/Brett made the first contact. Or both.
It was a sensitive subject, to suggest the The Sun tried to entrap a grieving son is not credible.
I have resisted the urge to correct you up until now.
Are you aware that in 1987, Kelvin MacKenzie completely made up a story about Elton John for the front page. Elton John successfully sued for £1 million damages.
I'm not sure you actually realise what happened with regards the Sun's reporting following the Hillsborough disaster. Here we had editor Kelvin MacKenzie, the second most powerful man at The Sun, actively and knowingly publishing outright lies, including disgraceful sexual allegations against Liverpool supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie. Please at least have some respect by educating yourself better with the facts before you make such outlandish untrue claims.
With respect to JB the fact that in the 1980s and moving forwards the Sun was a morally bankrupt newspaper, prepared to go to pretty much any length to achieve greater sales, without a care in the world for the people affected by the lies they published, this doesn't mean that in this case Michael Fielder was lying.
In this instance from what I have seen it appears that Colin does back up Fielder's story. However I would want to see further documentation or evidence to have this down as definitive proof that jb tried to sell the pictures. At the moment from the available evidence, although this strongly suggests that jb did indeed try to sell pictures, in my opinion we do not yet have definitive proof that he 100% tried to do so.
JFT96
-
I have resisted the urge to correct you up until now.
Are you aware that in 1987, Kelvin MacKenzie completely made up a story about Elton John for the front page. Elton John successfully sued for £1 million damages.
I'm not sure you actually realise what happened with regards the Sun's reporting following the Hillsborough disaster. Here we had editor Kelvin MacKenzie, the second most powerful man at The Sun, actively and knowingly publishing outright lies, including disgraceful sexual allegations against Liverpool supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie. Please at least have some respect by educating yourself better with the facts before you make such outlandish untrue claims.
With respect to JB the fact that in the 1980s and moving forwards the Sun was a morally bankrupt newspaper, prepared to go to pretty much any length to achieve greater sales, without a care in the world for the people affected by the lies they published, this doesn't mean that in this case Michael Fielder was lying.
In this instance from what I have seen it appears that Colin does back up Fielder's story. However I would want to see further documentation or evidence to have this down as definitive proof that jb tried to sell the pictures. At the moment from the available evidence, although this strongly suggests that jb did indeed try to sell pictures, in my opinion we do not yet have definitive proof that he 100% tried to do so.
JFT96
Well said petey.
-
Well said petey.
Maggie I concur with everything petey said about the Sun but what I keep asking myself how did the Sun know about these sex snaps as they called them Jeremy removed them from Sheila's flat what did he want them for not sentimental reasons that is for sure.
-
Maggie I concur with everything petey said about the Sun but what I keep asking myself how did the Sun know about these sex snaps as they called them Jeremy removed them from Sheila's flat what did he want them for not sentimental reasons that is for sure.
Think petey was particularly addressing Adam's attitude to The Sun as it was in the 1980s and his particular argument that the Sun would never lie and print such lies on it's front page. Petey is attempting to educate Adam on this subject, and did acknowledge that Colin backed up Fielder's story etc. Am sure petey is well able to explain his position for himself.
I am afraid petey will have little more success than I have had. :'( :'( :'(
-
Well said petey.
Maggie
petey did say he would need proof that JB tried to sell the pictures to the Sun so this tells me he is in doubt as matters stand.
-
The source being a liar apparently counts for nothing anyway nugs. Even though previously we have been told that Fielder could not be discredited just because he wrote for the Sun. He hadn't personally been shown to lie so we couldn't tar him with the same brush. Now he is a known and proven liar on a grand scale, not some little white lie, it still doesn't discredit the story, or so some would have us believe. Jeremy is a proven liar, but you hang on his every word.
Colin, for reasons too obvious to state, cannot confirm the story. The supposed use of the same words is not even close to proof that Jeremy tried to sell the pictures. THIS is where your wires are crossed, you can't even admit you go this wrong and try and play the 'comprehension police' because you made a (another) blunder. The 'exact words that Colin was talking about, aren't a FEW similar 'words' it was the phrase 'You can see everything, right down to the last detail'
Colin himself described them this way. How many ways are there to describe sexually explicit pictures? Show me where Colin described the pictures as being able 'to see everything, right down to the last detail'. Show me where HE described the pictures in this way when he wasn't paraphrasing Jeremy or the Sun article'
Colin knew of the pictures from the 7th September because Jeremy told him of their existence. Correct.
Colin definitely knew of the existence of photos prior to this because he took themin the fields of WHF when Sheila was a naive 17 year old and he was 23. No he didn't, these are NOT the pictures that were explicit, Colin DID NOT take the pictures that Jeremy was talking about. Wires crossed!
Colin took possession of one set of slides from Jeremy on 7th September and arranged to collect the others at a later unarranged date. Correct
On the 9th September David Boutflour phoned Colin and told him that all of the family had been making statements to the police and that they were sure that Sheila couldn't have pulled the trigger. He also told Colin to prepare for a bombshell in the press on Tuesday 10th September.
We are led to believe that Colin suspected that Jeremy would attempt to sell the pictures but Colin's actions from the 7th onwards do not support this. So you're saying Colin is a liar. I guess after the phone call, he's now become part of the grand conspiracy? ::)
After being informed of their existence Colin arranged with Jeremy to collect them at a later date. Despite supposedly being worried that Jeremy would attempt to sell them, Colin did nothing to arrange collecting them from Jeremy. We're only talking about a week gringo and during that week, he concern was such, that he wrote to Jeremy!
He then went away for a break on the 13th September. Prior to all of this he had been on holiday and had left the cleaning of Sheila's flat to Jeremy, visiting for the first time on the 7th. This is completely untrue, he did not leave the cleaning of the flat to Jeremy AT ALL and you have misrepresented what Colin said. He went to the flat to do this himself, when he got there, he found the kids toys etc. stuffed into black bin bags and anything of Sheila's worth having - GONE. Colin was annoyed and upset that Jeremy hadn't bothered to inform him of what he was doing because he wanted to clear out the boy things himself. I'm sure it's a hard job to clear out your dead kids stuff from a room where you had seen them alive and well, laughing and happy. Don't paint him out to be someone who just couldn't be arsed; so dear old uncle Jem stepped into the breach. Jeremy was there to get what he could, before Colin could face up to the job.
Finally Colin wrote to Jeremy, whilst on holiday on the 17th September, asking to collect the photos and saw the headline in the Sun after posting the letter. Correct
It is pretty clear with all the contact going on between the relatives, Mugford, the press, EP and Colin One call? Are you for real? [/color][/b]that the knowledge of the slides was not some closely guarded secret and it would be more surprising if the Sun were unaware of the existence of nude photos. Absolute and utter rubbish! Point me to the part of the phone call where Colin tells RB about the photographs? This is just made up rubbish!
Now which part of your post shows you know what photographs were being discussed for sale or that you realised the exact words Colin referred to were "You can see everything right down to the last detail"? You're arguing about something you don't fully understand yourself. You have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, thinking that because both Fielder and Colin used words like 'pornographic' or 'explicit' this must be what Colin was referring to. In your haste to stand up for Jeremy and apply a little propaganda, you didn't bother to find out what the real issues were! Oh dear! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Maggie
petey did say he would need proof that JB tried to sell the pictures to the Sun so this tells me he is in doubt as matters stand.
I can identify with petey's position, I do feel similar. I am not saying it didn't happen or doubting Colin's word, am just sceptical but that shouldn't be surprising as I am sceptical about much of the case. I know that's very frustrating for people who have a clear vision but we all look at things differently and form our opinions from our own experience and perspective. :-\
I have ordered Collin's book so shall hopefully be clearer after reading it.
-
I have resisted the urge to correct you up until now.
Are you aware that in 1987, Kelvin MacKenzie completely made up a story about Elton John for the front page. Elton John successfully sued for £1 million damages.
I'm not sure you actually realise what happened with regards the Sun's reporting following the Hillsborough disaster. Here we had editor Kelvin MacKenzie, the second most powerful man at The Sun, actively and knowingly publishing outright lies, including disgraceful sexual allegations against Liverpool supporters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin_MacKenzie. Please at least have some respect by educating yourself better with the facts before you make such outlandish untrue claims.
With respect to JB the fact that in the 1980s and moving forwards the Sun was a morally bankrupt newspaper, prepared to go to pretty much any length to achieve greater sales, without a care in the world for the people affected by the lies they published, this doesn't mean that in this case Michael Fielder was lying.
In this instance from what I have seen it appears that Colin does back up Fielder's story. However I would want to see further documentation or evidence to have this down as definitive proof that jb tried to sell the pictures. At the moment from the available evidence, although this strongly suggests that jb did indeed try to sell pictures, in my opinion we do not yet have definitive proof that he 100% tried to do so.
JFT96
Hi Petey, I understand where you are coming from and were the story simply a Sun special without comment from Colin, i wouldn't give it that much thought. However, when Jeremy described the pictures to Colin, he said 'you can see everything, right down to the last detail, When Colin read the article in the Sun, one sentence jumped out fo the page, it was the sentence 'you can see everything, right down to the last detail'. That's far more than any kind of coincidence.
-
I can identify with petey's position, I do feel similar. I am not saying it didn't happen or doubting Colin's word, am just sceptical but that shouldn't be surprising as I am sceptical about much of the case. I know that's very frustrating to people who have a clear vision but we all look at things differently and form our opinions from our own experience and perspective. :-\
Jeremy to Colin re: the explicit photographs - "You can see everything, right down to the last detail"
Sun Article - "You can see everything, right down to the last detail"
-
Jeremy to Colin re: the explicit photographs - "You can see everything, right down to the last detail"
Sun Article - "You can see everything, right down to the last detail"
Have ordered the book Caroline, how much of a time lapse from the events of the Sun to when Colin wrote the book?
-
I can identify with petey's position, I do feel similar. I am not saying it didn't happen or doubting Colin's word, am just sceptical but that shouldn't be surprising as I am sceptical about much of the case. I know that's very frustrating for people who have a clear vision but we all look at things differently and form our opinions from our own experience and perspective. :-\
I have ordered Collin's book so shall hopefully be clearer after reading it.
Maggie I keep asking this question on the forum but as yet no answer how did the Sun know about these photo's if they had not been told by somebody. They obviously existed because Colin relays the conversation between him and Jeremy in his book. Now I am keeping an open mind about the sex toys etc that the Sun mentioned they may have added that but to me Jeremy tried to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the Sun and whatever the pictures were like the act of doing it tells me all I need to know about him not saying this means he murdered his family but tells me he has a really dark side to his nature.
-
Maggie I keep asking this question on the forum but as yet no answer how did the Sun know about these photo's if they had not been told by somebody. They obviously existed because Colin relays the conversation between him and Jeremy in his book. Now I am keeping an open mind about the sex toys etc that the Sun mentioned they may have added that but to me Jeremy tried to sell nude pictures of his dead sister to the Sun and whatever the pictures were like the act of doing it tells me all I need to know about him not saying this means he murdered his family but tells me he has a really dark side to his nature.
I just need to read the book and consider what Colin says in context. I am not 'looking for excuses' or 'desperate' to prove JB innocent, I just wonder about various aspects which have nothing to do with accusations of Colin lying.
I do believe if Jeremy Bamber did approach the Sun and did offer explicit photos of his recently dead sister to them, it is quite possible he is capable of having murdered her. imo
As to how the Sun would know about the photos, it does seem others knew about them but having not read the book I cannot be sure Colin states this. A journalist such as Fielder is no doubt quite good at extracting all sorts of information, I don't know but there are possibilities the Sun had a source. Just thoughts on my part.
-
Have ordered the book Caroline, how much of a time lapse from the events of the Sun to when Colin wrote the book?
He wrote the book in 1994 but it is also mentioned in one of his statements.
-
I just need to read the book and consider what Colin says in context. I am not 'looking for excuses' or 'desperate' to prove JB innocent, I just wonder about various aspects which have nothing to do with accusations of Colin lying.
I do believe if Jeremy Bamber did approach the Sun and did offer explicit photos of his recently dead sister to them, he is quite possibly capable of having murdered her. imo
[/quote
Maggie read the book and it will give you a better insight into Colin and photo's. I do not have a clear view at all about this case I keep asking posters who think Jeremy is innocent how come Sheila was so clean but as yet no answer.
-
He wrote the book in 1994 but it is also mentioned in one of his statements.
Thanks Caroline, it's a long time since I read his statements, I probably should do so before I read the book. There is a big time lapse between the event and the book and with the best will in the world memories can be deceptive, particularly at such a stressful time but if it was in his statement it was in the present and therefore probably accurate.
-
Thanks Caroline, it's a long time since I read his statements, I probably should do so before I read the book. There is a big time lapse between the event and the book and with the best will in the world memories can be deceptive, particularly at such a stressful time but if it was in his statement it was in the present and therefore probably accurate.
The statement is a written statement, I'm looking for it but I don't believe for one second you would forget something like that.
-
I just need to read the book and consider what Colin says in context. I am not 'looking for excuses' or 'desperate' to prove JB innocent, I just wonder about various aspects which have nothing to do with accusations of Colin lying.
I do believe if Jeremy Bamber did approach the Sun and did offer explicit photos of his recently dead sister to them, he is quite possibly capable of having murdered her. imo
[/quote
Maggie read the book and it will give you a better insight into Colin and photo's. I do not have a clear view at all about this case I keep asking posters who think Jeremy is innocent how come Sheila was so clean but as yet no answer.
There are various arguments why Sheila's hands were clean etc. can't go there at the moment. :'(
-
Think petey was particularly addressing Adam's attitude to The Sun as it was in the 1980s and his particular argument that the Sun would never lie and print such lies on it's front page. Petey is attempting to educate Adam on this subject, and did acknowledge that Colin backed up Fielder's story etc. Am sure petey is well able to explain his position for himself.
I am afraid petey will have little more success than I have had. :'( :'( :'(
Please show my post that The Sun have never got it wrong. All papers have. Even the quality ones.
In this instance, everything fits.
Supporters can just bring instances in totally unrelated cases. In the hope that the Bamber case is the one in 10,000 stories that year which The Sun deliberately got wrong.
What supporters cannot answer is why Fielder would risk everything. Going to his managers with the story. Printing it on the front page, making a WS and being prepared to testify. Then repeating the story several times in the last 30 years.
-
The statement is a written statement, I'm looking for it but I don't believe for one second you would forget something like that.
I am not saying he forgot Caroline, I agree he wouldn't but shock plays tricks on us, however I am now sounding as though I am trying to excuse it and I'm not so I shall leave it til I have read everything.
-
Fielder had nothing to prove. He was head of the crime stories department at The Sun. He didn't need to make up the story to get brownie points or get himself noticed at work.
And he didn't need to risk anything.
-
Please show my post that The Sun have never got it wrong. All papers have. Even the quality ones.
In this instance, everything fits.
Supporters can just bring instances in totally unrelated cases. In the hope that the Bamber case is the one in 10,000 stories that year which The Sun deliberately got wrong.
What supporters cannot answer is why Fielder would risk everything. Going to his managers with the story. Printing it on the front page, making a WS and being prepared to testify. Then repeating the story several times in the last 30 years.
I have given up Adam, I have tried to speak rationally about this but you just go on your merry way repeating the same old stuff. :'(
-
I must admit I can't see how anyone can accept that Bamber attempted to sell the photos, and then say he's not the killer.
Which is why there is resistance to the evidence from supporters.
-
I am not saying he forgot Caroline, I agree he wouldn't but shock plays tricks on us, however I am now sounding as though I am trying to excuse it and I'm not so I shall leave it til I have read everything.
Is seven days after the article appeared in the newspaper close enough? He went to the police and gave a statement just after the article appeared. Statement is from 24th September 1985 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
This is where he states that what he read and what was told to him by Jeremy were 'exactly the same' (You can see everything, right down to the last detail).
-
Is seven days after the article appeared in the newspaper close enough? He went to the police and gave a statement just after the article appeared. Statement is from 24th September 1985 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
This is where he states that what he read and what was told to him by Jeremy were 'exactly the same' (You can see everything, right down to the last detail).
Thank you, will read it after nursery. ;D
-
Thank you, will read it after nursery. ;D
OK, interested to know what you think, now all the niggles have been ironed out and smoke screen has been cleared!! ;D ;D ;D
-
How and why did david Boutflour know on the 9th September what the newspaper was going to publish on the 10th September?
-
Say no more !
-
How and why did david Boutflour know on the 9th September what the newspaper was going to publish on the 10th September?
I imagine because the newspaper asked them for comment.
-
Is seven days after the article appeared in the newspaper close enough? He went to the police and gave a statement just after the article appeared. Statement is from 24th September 1985 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.msg47925.html#msg47925
This is where he states that what he read and what was told to him by Jeremy were 'exactly the same' (You can see everything, right down to the last detail).
A further mention of the comment is in Claire Powell's book (which I posted on the thread below (top of page 167)), in an interview with Fielder himself. There really is no denying it happened.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6696.msg309275.html#msg309275
And a copy of the relevant part of Colin's statement (in case it gets lost ;D)
-
I wouldn't describe Jeremy as being in 'his right mind'. Colin confirms that Jeremy described the pictures as pornographic - it doesn't just come from Fielder. Selling the pictures is the whole point - what kind of a person would do such a thing?
Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?
-
Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?
Brett was just an opportunistic scumbag. It wasn't his sister, he had no allegiance to her. Upon hearing everyone was dead and thus that Jeremy would be the sole heir he ran right over so he could party with his friend who would have the means to party and no responsibilities to stand in the way.
Jeremy obliged and had Cock appoint someone else to manage the day to day operations of WHF while he went off to have fun with his pal Brett. They stayed at Sheila's flat because this way they were in London near the scene they wanted to be a part of and since it would be some time before Jeremy would get the estate he and Brett looked for things to sell (at the flat and at WHF) to get money to fund
their escapades. They didn't want to wait until the estate was settled before going on such escapades. Brett showed up for instant partying not to wait a long time for fun.
-
I imagine because the newspaper asked them for comment.
about what? the photos - why would he know anything about them?
-
The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.
There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.
-
The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.
There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.
Jeremy wasn´t involved in the cheque book fraud.
-
about what? the photos - why would he know anything about them?
I'm not sure what you're talking about to be honest. The Sun didn't call DB to tell him the pictures would be published. The article about the pictures was published on 17th September not 10th.
-
Brett was there too - so they both were not in their right mind?
There is MASSIVE difference;
It was Jeremy's sister, not Bretts.
Jeremy was SUPPOSED to be grieving, Brett didn't know the family from Adam.
Jeremy talked about being able to 'see everything' about his dead sister, Brett went along for the ride.
I can't believe that people are still making excuses for Jeremy after what he did and it's clear that he did try and sell those pictures!!
-
The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.
There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.
"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.
-
Brett was just an opportunistic scumbag. It wasn't his sister, he had no allegiance to her. Upon hearing everyone was dead and thus that Jeremy would be the sole heir he ran right over so he could party with his friend who would have the means to party and no responsibilities to stand in the way.
Jeremy obliged and had Cock appoint someone else to manage the day to day operations of WHF while he went off to have fun with his pal Brett. They stayed at Sheila's flat because this way they were in London near the scene they wanted to be a part of and since it would be some time before Jeremy would get the estate he and Brett looked for things to sell (at the flat and at WHF) to get money to fund
their escapades. They didn't want to wait until the estate was settled before going on such escapades. Brett showed up for instant partying not to wait a long time for fun.
Exactly!!
-
"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.
Although it was less than the grand Jeremy nicked from the family business and not quite as distasteful as trying to sell pictures of your recently murdered sister!!
-
"Minor " cheque-book fraud ? It wouldn't have been " minor " if it had been some poor sod from a sink estate !! Think about it.
Hi lookout you are so right now she would have got 100 hours Community Service at least.
-
The only reason I can think why it was not brought up at trial, is because it was not a criminal offence. Although in lots of ways worse than the caravan break in and 1984 minor joint cheque book fraud.
There is no doubt the jury would have voted 12-0 guilty if they had known.
I agree because it shows/proves a sinister, uncaring, lack of empathy dark side to his character!
-
Although it was less than the grand Jeremy nicked from the family business and not quite as distasteful as trying to sell pictures of your recently murdered sister!!
I'm beginning to feel sorry for you and the " selling of pictures ". Is that ALL you can say to get your guilty point across ? It must be the hundredth time you've said it----------------unbelievable. ::)
Not forgetting that JM was with Jeremy when he broke into that office.She didn't exactly leg-it off to the police or anything,whereas Jeremy knew nothing about the cheque escapade.
-
There is MASSIVE difference;
It was Jeremy's sister, not Bretts.
Jeremy was SUPPOSED to be grieving, Brett didn't know the family from Adam.
Jeremy talked about being able to 'see everything' about his dead sister, Brett went along for the ride.
I can't believe that people are still making excuses for Jeremy after what he did and it's clear that he did try and sell those pictures!!
Not making excuses - just finding it all a tad unlikely.
If my friend´s sister had just been killed/committed suicide, and he wanted to sell pornographic pictures of her to a sleaze mag, I am sure I would protest wildly!
Even though you aren´t related or even knew the family, you would find it wildly out of order.
-
I'm beginning to feel sorry for you and the " selling of pictures ". Is that ALL you can say to get your guilty point across ? It must be the hundredth time you've said it----------------unbelievable. ::)
Not forgetting that JM was with Jeremy when he broke into that office.She didn't exactly leg-it off to the police or anything,whereas Jeremy knew nothing about the cheque escapade.
Don't feel sorry for me Lookout, I didn't try selling pictures of a dead relative to scrape some cash together for a bit of a hol. I guess you don't feel sorry for gringo, or anyone else who keeps trying to deny that Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his murdered sister? You should because all their attempts to try and disprove it, have fallen flat because Jeremy used the same phrase to both Colin and Fielder when he described the picies. I don't think you don't feel sorry for me Lookout, you just don't like the fact that you can't argue against the the article being kosher and that it all looks bad for on Jeremy.
-
Not making excuses - just finding it all a tad unlikely.
If my friend´s sister had just been killed/committed suicide, and he wanted to sell pornographic pictures of her to a sleaze mag, I am sure I would protest wildly!
Even though you aren´t related or even knew the family, you would find it wildly out of order.
I'm the one arguing that it IS out of order, you seem to be trying to shift the blame onto BC ???. It was Jeremy's responsibility, it was his sister and he's the one who should have shown more (or even SOME) respect. The fact that BC turned out to be a scheming little shit too, doesn't ANY of the responsibility from Jeremy. The pair are grotesque but Jeremy more so!
-
I'm the one arguing that it IS out of order, you seem to be trying to shift the blame onto BC ???. It was Jeremy's responsibility, it was his sister and he's the one who should have shown more (or even SOME) respect. The fact that BC turned out to be a scheming little shit too, doesn't ANY of the responsibility from Jeremy. The pair are grotesque but Jeremy more so!
I honestly cannot see how you conclude from what I write that I am trying to shift blame, but not surprised to tell the truth. You read into it what you want to see.
I am merely saying that I find it hard to believe that two people would go through with this insanity - one, OK, two, hmmm.
You are very passionate about this, aren´t you?
-
I honestly cannot see how you conclude from what I write that I am trying to shift blame, but not surprised to tell the truth. You read into it what you want to see.
I am merely saying that I find it hard to believe that two people would go through with this insanity - one, OK, two, hmmm.
You are very passionate about this, aren´t you?
Ha, ha! No, just don't like to see the truth being brushed over.
-
Ha, ha! No, just don't like to see the truth being brushed over.
You sound passionate about it.
-
You sound passionate about it.
You sound like a Bamber supporter so there we go!
-
You sound like a Bamber supporter so there we go!
So what? Is it a crime to be a Bamber supporter? Not that I am, but you say I am and contradicting you has no purpose, of course you know best, right. :-X
-
So what? Is it a crime to be a Bamber supporter? Not that I am, but you say I am and contradicting you has no purpose, of course you know best, right. :-X
Not at all, you're the one who denies it ???. Do you think you have a right to tell me what I'm suppose to think but I don't have the right to do the same?
I'm passionate about the truth. Nothing else.
-
Not at all, you're the one who denies it ???. Do you think you have a right to tell me what I'm suppose to think but I don't have the right to do the same?
I'm passionate about the truth. Nothing else.
What is it to you what I am or - not?
You are passionate about convincing some strangers on an internet forum what you think is the truth. I don´t know why, Jeremy is already where you want him to be.
-
What is it to you what I am or - not?
You are passionate about convincing some strangers on an internet forum what you think is the truth. I don´t know why, Jeremy is already where you want him to be.
You have the right to believed what you like, Alias. But when you only put forth supporter arugements, seem unable to view the case from both sides, speak negatively about the police, the family, Colin, June & Neville ....and basically ANYONE that isn't Bamber....
..and then say "I'm on the fence!"
It's going to cause questions. ;D
-
What is it to you what I am or - not?
You are passionate about convincing some strangers on an internet forum what you think is the truth. I don´t know why, Jeremy is already where you want him to be.
I don't care what your stance is to be honest but you do come over as a supporter.
I'm not trying to convince anyone - I just don't like lies! What's it to you if I want to post here? Too bad if you don't like the fact that I don't let people get away with BS - I'll continue to pick over the bones if that's OK by you?
-
Passion doesn't even come into it imo... It's about separating the wheat from the chaff the truth from the lies .. I've heard enough lies to last me a lifetime, so I know what I'm talking about....
I'm not here because of 'passion' I'm here to set the record straight once and for all.....
-
I'm not trying to convince anyone - I just don't like lies! What's it to you if I want to post here? Too bad if you don't like the fact that I don't let people get away with BS - I'll continue to pick over the bones if that's OK by you?
I think you've proved your point well, you have backed it up with the statement - you could post a video of the meeting and you still wouldn't convince EVERYONE here.
Personally I don't think how anyone on either side can not see what happened. ;D But it's a strange world!
-
Don't feel sorry for me Lookout, I didn't try selling pictures of a dead relative to scrape some cash together for a bit of a hol. I guess you don't feel sorry for gringo, or anyone else who keeps trying to deny that Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his murdered sister? You should because all their attempts to try and disprove it, have fallen flat because Jeremy used the same phrase to both Colin and Fielder when he described the picies. I don't think you don't feel sorry for me Lookout, you just don't like the fact that you can't argue against the the article being kosher and that it all looks bad for on Jeremy.
I have come to the conclusion that your interest in the case is by far greater than mine. You're quite carried away. I don't need to argue about anything as my mind was already made up 30 years ago and I stand firm by my decision. Anything else that's included along with all the other hearsay is just done to further blacken the name of the " accused " and doesn't serve any purpose in a forthcoming appeal.
-
You sound like a Bamber supporter so there we go!
Unclean,unclean. ( bell is attached round neck ) ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think you've proved your point well, you have backed it up with the statement - you could post a video of the meeting and you still wouldn't convince EVERYONE here.
Personally I don't think how anyone on either side can not see what happened. ;D But it's a strange world!
That's the problem people don't like it when you prove something, you would think they would be pleased if they wanted the truth!!
-
I have come to the conclusion that your interest in the case is by far greater than mine. You're quite carried away. I don't need to argue about anything as my mind was already made up 30 years ago and I stand firm by my decision. Anything else that's included along with all the other hearsay is just done to further blacken the name of the " accused " and doesn't serve any purpose in a forthcoming appeal.
So why are you here? Must say that I don't have any faith in any conclusion you make. You just don't like it because it's obvious Bamber tried to sell those pictures and you can't deny it any longer.
-
Put your claws away ladies - they aren't good for picking up sour grapes!! ;D ;D ;D ;D :P
-
I'm not sure what you're talking about to be honest. The Sun didn't call DB to tell him the pictures would be published. The article about the pictures was published on 17th September not 10th.
ahh there must have been another bombshell in the press then. Would be interesting to see the reports from that time.
- So colin and David spoke( after the photograph discussion about more slides that Jeremy agreed to hand back to colin) and david told him all about what was going to come out in the paper . I do remember now that Colin did say it was bad that the family had to feed him information about their discussions with the police.
So w don't know for sure that Colin did not tell DB about the slides . We don't know what connections DB had with the press or how far they would go to blacken his name.
So as far as I am concerned we still have a proven liar of a sun reporter against a possible Liar JB .
No real proof there then .
-
ahh there must have been another bombshell in the press then. Would be interesting to see the reports from that time.
- So colin and David spoke( after the photograph discussion about more slides that Jeremy agreed to hand back to colin) and david told him all about what was going to come out in the paper . I do remember now that Colin did say it was bad that the family had to feed him information about their discussions with the police.
So w don't know for sure that Colin did not tell DB about the slides . We don't know what connections DB had with the press or how far they would go to blacken his name.
So as far as I am concerned we still have a proven liar of a sun reporter against a possible Liar JB .
No real proof there then .
I've heard about everything now!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
Hello Jan the words Jeremy used to Colin about the explicit photo's were the same exact words used by the Sun so they can only have come from Jeremy not anyone else. Colin did not know that this was coming out in the paper he was shocked when he saw the front page of the Sun. Hope we are still on the explicit photo's as I am now getting confused.
-
Hello Jan the words Jeremy used to Colin about the explicit photo's were the same exact words used by the Sun so they can only have come from Jeremy not anyone else. Colin did not know that this was coming out in the paper he was shocked when he saw the front page of the Sun. Hope we are still on the explicit photo's as I am now getting confused.
I am interested in the dates - Caroline previously said Brett was in contact with fielder already when Jeremy was first arrested. So perhaps Brett let it slip before the meeting
If the meeting and article was after this( the first arrest) which I believe it was - then Jeremy knew he was a suspect - does it not seem absolutely ridiculous that he would put himself in the frame by doing what the sun said he did? That is the reason why I can not believe it - nothing to do with whether he was innocent or guilty - Why on earth would he do it? this is allegedly a man who meticulously planned the almost perfect murder and yet he would put himself in the frame by doing something so stupid?
And how do we know that colin did not moan to DB about Jeremy on the phone - You know the type of thing - you would not believe what Jeremy has done - cleared the flat without asking and also he has some photos of Sheila I want back - etc etc.
And we know DB was in contact with the press as well - So Although caroline thinks I am making excuses , I am actually looking at other possibilities . That's all . Like COLIN said he thought the family were ganging up on Jeremy . It only takes one slip of the tongue and the information is out there - not deliberately - but it is out there and it can be used.
-
I am interested in the dates - Caroline previously said Brett was in contact with fielder already when Jeremy was first arrested. So perhaps Brett let it slip before the meeting
If the meeting and article was after this( the first arrest) which I believe it was - then Jeremy knew he was a suspect - does it not seem absolutely ridiculous that he would put himself in the frame by doing what the sun said he did? That is the reason why I can not believe it - nothing to do with whether he was innocent or guilty - Why on earth would he do it? this is allegedly a man who meticulously planned the almost perfect murder and yet he would put himself in the frame by doing something so stupid?
Jan cannot help you with dates I only know what is in Colin's book. When the story broke Jeremy had not been arrested as Colin said he posted a letter to Jeremy asking for the photo's back but it was too late the story broke on the front page of the Sun. Brett contacted the Sun and travelled from London to Essex with the reporter to give them a story on how Jeremy was being questioned by EP. Hope I am making sense :'(
And how do we know that colin did not moan to DB about Jeremy on the phone - You know the type of thing - you would not believe what Jeremy has done - cleared the flat without asking and also he has some photos of Sheila I want back - etc etc.
And we know DB was in contact with the press as well - So Although caroline thinks I am making excuses , I am actually looking at other possibilities . That's all . Like COLIN said he thought the family were ganging up on Jeremy . It only takes one slip of the tongue and the information is out there - not deliberately - but it is out there and it can be used.
-
if the story broke on 17th Sept I think Jeremy had been arrested the first time before then?
-
I just read he was arrested on 8th Sept and questioned for 4 days - so that would mean DB called and told Colin about an impending press bombshell ( perhaps his guilt not the photos) before the police had even finished interviewing him ::). Nothing like making assumptions?
-
I've heard about everything now!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Oh sorry did I pinch one of your old arguments by mistake? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
if the story broke on 17th Sept I think Jeremy had been arrested the first time before then?
Jan he may well have been I will look at the book again as I forget half of what I read Caroline will know about the dates or maybe Gringo will think he is on the forum :)
-
if the story broke on 17th Sept I think Jeremy had been arrested the first time before then?
Yes he was arrested on Sunday 10th September at Moreshead Mansions. As for him doing inexplicable things,why on earth would you climb back into the White House through a window when you had been suspected of doing exactly the same with malice aforethought several weeks previously?
-
He wouldn't think anything of it if he'd done nothing. He didn't know that everyone was " planning his future " behind his back.
-
I am interested in the dates - Caroline previously said Brett was in contact with fielder already when Jeremy was first arrested. So perhaps Brett let it slip before the meeting
If the meeting and article was after this( the first arrest) which I believe it was - then Jeremy knew he was a suspect - does it not seem absolutely ridiculous that he would put himself in the frame by doing what the sun said he did? That is the reason why I can not believe it - nothing to do with whether he was innocent or guilty - Why on earth would he do it? this is allegedly a man who meticulously planned the almost perfect murder and yet he would put himself in the frame by doing something so stupid?
And how do we know that colin did not moan to DB about Jeremy on the phone - You know the type of thing - you would not believe what Jeremy has done - cleared the flat without asking and also he has some photos of Sheila I want back - etc etc.
And we know DB was in contact with the press as well - So Although caroline thinks I am making excuses , I am actually looking at other possibilities . That's all . Like COLIN said he thought the family were ganging up on Jeremy . It only takes one slip of the tongue and the information is out there - not deliberately - but it is out there and it can be used.
It wasn't a meticulously planned murder, he got caught! His first arrest on 8th Sept was in respect to the Osea break-in. Boutflour called Colin (by mistake) to inform him of this and that the story might be in the papers.
But, OK (in another universe), BC might have mentioned the pictures to Fielder, might he also have said "They show everything right to the last detail"? The same words Jeremy used to Colin? I doubt it! Why would BC mention the pictures to Fielder without Jeremy being aware? But that's not even the half of it, because Jeremy doesn't deny having the meeting, he denies (now) that the pictures existed in the first place! For your theory to sprout legs, there has to be some pictures, because Jeremy mentioned them to Colin and (in your theory) Brett mentions them to Fielder. Shifting the blame onto BC doesn't work either because they BOTH turned up to the meeting to sell said pictures - or are you trying to suggest that Jeremy didn't know why he was there? That being the case, why isn't he saying it was all BC idea? Instead he's denying the pictures ever existed - whether that is true or not, isn't the issue; the issue is that he originally told Colin that they did! So why is her lying now?
-
I just read he was arrested on 8th Sept and questioned for 4 days - so that would mean DB called and told Colin about an impending press bombshell ( perhaps his guilt not the photos) before the police had even finished interviewing him ::). Nothing like making assumptions?
Oh and being as Jeremy was being questioned for 4 days, it's easy to see why Colin couldn't contact him to pick up the pictures as planned.
-
It wasn't a meticulously planned murder, he got caught! His first arrest on 8th Sept was in respect to the Osea break-in. Boutflour called Colin (by mistake) to inform him of this and that the story might be in the papers.
But, OK (in another universe), BC might have mentioned the pictures to Fielder, might he also have said "They show everything right to the last detail"? The same words Jeremy used to Colin? I doubt it! Why would BC mention the pictures to Fielder without Jeremy being aware? But that's not even the half of it, because Jeremy doesn't deny having the meeting, he denies (now) that the pictures existed in the first place! For your theory to sprout legs, there has to be some pictures, because Jeremy mentioned them to Colin and (in your theory) Brett mentions them to Fielder. Shifting the blame onto BC doesn't work either because they BOTH turned up to the meeting to sell said pictures - or are you trying to suggest that Jeremy didn't know why he was there? That being the case, why isn't he saying it was all BC idea? Instead he's denying the pictures ever existed - whether that is true or not, isn't the issue; the issue is that he originally told Colin that they did! So why is her lying now?
How an earth did you ever believe Jeremy was innocent ?
-
How an earth did you ever believe Jeremy was innocent ?
I ask myself that quite often, I have no excuse, I lost my mind! It's back now though! ;)
-
I ask myself that quite often, I have no excuse, I lost my mind! It's back now though! ;)
You did annoy me when you were a supporter, because you were methodical and had a great understanding. I used to headbutt the screen thinking "why can't she see it?!" ;D
-
You did annoy me when you were a supporter, because you were methodical and had a great understanding. I used to headbutt the screen thinking "why can't she see it?!" ;D
You know what, part of it was because it becomes a them and us kind of mentality and then the innocent supporters were 'us'. It was more about supporting (real or perceived) 'friends' and although I had very real doubts, I made excuses. I did test the water (and April and Maggie will back me up on this) by suggesting I had doubts - I'm sure you remember that Mat? You suggested that people would turn on me - and you were right. After that, I decided that whatever I thought, I would say it and wouldn't compromise my principles in future.
-
ahh there must have been another bombshell in the press then. Would be interesting to see the reports from that time.
- So colin and David spoke( after the photograph discussion about more slides that Jeremy agreed to hand back to colin) and david told him all about what was going to come out in the paper . I do remember now that Colin did say it was bad that the family had to feed him information about their discussions with the police.
So w don't know for sure that Colin did not tell DB about the slides . We don't know what connections DB had with the press or how far they would go to blacken his name.
So as far as I am concerned we still have a proven liar of a sun reporter against a possible Liar JB .
No real proof there then .
Jan, to anybody reasonable it is quite easy to see how they could have found out about the existence of pictures without Jeremy's assistance.
They were not the best kept secret. There were tabloid hacks digging for dirt, the relatives digging for dirt and apparently in contact with the press. DB's warning of a bombshell and claim that "we" had all been making statements to the police suggests an active role on his part. The prior knowledge of the bombshell also suggests quite strongly that there was contact between him and the press.
The notes that Ann and co. were making and their obvious attempts to sway Colin make it entirely plausible that the relatives found out via Colin.
Whilst much is made of the allegation that Jeremy supposedly used the same words to Fielder as he did to Colin this is not actually clear.
Colin says on his statement of the 24th:"I asked Jeremy if I could take these slides so that I could destroy them. He agreed that I could take them which I did. Jeremy also told me there were some more slides of a similar nature, possibly two or three boxes, which were at his house in Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex.
Jeremy described these pictures as very explicit. He told me that one box was of Sheila sunbathing(previously described) and that the others were pornographic and similar to the slides at Sheila's flat."
Where in that statement does he use the words attributed.
Later in the same statement Colin says:"The reporter described how he met Jeremy Bamber and that Jeremy was offering pornographic pictures of Sheila for sale. In the article Jeremy is alleged to have said "they show everything, right down to the last detail".
This is exactly how Jeremy described the slides to me when I visited him on 7th September."
Fielder's article, I imagine, was somewhat more than 9 words. In fact, it is generally accepted that his story included details of sex toys amongst other things. Are these the exact words that Jeremy used as well? What about the rest, presumably hundreds of other words in the article of proven liar and fabricator Fielding.
Were they all exactly as Jeremy described to Colin as well or did Fielder make these bits up, but not the nine words that suit.
Why is it that Colin, when explaining how Jeremy described the pictures to him, doesn't use the words attributed but only says that when he saw Fielders words that they were exactly the same? In the description given above Colin relates how Jeremy described the pictures as "pornographic", "very explicit", "sunbathing", "other slides similar in nature".
Also of note is that on the 9th September(two days after taking possession of one set of slides and having yet to arrange collecting the rest) Colin when called by DB was under the impression that the relatives were ganging up on Jeremy influenced by financial motives. He appeared to have no concerns about Jeremy selling the pictures at this point as he was certainly not going out of his way to obtain them.
As I am writing this it also suddenly becomes clear that the police would most likely have found out about the pictures. When Jeremy was arrested on the 8th September wouldn't the police have searched his property which is where the slides were?
From Jeremy's first arrest and release without charge and in the week or so following that leading up to the 17th September what do posters think the tabloids were printing about the story? As soon as anyone is arrested for a high profile crime the tabloids start trashing their reputations(think Chris Jeffries, Barry George, Colin Stagg ....). We know that there was a bombshell on the 10th according to the inside knowledge of DB. I doubt that between the 11th and 16th that the tabloids had no more stories on what was now a sensational story following Jeremy's arrest.
I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that Jeremy will have had bad press all week. Common sense and simple knowledge of the tabloids tells you this. His story that he wanted to set the record straight has more a "ring of truth" than does Fielder's sleazy article, especially given Fielder's record.
I don't even think the whole story is likely or very plausible. To only say that it can't be proven either way, which it can't, implies an equivalence to both sides of the story which I don't think exists. On the balance of probability the story is more than likely untrue.
A supposed and not even proven strike rate of 9 words from hundreds written by a proven liar is not very good evidence in my book.
-
You know what, part of it was because it becomes a them and us kind of mentality and then the innocent supporters were 'us'. It was more about supporting (real or perceived) 'friends' and although I had very real doubts, I made excuses. I did test the water (and April and Maggie will back me up on this) by suggesting I had doubts - I'm sure you remember that Mat? You suggested that people would turn on me - and you were right. After that, I decided that whatever I thought, I would say it and wouldn't compromise my principles in future.
Yeah, that's true - you were never 100%.
You know what, part of it was because it becomes a them and us kind of mentality and then the innocent supporters were 'us'. It was more about supporting (real or perceived) 'friends' and although I had very real doubts, I made excuses. I did test the water (and April and Maggie will back me up on this) by suggesting I had doubts - I'm sure you remember that Mat? You suggested that people would turn on me - and you were right. After that, I decided that whatever I thought, I would say it and wouldn't compromise my principles in future.
I said, give it three months and you would be hounded off the forum! ;D I think a good few attempts have been made - but I didn't' factor in your ability to take whatever is thrown at you.
I do think that is what holds SOME supporters back to from saying they have changed their minds - they are worried they will be treated the way that THEY have treated others.
-
Jan, to anybody reasonable it is quite easy to see how they could have found out about the existence of pictures without Jeremy's assistance.
They were not the best kept secret. There were tabloid hacks digging for dirt, the relatives digging for dirt and apparently in contact with the press. DB's warning of a bombshell and claim that "we" had all been making statements to the police suggests an active role on his part. The prior knowledge of the bombshell also suggests quite strongly that there was contact between him and the press.
The notes that Ann and co. were making and their obvious attempts to sway Colin make it entirely plausible that the relatives found out via Colin.
Whilst much is made of the allegation that Jeremy supposedly used the same words to Fielder as he did to Colin this is not actually clear.
Colin says on his statement of the 24th:"I asked Jeremy if I could take these slides so that I could destroy them. He agreed that I could take them which I did. Jeremy also told me there were some more slides of a similar nature, possibly two or three boxes, which were at his house in Head Street, Goldhanger, Essex.
Jeremy described these pictures as very explicit. He told me that one box was of Sheila sunbathing(previously described) and that the others were pornographic and similar to the slides at Sheila's flat."
Where in that statement does he use the words attributed.
Later in the same statement Colin says:"The reporter described how he met Jeremy Bamber and that Jeremy was offering pornographic pictures of Sheila for sale. In the article Jeremy is alleged to have said "they show everything, right down to the last detail".
This is exactly how Jeremy described the slides to me when I visited him on 7th September."
Fielder's article, I imagine, was somewhat more than 9 words. In fact, it is generally accepted that his story included details of sex toys amongst other things. Are these the exact words that Jeremy used as well? What about the rest, presumably hundreds of other words in the article of proven liar and fabricator Fielding.
Were they all exactly as Jeremy described to Colin as well or did Fielder make these bits up, but not the nine words that suit.
Why is it that Colin, when explaining how Jeremy described the pictures to him, doesn't use the words attributed but only says that when he saw Fielders words that they were exactly the same? In the description given above Colin relates how Jeremy described the pictures as "pornographic", "very explicit", "sunbathing", "other slides similar in nature".
Also of note is that on the 9th September(two days after taking possession of one set of slides and having yet to arrange collecting the rest) Colin when called by DB was under the impression that the relatives were ganging up on Jeremy influenced by financial motives. He appeared to have no concerns about Jeremy selling the pictures at this point as he was certainly not going out of his way to obtain them.
As I am writing this it also suddenly becomes clear that the police would most likely have found out about the pictures. When Jeremy was arrested on the 8th September wouldn't the police have searched his property which is where the slides were?
From Jeremy's first arrest and release without charge and in the week or so following that leading up to the 17th September what do posters think the tabloids were printing about the story? As soon as anyone is arrested for a high profile crime the tabloids start trashing their reputations(think Chris Jeffries, Barry George, Colin Stagg ....). We know that there was a bombshell on the 10th according to the inside knowledge of DB. I doubt that between the 11th and 16th that the tabloids had no more stories on what was now a sensational story following Jeremy's arrest.
I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that Jeremy will have had bad press all week. Common sense and simple knowledge of the tabloids tells you this. His story that he wanted to set the record straight has more a "ring of truth" than does Fielder's sleazy article, especially given Fielder's record.
I don't even think the whole story is likely or very plausible. To only say that it can't be proven either way, which it can't, implies an equivalence to both sides of the story which I don't think exists. On the balance of probability the story is more than likely untrue.
A supposed and not even proven strike rate of 9 words from hundreds written by a proven liar is not very good evidence in my book.
Anyone with any common sense and decency knows deep down that Bamber tried to sell those pictures. There would never be any good evidence against Bamber in 'your book'. However, there are thankfully only a few people who would be interested in 'your book' - Bamber fanatics and the Brothers Grimm!!
-
Yeah, that's true - you were never 100%.
I said, give it three months and you would be hounded off the forum! ;D I think a good few attempts have been made - but I didn't' factor in your ability to take whatever is thrown at you.
I do think that is what holds SOME supporters back to from saying they have changed their minds - they are worried they will be treated the way that THEY have treated others.
Cheers Mat! :)
I'm laughing because I can't believe the BS spoken on here tonight and lengths 'some people' will go to defend Bamber. Makes you wonder what their agenda is because even when the evidence is harder than a full punch to the face, these people make excuses. Bamber tried to sell pictures of his dead sister - that's a FACT, no matter how they try to worm out of it.
-
Anyone with any common sense and decency knows deep down that Bamber tried to sell those pictures. There would never be any good evidence against Bamber in 'your book'. However, there are thankfully only a few people who would be interested in 'your book' - Bamber fanatics and the Brothers Grimm!!
Yeah but many Jeremy supporters consider such an admission a big blow so will do anything possible to reject it.
For those who consider Jeremy guilty this is a side show. There is considerable evidence of his guilt this doesn't need to be discussed to establish his guilt.
Jeremy supporters have little to latch onto so feel the need to argue he loved his family and would not have done anything to them. To do something like this to his dead sister means he doesn't have the kind of love supporters want to pretend he had and it is much easier to accept he would try to sell the photos if he were guilty as opposed to just suffered a horrible loss. They feel the need to pretend he didn't do this in order to keep their fantasies of his innocence alive.
-
Yeah but many Jeremy supporters consider such an admission a big blow so will do anything possible to reject it.
For those who consider Jeremy guilty this is a side show. There is considerable evidence of his guilt this doesn't need to be discussed to establish his guilt.
Jeremy supporters have little to latch onto so feel the need to argue he loved his family and would not have done anything to them. To do something like this to his dead sister means he doesn't have the kind of love supporters want to pretend he had and it is much easier to accept he would try to sell the photos if he were guilty as opposed to just suffered a horrible loss. They feel the need to pretend he didn't do this in order to keep their fantasies of his innocence alive.
It's certainly turning into that. I have lost a lot of respect for some people here because rather than admit flaws (which don't even prove guilt) they argue against ANY criticism and drag things out of the ether to defend him (It maybe didn't happen like that, what if it happened like this?). They make up a whole new version of what actually happened! Then you have people like gringo who completely twist the truth, misrepresent what is actually said in statements (for whatever agenda he has) and some members encourage it by patting him on the back. If you have to add detail or change the situation to suit - it's not reality any more and the reality is, Jeremy tried to sell explicit pictures of his dead sister!
-
You know what, part of it was because it becomes a them and us kind of mentality and then the innocent supporters were 'us'. It was more about supporting (real or perceived) 'friends' and although I had very real doubts, I made excuses. I did test the water (and April and Maggie will back me up on this) by suggesting I had doubts - I'm sure you remember that Mat? You suggested that people would turn on me - and you were right. After that, I decided that whatever I thought, I would say it and wouldn't compromise my principles in future.
" Turned on you ?" YOU'RE the one who's turned on those of us whose views are different to yours. MY views have ALWAYS been the same,so therefore it ISN'T me who's changed or turned on anyone. The nastiness was evident and has ALWAYS been present whenever I post !!
If I spout BS then there are no words for your ramblings,just because you feel that you MUST be right. ::) Christ,my interest in the case doesn't stretch to creating bad feelings like yours does. I couldn't care less either way. My life doesn't depend on whether I'm right or not,thank God.
-
You know what, part of it was because it becomes a them and us kind of mentality and then the innocent supporters were 'us'. It was more about supporting (real or perceived) 'friends' and although I had very real doubts, I made excuses. I did test the water (and April and Maggie will back me up on this) by suggesting I had doubts - I'm sure you remember that Mat? You suggested that people would turn on me - and you were right. After that, I decided that whatever I thought, I would say it and wouldn't compromise my principles in future.
I do back you up on that Caroline, I remember when you first suggested you were feeling unsure. I think I remember not being wholly surprised because I had always had some doubts and was never totally sure? There's been quite a bit of water under the bridge since then and you are now definite in your belief of guilt and I am still unsure but then I think our personalities are such that I shall always veer and you shall always be definite in your belief. :-\
-
" Turned on you ?" YOU'RE the one who's turned on those of us whose views are different to yours. MY views have ALWAYS been the same,so therefore it ISN'T me who's changed or turned on anyone. The nastiness was evident and has ALWAYS been present whenever I post !!
If I spout BS then there are no words for your ramblings,just because you feel that you MUST be right. ::) Christ,my interest in the case doesn't stretch to creating bad feelings like yours does. I couldn't care less either way. My life doesn't depend on whether I'm right or not,thank God.
Lookout you were creating bad feeling here (because of your views) before I was even a member. You were happy to pat me on the back and cheer me along when I was an innocent supporter butas soon as I had doubt, you joined in with various members to try and put me down. Thing is I'm not bothered by it and think it's actually quite amusing at times but I don't spare feelings any more. You could level your post at people like gringo because it takes a LOT more effort to bend and twist the truth like he does, but no matter what he posts, as long as it's favourable to Jeremy, it's OK by you because the truth, isn't important to you. You can't even be truthful with your sarcasm - you couldn't care less either way? Jesus!! Give me a break!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I do back you up on that Caroline, I remember when you first suggested you were feeling unsure. I think I remember not being wholly surprised because I had always had some doubts and was never totally sure? There's been quite a bit of water under the bridge since then and you are now definite in your belief of guilt and I am still unsure but then I think our personalities are such that I shall always veer and you shall always be definite in your belief. :-\
I wasn't talking about you Maggie, my post isn't mean for everyone, just those who can't help taking any argument personally.
-
How an earth did you ever believe Jeremy was innocent ?
Because you would think that people would not have the gumption to make up the crap posted on the campaign site. Even though I undertook to verify the claims because I never take anyone's word alone, they make it sound like they really have evidence to support their claims. You have to do in depth research of the evidence to see how full of crap the claims truly are and realize the tricks being played by them spinning.
I initially thought maybe he was innocent and only realized after a thorough look at everything that it was all a farce.
-
At least Gringo puts explanations in his posts without " forcing " any issues of guilt or innocence down our throats such as yourself and Scipio.
Steve is an anti,but his posts explain, rather than " put anyone down " or to call opposition posts BS.
There's absolutely no need for the scathing posts just because some of us think differently.I don't know what it's all for,and I'll obviously reply in the same tone as they're posted.
The bad feeling which was/is on here,had already been created by the anti's,and when I joined,showing my support,it became like a red-rag to a bull,and I got flak from every direction.Being someone who doesn't suffer fools and sit back and take it,horror of horrors,I stuck up for myself and that's why EVERYONE now blames ME for the " bad feelings ".
It would be a jolly sight easier for me to admit defeat and take it on the chin than argue the toss any longer in order to keep the peace.
What do you call a person who agrees with everything everyone says ? BORING !!
-
I wasn't talking about you Maggie, my post isn't mean for everyone, just those who can't help taking any argument personally.
I was just confirming that you did speak to myself and April a long time ago about your doubts about JBs innocence.
-
At least Gringo puts explanations in his posts without " forcing " any issues of guilt or innocence down our throats such as yourself and Scipio.
Steve is an anti,but his posts explain, rather than " put anyone down " or to call opposition posts BS.
There's absolutely no need for the scathing posts just because some of us think differently.I don't know what it's all for,and I'll obviously reply in the same tone as they're posted.
The bad feeling which was/is on here,had already been created by the anti's,and when I joined,showing my support,it became like a red-rag to a bull,and I got flak from every direction.Being someone who doesn't suffer fools and sit back and take it,horror of horrors,I stuck up for myself and that's why EVERYONE now blames ME for the " bad feelings ".
It would be a jolly sight easier for me to admit defeat and take it on the chin than argue the toss any longer in order to keep the peace.
What do you call a person who agrees with everything everyone says ? BORING !!
I don't agree Lookout, I'm sure most people don't blame you for bad feelings at all, why should you be responsible?
It's natural that feelings run high at times on a forum and am sure that will increase when the next couple of books are published.
I do think you get a raw deal at times and I know myself how hurtful it can be, often the people posting are unaware how much their comments hurt, because when we don't even know what someone looks like and cannot read facial expressions or body language we can tend to be detached from others feelings. We can all be guilty of it at times imo.
-
At least Gringo puts explanations in his posts without " forcing " any issues of guilt or innocence down our throats such as yourself and Scipio.
Steve is an anti,but his posts explain, rather than " put anyone down " or to call opposition posts BS.
There's absolutely no need for the scathing posts just because some of us think differently.I don't know what it's all for,and I'll obviously reply in the same tone as they're posted.
The bad feeling which was/is on here,had already been created by the anti's,and when I joined,showing my support,it became like a red-rag to a bull,and I got flak from every direction.Being someone who doesn't suffer fools and sit back and take it,horror of horrors,I stuck up for myself and that's why EVERYONE now blames ME for the " bad feelings ".
It would be a jolly sight easier for me to admit defeat and take it on the chin than argue the toss any longer in order to keep the peace.
What do you call a person who agrees with everything everyone says ? BORING !!
Right back at ya!
-
At least Gringo puts explanations in his posts without " forcing " any issues of guilt or innocence down our throats such as yourself and Scipio.
Steve is an anti,but his posts explain, rather than " put anyone down " or to call opposition posts BS.
There's absolutely no need for the scathing posts just because some of us think differently.I don't know what it's all for,and I'll obviously reply in the same tone as they're posted.
The bad feeling which was/is on here,had already been created by the anti's,and when I joined,showing my support,it became like a red-rag to a bull,and I got flak from every direction.Being someone who doesn't suffer fools and sit back and take it,horror of horrors,I stuck up for myself and that's why EVERYONE now blames ME for the " bad feelings ".
It would be a jolly sight easier for me to admit defeat and take it on the chin than argue the toss any longer in order to keep the peace.
What do you call a person who agrees with everything everyone says ? BORING !!
Are you for real? The man is on a one way trip to discredit anything and everything I say. His posts twist the actual details of what happened and he add things that didn't - and you (and others) support him. This shows that you're not interested in the truth at all. You're happy to support Jeremy no matter what. Of course that is up to you but when people twist things to suit or post things that aren't true - I'm going to continue to highlight it!
-
I don't agree Lookout, I'm sure most people don't blame you for bad feelings at all, why should you be responsible?
It's natural that feelings run high at times on a forum and am sure that will increase when the next couple of books are published.
I do think you get a raw deal at times and I know myself how hurtful it can be, often the people posting are unaware how much their comments hurt, because when we don't even know what someone looks like and cannot read facial expressions or body language we can tend to be detached from others feelings. We can all be guilty of it at times imo.
Hi Maggie,it matters not,to me,how a person views the case,it's the way their " argument " comes over,and I can " feel " that person's post. I've never had a problem with either Jan or Alias,and I'm sure that if they were staunch anti's,their attitudes would remain the same as they've always been without the need for insults or abuse,because their outlooks are entirely different. Even Steve as I've mentioned.
Looking back before I came onto the forum,there were one or two supporters who were given a bad time,and I really can't understand why that is,but it's horrible to read and it's not gone unnoticed that we've lost posters.
It's now become a test whether you can stand the strain and it shouldn't be like that.
-
Hi Maggie,it matters not,to me,how a person views the case,it's the way their " argument " comes over,and I can " feel " that person's post. I've never had a problem with either Jan or Alias,and I'm sure that if they were staunch anti's,their attitudes would remain the same as they've always been without the need for insults or abuse,because their outlooks are entirely different. Even Steve as I've mentioned.
Looking back before I came onto the forum,there were one or two supporters who were given a bad time,and I really can't understand why that is,but it's horrible to read and it's not gone unnoticed that we've lost posters.
It's now become a test whether you can stand the strain and it shouldn't be like that.
Yes it has and not just for you and your 'mates' - you're not averse to hostility yourself. You and a few others claim you don't like the bad feeling and hate the arguing but constantly dig until someone bites. You reap what you sow.
-
At least Gringo puts explanations in his posts without " forcing " any issues of guilt or innocence down our throats such as yourself and Scipio.
Steve is an anti,but his posts explain, rather than " put anyone down " or to call opposition posts BS.
There's absolutely no need for the scathing posts just because some of us think differently.I don't know what it's all for,and I'll obviously reply in the same tone as they're posted.
The bad feeling which was/is on here,had already been created by the anti's,and when I joined,showing my support,it became like a red-rag to a bull,and I got flak from every direction.Being someone who doesn't suffer fools and sit back and take it,horror of horrors,I stuck up for myself and that's why EVERYONE now blames ME for the " bad feelings ".
It would be a jolly sight easier for me to admit defeat and take it on the chin than argue the toss any longer in order to keep the peace.
What do you call a person who agrees with everything everyone says ? BORING !!
I take people to task for posting things without having an evidentiary basis for their claims be it your constant claims about June and Nevill having nail marks in their arms (which recently you seem to have expanded to Sheila) or Mike's dozens of allegations that have no support at all.
-
A question
is there evidence that Jeremy says the pictures never existed ? Which would make Colin a liar - which I do doubt .
Or did he just tell the Sun they did not exist . Which is a different argument all together.
-
You have the right to believed what you like, Alias. But when you only put forth supporter arugements, seem unable to view the case from both sides, speak negatively about the police, the family, Colin, June & Neville ....and basically ANYONE that isn't Bamber....
..and then say "I'm on the fence!"
It's going to cause questions. ;D
Truth of the matter is, I am rapidly losing interest in the case - and the people discussing it.
I don´t have any feelings invested, I just see a possible MOJ.
Most of what I write is misinterpreted because people have other people in boxes and can only see one side to them.
I am losing interest overall.
-
I don't care what your stance is to be honest but you do come over as a supporter.
I'm not trying to convince anyone - I just don't like lies! What's it to you if I want to post here? Too bad if you don't like the fact that I don't let people get away with BS - I'll continue to pick over the bones if that's OK by you?
I don´t care.
-
Truth of the matter is, I am rapidly losing interest in the case - and the people discussing it.
I don´t have any feelings invested, I just see a possible MOJ.
Most of what I write is misinterpreted because people have other people in boxes and can only see one side to them.
I am losing interest overall.
I do understand Alias, it is difficult if you're constantly being accused of something you aren't guilty of. I understand how you think and why because I think in a similar way. Keep kicking it out Alias, you are a great poster.
-
I take people to task for posting things without having an evidentiary basis for their claims be it your constant claims about June and Nevill having nail marks in their arms (which recently you seem to have expanded to Sheila) or Mike's dozens of allegations that have no support at all.
Somewhere within Vanesiz notes,you'll find that he states that marks found on the arms of June and Sheila,which matched those found on Neville's arm,were consistent with there having been a struggle which took place.
-
The above was from a statement dated 12/11/86,where Vanesiz said that there was " no doubt in his mind that it was 4 murders and a suicide ".
This thread that contains the statement is headed Dr.P Vanesiz dated 12/11/86.
-
I don't agree Lookout, I'm sure most people don't blame you for bad feelings at all, why should you be responsible?
It's natural that feelings run high at times on a forum and am sure that will increase when the next couple of books are published.
I do think you get a raw deal at times and I know myself how hurtful it can be, often the people posting are unaware how much their comments hurt, because when we don't even know what someone looks like and cannot read facial expressions or body language we can tend to be detached from others feelings. We can all be guilty of it at times imo.
Well said, maggie.
-
A question
is there evidence that Jeremy says the pictures never existed ? Which would make Colin a liar - which I do doubt .
Or did he just tell the Sun they did not exist . Which is a different argument all together.
It's on his OS
-
I don´t care.
Good for you! ::)
-
Yes it has and not just for you and your 'mates' - you're not averse to hostility yourself. You and a few others claim you don't like the bad feeling and hate the arguing but constantly dig until someone bites. You reap what you sow.
that's rude in itself.
None of us are "mates" or on sides and I personally try very hard not to bite unless pushed. Scipio has posted some very rude and personal things about me as has Adam but I will still discuss with them when they post in a reasonable way .
And I hope I do the same with others . But I don't like seeing some of the ganging up and bullying that does go on here .
We are all free to post contra arguments and views without being belittled or told posts are "unbelievable " or that one persons post is a "FACT" when in fact it is an opinion.
I don't agree with things that "innocents " post - but there are ways of questioning it without being rude about it.
IMO of course and with lots of smileys ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D -
-
that's rude in itself.
None of us are "mates" or on sides and I personally try very hard not to bite unless pushed. Scipio has posted some very rude and personal things about me as has Adam but I will still discuss with them when they post in a reasonable way .
And I hope I do the same with others . But I don't like seeing some of the ganging up and bullying that does go on here .
We are all free to post contra arguments and views without being belittled or told posts are "unbelievable " or that one persons post is a "FACT" when in fact it is an opinion.
I don't agree with things that "innocents " post - but there are ways of questioning it without being rude about it.
IMO of course and with lots of smileys ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D -
Sometimes RUDE is all people understand. I don't actually like being rude but sometimes it's justified.
Anyway, here is the link to the OS that I mentioned above.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
-
Jan I have to say I have always found you very well mannered and are always very respectful when replying to a post irrespective which side of the fence the poster sits on.
-
Sometimes RUDE is all people understand. I don't actually like being rude but sometimes it's justified.
Anyway, here is the link to the OS that I mentioned above.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
Caroline I don't think you are rude you just tell it as it is with no frills. :)
-
Sometimes RUDE is all people understand. I don't actually like being rude but sometimes it's justified.
Anyway, here is the link to the OS that I mentioned above.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
thank you I will have another read.
-
Jan I have to say I have always found you very well mannered and are always very respectful when replying to a post irrespective which side of the fence the poster sits on.
Not always :)
But I do try and give fair warning when I am about to lose it.
-
Sometimes RUDE is all people understand. I don't actually like being rude but sometimes it's justified.
Anyway, here is the link to the OS that I mentioned above.
http://jeremybamber.org/jeremy-bamber/
that's not a link to his OS - it is what he told the Sun?
-
that's not a link to his OS - it is what he told the Sun?
It is the affiliate site and part of the official site, they both link to each other.
No, it's what he says he told the Sun and denies the photographs exist.
-
that's not a link to his OS - it is what he told the Sun?
It is a campaign website. It asserts the author was given access to Jeremy's documents.
"After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper."
How could the author know what was said to Jeremy or what Jeremy said to the journalist unless either Jeremy told him verbally or recorded such in something he wrote. If the author had no actual account from Jeremy either verbal or in writing then it shows the claims were just worthless speculation though presented as fact. Similarly the author had no basis to assert the nude photos didn't exist unless Jeremy indicated such. So either this supporter made up everything or Jeremy actually asserted these things. Jeremy is aware of the site and could have ordered it taken down but hasn't and hasn't tried to correct the record so seems to tacitly endorse it.
The author chose to ignore the evidence that establishes the photos do exist and either promoted Jeremy's spin that the journalist was asking if any porno photos existed or made up that spin himself for Jeremy's benefit and Jeremy liked it so let it stand.
-
It is a campaign website. It asserts the author was given access to Jeremy's documents.
"After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper."
How could the author know what was said to Jeremy or what Jeremy said to the journalist unless either Jeremy told him verbally or recorded such in something he wrote. If the author had no actual account from Jeremy either verbal or in writing then it shows the claims were just worthless speculation though presented as fact. Similarly the author had no basis to assert the nude photos didn't exist unless Jeremy indicated such. So either this supporter made up everything or Jeremy actually asserted these things. Jeremy is aware of the site and could have ordered it taken down but hasn't and hasn't tried to correct the record so seems to tacitly endorse it.
The author chose to ignore the evidence that establishes the photos do exist and either promoted Jeremy's spin that the journalist was asking if any porno photos existed or made up that spin himself for Jeremy's benefit and Jeremy liked it so let it stand.
They didn't exist? But he told Colin about them. Like any more proof was needed!
-
I did read that ::) and I understand what caroline said .
Either way it does not look good - either the photos did not exist and he was winding up colin - that itself pretty cruel
Or they did exist he did approach the paper and he changed his mind about selling them ( Sorry but the reporter has obviously made up other things about the photos and is a liar so I don't believe him either)
Or There is a misinterpretation of what Jeremy said and they did exist - the Sun found out and offered to buy them - he refused by telling them they did not exist and they printed a load of lies about how bad the photos ( that they never saw ) were .Afterwards Jeremy used this angle and said they actually did not exist ( even though he knew he had told Colin they did?)
As I said I do believe Colin as I can not see he had any reason to lie . But the facts are he never saw the photos . The sun never saw the photos . No one has ever seen the photos since.
Its another going round in circles situation.
Probably the only other person who knows the truth is Brett.
-
I did read that ::) and I understand what caroline said .
Either way it does not look good - either the photos did not exist and he was winding up colin - that itself pretty cruel
Or they did exist he did approach the paper and he changed his mind about selling them ( Sorry but the reporter has obviously made up other things about the photos and is a liar so I don't believe him either)
Or There is a misinterpretation of what Jeremy said and they did exist - the Sun found out and offered to buy them - he refused by telling them they did not exist and they printed a load of lies about how bad the photos ( that they never saw ) were .Afterwards Jeremy used this angle and said they actually did not exist ( even though he knew he had told Colin they did?)
As I said I do believe Colin as I can not see he had any reason to lie . But the facts are he never saw the photos . The sun never saw the photos . No one has ever seen the photos since.
Its another going round in circles situation.
Probably the only other person who knows the truth is Brett.
I don't think there is any question that he met with the journalist and tried to sell them. 100% certain.
-
I find it odd that anyone is willing to believe this story on the scant evidence offered. We know of two stories(apart from this one) that Fielder has "reported" on. On both of these occasions(Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) Fielders "reporting" consisted of lying about people and trashing their reputations with made up stories and slurs against them seemingly on behalf of the powerful against the weak. There seem to be no examples of any noteworthy reporting done by Fielder.
In his story in the Sun about Bamber, Fielder allegedly, and at best, uses nine words that are supposedly used by Bamber to Colin. Of the how ever many hundred more words in his article, nothing is said. Perhaps this is because the allegations are so wild and sleazy(and obviously made up by Fielder- It was apparently his MO) that they show Fielder to be the obvious liar that he demonstrated himself to be on the, so far, two previous occasions that we know of his "reporting".
So we know he made up 100% of the allegations against Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg. Much of the article in the Sun was clearly made up by Fielder(sex toys etc.).
Who in their right mind would believe Fielder on the basis of nine words allegedly "ringing true" when we now know that everything that we are aware of him writing has been 100% lies.
-
They didn't exist? But he told Colin about them. Like any more proof was needed!
I cannot take this as proof.
Didn´t Colin talk about "famous" photos - or rather, didn´t Jeremy use that term?
What if they WERE only that, photos which Jeremy thought were famous - perhaps the ones which had been publicized.
I can easily see how Colin with his rather fluffy mindset (sorry, that is my opinion - I read his book, and that is what I am left with, not going to lie!) would read something in the Sun and go, Wow, ECAXTLY what Jeremy told me.
Colin so easily believed Ann Eaton and David Boutflour´s story about a robin showing them which window Jeremy exited the farmhouse after the murders. He seems to have been easily influenced.
Just my opinion, and hope I am not offending too much!
-
I don't think there is any question that he met with the journalist and tried to sell them. 100% certain.
that is your perogative.
I find it very hard to believe. To the sun it was just another money spinning story and I have no doubt there could have been others influencing them in blackening Jeremys name. so I am not convinced that is 100% the truth.
I just can not see either that after 4 days questioning that would have been the first thing on his mind - to drop himself in the mire even deeper.
-
I don't think there is any question that he met with the journalist and tried to sell them. 100% certain.
It is strange to want to sell something and not at least bring a sample of what you are offering.
One of the reasons I find this hard to believe.
-
that is your perogative.
I find it very hard to believe. To the sun it was just another money spinning story and I have no doubt there could have been others influencing them in blackening Jeremys name. so I am not convinced that is 100% the truth.
I just can not see either that after 4 days questioning that would have been the first thing on his mind - to drop himself in the mire even deeper.
It would be almost certain that the police would have found the slides themselves anyway, Jan. When Jeremy was arrested his house at Goldhanger would have been searched. Allegedly this is where the slides were so EP would have found them. How the Sun would find out about them then is anyone's guess.
-
They didn't exist? But he told Colin about them. Like any more proof was needed!
Caroline the photo's did exist Jeremy told Colin about them and did I see somewhere Jeremy was trying to redeem himself and said he would return the photo's to Colin then he was held by the police.
-
that is your perogative.
I find it very hard to believe. To the sun it was just another money spinning story and I have no doubt there could have been others influencing them in blackening Jeremys name. so I am not convinced that is 100% the truth.
I just can not see either that after 4 days questioning that would have been the first thing on his mind - to drop himself in the mire even deeper.
Seems absurd, Jeremy is supposed to have done so many stupid things, he could as well have walked around with a huge cardboard arrow pointing at himself with the text, I DID IT!
-
Seems absurd, Jeremy is supposed to have done so many stupid things, he could as well have walked around with a huge cardboard arrow pointing at himself with the text, I DID IT!
I think that was all part of the game,sad to say..
-
Seems absurd, Jeremy is supposed to have done so many stupid things, he could as well have walked around with a huge cardboard arrow pointing at himself with the text, I DID IT!
I know ;D
Weirder and weirder .
-
I think that was all part of the game,sad to say..
That is a tad complicated, I think.
Are you saying he wanted to be found out?
-
I think that was all part of the game,sad to say..
steve I agree with you this is why Jeremy was acting smart with EP answering No Comment and I think all his family had just been wiped out not the time to be flippant but helpful to the police it was a sad serious time.
-
steve I agree with you this is why Jeremy was acting smart with EP answering No Comment and I think all his family had just been wiped out not the time to be flippant but helpful to the police it was a sad serious time.
The problem is we have only seen two statements out of 4 days questioning - 2 of which were without a solicitor - apparently there were hundreds of transcribed pages of interviews - so perhaps he just got thoroughly fed up with them ( to put it politely) and if he thought Julie was telling lies then "no comment" may save himself from getting entangled in a web that he did not entirely understand.
-
The problem is we have only seen two statements out of 4 days questioning - 2 of which were without a solicitor - apparently there were hundreds of transcribed pages of interviews - so perhaps he just got thoroughly fed up with them ( to put it politely) and if he thought Julie was telling lies then "no comment" may save himself from getting entangled in a web that he did not entirely understand.
It is actually a fairly typical reaction after having questions repeated over and over - and over for hours.
-
Susan,most who are arrested state " no comment ". There is a legal right in place to remain silent in case of incriminations.
-
The problem is we have only seen two statements out of 4 days questioning - 2 of which were without a solicitor - apparently there were hundreds of transcribed pages of interviews - so perhaps he just got thoroughly fed up with them ( to put it politely) and if he thought Julie was telling lies then "no comment" may save himself from getting entangled in a web that he did not entirely understand.
Jan had all my family just been murdered two of them two wee boys I could not behave in a flippant manner as I would be horrified if I thought the police were thinking I had committed the crime. According to Adam Jeremy was giving answers to the police in a kind of singing manner (I cannot confirm whether this is true) It is my opinion that Jeremy was his own worst enemy with his attitude and did himself no favours but I must add just because I would have handled things differently than Jeremy does not make his behaviour wrong just different than mine.
-
Susan,most who are arrested state " no comment ". There is a legal right in place to remain silent in case of incriminations.
Hello lookout thanks for that did not know that it was a legal right just thought it was Jeremy being smart :'(
-
That is a tad complicated, I think.
Are you saying he wanted to be found out?
He aught as well have been playing on his Gameboy,manipulating the buttons as he did the characters in this drama. Julie couldn't read him,Sheila was in her own world and the twins' heroic selflessness shone through their every action,inheriting as they did the best in both parent. Jeremy thought he could control Julie with threats if necessary and use his charm on cousin Ann to avert suspicion,but the game was played from the moment the Police arrived at the White House,the charade continuing as they progressed to Goldhanger with Jeremy centre stage for maybe the only time in his life before the trial,where he similarly found a macabre pleasure as he does to this day with his hankering to pull the wool over anyone's eyes who ventures too close to him.
-
He aught as well have been playing on his Gameboy,manipulating the buttons as he did the characters in this drama. Julie couldn't read him,Sheila was in her own world and the twins' heroic selflessness shone through their every action,inheriting as they did the best in both parent. Jeremy thought he could control Julie with threats if necessary and use his charm on cousin Ann to avert suspicion,but the game was played from the moment the Police arrived at the White House,the charade continuing as they progressed to Goldhanger with Jeremy centre stage for maybe the only time in his life before the trial,where he similarly found a macabre pleasure as he does to this day with his hankering to pull the wool over anyone's eyes who ventures too close to him.
Well written, but how was trying to sell pornographic pictures of his sister manipulating?
Do you agree it would be a stupid act and would put himself in a bad light?
BTW, question in general: which source would the newspaper give for the photos? Jeremy Bamber?
-
Well written, but how was trying to sell pornographic pictures of his sister manipulating?
Do you agree it would be a stupid act and would put himself in a bad light?
BTW, question in general: which source would the newspaper give for the photos? Jeremy Bamber?
But it wasn't relevant evidence-wise as Jeremy knew only too well;just it gave an insight into the character of the man.
-
But it wasn't relevant evidence-wise as Jeremy knew only too well;just it gave an insight into the character of the man.
But you would think he would be eager to appear decent to divert attention from himself - not towards his lousy character.
-
But you would think he would be eager to appear decent to divert attention from himself - not towards his lousy character.
But the hard work had been done as he escaped the yoke of Nevill and June,the case always revolving around these two with Sheila and the twins only an appendage which blocked his way to further wealth. He offered to pay for the funerals and in this any conscience he may have had was assuaged as he tied up loose ends at the White House and considered what to do with the rest of his life from the comparative luxury of Moreshead Mansions.
-
But the hard work had been done as he escaped the yoke of Nevill and June,the case always revolving around these two with Sheila and the twins only an appendage which blocked his way to further wealth. He offered to pay for the funerals and in this any conscience he may have had was assuaged as he tied up loose ends at the White House and considered what to do with the rest of his life from the comparative luxury of Moreshead Mansions.
Jeremy must be very stupid.
-
The problem is we have only seen two statements out of 4 days questioning - 2 of which were without a solicitor - apparently there were hundreds of transcribed pages of interviews - so perhaps he just got thoroughly fed up with them ( to put it politely) and if he thought Julie was telling lies then "no comment" may save himself from getting entangled in a web that he did not entirely understand.
His full interrogation is on the site. It is 80 pages total.
Sept 8 (pages 1-7) and 9 (pages 8-12) he had no attorney with him. On Sept 10 (pages 13-39), Sept 11 (page 39-59) and Sept 12 (pages 59-80) he had an attorney with him.
-
Jeremy must be very stupid.
No, just your common or garden psychopath!
-
A question
is there evidence that Jeremy says the pictures never existed ? Which would make Colin a liar - which I do doubt .
Or did he just tell the Sun they did not exist . Which is a different argument all together.
colin admits he never actully saw them so it wuldent really make him a liar.
-
No, just your common or garden psychopath!
Psychopaths are good at emulating "normal" behaviour - this is not an example of that.
Jeremy having just killed his whole family and staged his two shot murder of his sister as a suicide, then stands outside the crime scene and tells the cops that he doesn´t like his sister much.
Then he proceeds to try to sell pornographic pictures of her = stupid!
-
it would show an incredible level of stupidity yes.
-
He may as well have just said he did it,and be done with-------------such an EASY investigation. ::)
-
Psychopaths are good at emulating "normal" behaviour - this is not an example of that.
Jeremy having just killed his whole family and staged his two shot murder of his sister as a suicide, then stands outside the crime scene and tells the cops that he didn´t like his sister much.
Then he proceeds to try to sell pornographic pictures of her = stupid!
Ok, he's a stupid psychopath then!
-
Wouldn't cyclepath be more appropriate ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He may as well have just said he did it,and be done with-------------such an EASY investigation. ::)
well it would be a pretty insane thing to do when you allready know your a suspect.
-
It would be almost certain that the police would have found the slides themselves anyway, Jan. When Jeremy was arrested his house at Goldhanger would have been searched. Allegedly this is where the slides were so EP would have found them. How the Sun would find out about them then is anyone's guess.
No one needs to guess, Jeremy told the Sun but I doubt very much they were at Goldhanger, he probably just told Colin that so he didn't have to hand them over - he had plans for them!
-
I find it odd that anyone is willing to believe this story on the scant evidence offered. We know of two stories(apart from this one) that Fielder has "reported" on. On both of these occasions(Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg) Fielders "reporting" consisted of lying about people and trashing their reputations with made up stories and slurs against them seemingly on behalf of the powerful against the weak. There seem to be no examples of any noteworthy reporting done by Fielder.
In his story in the Sun about Bamber, Fielder allegedly, and at best, uses nine words that are supposedly used by Bamber to Colin. Of the how ever many hundred more words in his article, nothing is said. Perhaps this is because the allegations are so wild and sleazy(and obviously made up by Fielder- It was apparently his MO) that they show Fielder to be the obvious liar that he demonstrated himself to be on the, so far, two previous occasions that we know of his "reporting".
So we know he made up 100% of the allegations against Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg. Much of the article in the Sun was clearly made up by Fielder(sex toys etc.).
Who in their right mind would believe Fielder on the basis of nine words allegedly "ringing true" when we now know that everything that we are aware of him writing has been 100% lies.
There you go again, misrepresenting and creating propaganda. You found one story that was questionable but you don't know that Fielder lied at all. You don't know where the accusations originated from but to suit YOUR agenda, you present the lie as coming from Fielder when he simply reported it. What lies did he tell about Colin Stagg? Did Fielder accuse CS of killing Rachel Nickel? I thought that was the police aided by Paul Brittan? Did Fielder come up with the idea of Operation Edzel? I thought that was the police influenced by Paul Brittan? CS was indeed hounded by the press - not JUST the Sun and even after the case was thrown out of court, he was assumed to be the killer because Rachel's father announced that they weren't looking for anyone else, which made it sound like CS got away with murder. However, you seem to know about some 'specific lies' Fielder is responsible for? I'd be interested to hear what they were/are?
Back to Bamber - just nine words eh? Yep, nine words formed into a specific sentece "They show everything, right down to the last detail". They aren't just nine random words like you're trying to insinuate, it's a sentence, in two parts. Absolutely NO WAY could both parties come up with SAME sentence by coincidence and to suggest such is a REALLY desperate attempt to try and cover the truth. The truth being that Jeremy tried to sell private, compromising pictures of his dead sister to The Sun.
-
There you go again, misrepresenting and creating propaganda. You found one story that was questionable but you don't know that Fielder lied at all. You don't know where the accusations originated from but to suit YOUR agenda, you present the lie as coming from Fielder when he simply reported it. What lies did he tell about Colin Stagg? Did Fielder accuse CS of killing Rachel Nickel? I thought that was the police aided by Paul Brittan? Did Fielder come up with the idea of Operation Edzel? I thought that was the police influenced by Paul Brittan? CS was indeed hounded by the press - not JUST the Sun and even after the case was thrown out of court, he was assumed to be the killer because Rachel's father announced that they weren't looking for anyone else, which made it sound like CS got away with murder. However, you seem to know about some 'specific lies' Fielder is responsible for? I'd be interested to hear what they were/are?
Back to Bamber - just nine words eh? Yep, nine words formed into a specific sentece "They show everything, right down to the last detail". They aren't just nine random words like you're trying to insinuate, it's a sentence, in two parts. Absolutely NO WAY could both parties come up with SAME sentence by coincidence and to suggest such is a REALLY desperate attempt to try and cover the truth. The truth being that Jeremy tried to sell private, compromising pictures of his dead sister to The Sun.
At some point you mentioned something about a cucumber - did Jeremy say this to both Colin and this sleaze-reporter?
-
I think some kind of sex toy was mentioned.
-
At some point you mentioned something about a cucumber - did Jeremy say this to both Colin and this sleaze-reporter?
No idea, if he mentioned it to Colin, I doubt Colin would comment on that out of respect for Sheila.
-
I think some kind of sex toy was mentioned.
Jan think I read a vibrator and cucumber were mentioned :'( Jan I replied to your post earlier but sent it to myself :'( blame the hot sun.
-
I think some kind of sex toy was mentioned.
Caroline said to me at one point that Jeremy had mentioned a cucumber (and something else, can´t remember) to both sleazeball and Colin.
-
No idea, if he mentioned it to Colin, I doubt Colin would comment on that out of respect for Sheila.
I think you used it as an argument that Jeremy had said the same to CC and Sun.
-
Caroline said to me at one point that Jeremy had mentioned a cucumber (and something else, can´t remember) to both sleazeball and Colin.
I said he mentioned the same sentence.
-
Jan think I read a vibrator and cucumber were mentioned :'( Jan I replied to your post earlier but sent it to myself :'( blame the hot sun.
:) it happens to us all.
-
I said he mentioned the same sentence.
And I asked what it was specifically - and you replied as you did with the cucumber and something else. But he didn´t.
-
I have made it clear what Jeremy told Fielder and Colin, I've written the sentence about 20 times. I have linked witness statements and copied passages from books. You have seen the video where Fielder mentions a cucumber yourself. I have no idea if this was mentioned to Colin other than they were described as pornographic.
-
Here it is: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6696.630.html
Offline Caroline
Veteran Member
*****
Posts: 8400
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The meeting with The Sun newspaper:
« Reply #640 on: May 24, 2015, 03:43:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Alias on May 24, 2015, 03:36:PM
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
-
Here it is: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6696.630.html
Offline Caroline
Veteran Member
*****
Posts: 8400
View Profile Personal Message (Offline)
Re: The meeting with The Sun newspaper:
« Reply #640 on: May 24, 2015, 03:43:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Alias on May 24, 2015, 03:36:PM
In how many ways can nude photos be described? Not that many, right? But in each and every person´s mind, it can be interpreted differently.
I can´t see this as proof.
What did Jeremy mean by "famous pictures"? That term can easily be misunderstood. Famous pictures, couldn´t they just have been fashion pictures which had been in magazines?
Besides, I think that Gringo has an excellent point: why wasn´t the meeting recorded, wouldn´t that have been the norm?
Yes, they can be described in different way but if you add the words dildo and cucumber - it narrows the field. I don't think gringo has ANY point - why didn't they film it for that matter? Why didn't they invite the whole reporting team to witness the event? Simple answer is that 'they didn't' but just because they didn't do something, doesn't alter the FACT that Colin said Jeremy described the pictures to him, in the SAME way as had been reported in The Sun.
And? So SINCE THEN, I found the EXACT sentence that was repeated. Which was 'They show everything right down to the last detail'. Perhaps he did mention the sex aids to Colin, Colin certainly didn't deny it - he said he KNEW the article was TRUE!
-
And? So SINCE THEN, I found the EXACT sentence that was repeated. Which was 'They show everything right down to the last detail'. Perhaps he did mention the sex aids to Colin, Colin certainly didn't deny it - he said he KNEW the article was TRUE!
So you admit your information was false.
-
I just found the statement where Pam found some photos of Sheila in a drawer at WHF and she handed them to the police . They were portfolio photos taken by a family friend . I knew I had read it somewhere.
-
So you admit your information was false.
No Alias, I don't know it's false, because I don't know if Jeremy mentioned to to BOTH Colin and Fielder Initially I thought that's what Colin meant then I found the actual sentence he was referring to. So I admit I made a mistake - because I do now and again. Like when I thought Bamber was innocent. I'm big enough to admit I make mistakes, Alias - unlike you, who, when someone (from the dark side) doesn't agree with you (foot print on the rug) you start whining on about how unfair it all is and throw your toys out of the pram!! You turn everything into some kind of personal vendetta - how silly!! Trying to make this personal with me, doesn't change the FACT your dear Jeremy tried to sell pictures of his dead sister to the Sun.
-
Nearly as bad as the pics which Vidvic stated that he'd " been reliably informed about " when the police were " horsing around. Three of these pics ( with police in situ ) exist,and are probably in the hands of JB's solicitor.
This can be viewed on the thread "Fresh Grounds for JB's Next ( 4th) Appeal.
These pics are of the dead family !!
-
is it possble for somone to post an extract of colins book so we can all see his exact words.
-
is it possble for somone to post an extract of colins book so we can all see his exact words.
I'll post the page later.
-
thankyou caroline.
-
thankyou caroline.
For Nugs
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
Not sure why a few of the pictures are on the side, don't have time to change it, just tilt your head! ;D ;D
-
For Nugs
Even if your family had not been murdered, the normal reaction when going through their things and finding nude photos would be to immediately destroy them. That they still existed for Colin to see says volumes regarding Jeremy's intentions...
-
Even if your family had not been murdered, the normal reaction when going through their things and finding nude photos would be to immediately destroy them. That they still existed for Colin to see says volumes regarding Jeremy's intentions...
he didn't even have the decency to let Colin sort out the boys rooms. Bagged up their belongings like rubbish.
-
he didn't even have the decency to let Colin sort out the boys rooms. Bagged up their belongings like rubbish.
Caroline Colin was very disapointed when he saw what Jeremy had done with his sons belongings as he wanted to do it in his mind that was the last contact he would have with them :(
-
he didn't even have the decency to let Colin sort out the boys rooms. Bagged up their belongings like rubbish.
How do you know ?
-
he didn't even have the decency to let Colin sort out the boys rooms. Bagged up their belongings like rubbish.
In total the picture presented is:
1) Jeremy stopped farming and thus stopped living at Goldhanger where he lived only because he was given free board there in order to be close to his work
2) He was living in Sheila's flat because this way he could be in London to live the kind of lifestyle he always sought
3) He didn't keep anything that was his family's for sentimental reasons he sold anything he could and threw away anything he could not sell
4) Any normal decent person would have junked the nude pics not have shared them with Brett and others. While he threw away things that he felt were valueless he didn't throw away the nude pictures- this tells us that he saw some value in the nude pictures. What value could he have seen in them? Jeremy supporters never address this because it is highly damning. It well supports the claims that he tried to sell them. If he had no intention of selling them then he would have thrown them away as soon as he found them. Which leads us to the ultimate desperation engaged in by Jeremy supporters which is to deny the pictures ever existed thereby alleviating the need of them to explain why he didn't destroy the photos as soon as he found them.
-
How do you know ?
You are the book lover, did you bother to read the pages she posted in this thread from Colin's book? The pages related to such were vertical so could be read without a bent neck.
-
In total the picture presented is:
1) Jeremy stopped farming and thus stopped living at Goldhanger where he lived only because he was given free board there in order to be close to his work
2) He was living in Sheila's flat because this way he could be in London to live the kind of lifestyle he always sought
3) He didn't keep anything that was his family's for sentimental reasons he sold anything he could and threw away anything he could not sell
4) Any normal decent person would have junked the nude pics not have shared them with Brett and others. While he threw away things that he felt were valueless he didn't throw away the nude pictures- this tells us that he saw some value in the nude pictures. What value could he have seen in them? Jeremy supporters never address this because it is highly damning. It well supports the claims that he tried to sell them. If he had no intention of selling them then he would have thrown them away as soon as he found them. Which leads us to the ultimate desperation engaged in by Jeremy supporters which is to deny the pictures ever existed thereby alleviating the need of them to explain why he didn't destroy the photos as soon as he found them.
I agree!! Also, you have to question why the most explicit pictures were at Goldhanger? I think he had the pictures all along and didn't give them to Colin because he already had plans to sell them.
-
How do you know ?
Errr research Lookout!! I did most of the work for you, you just had to read the pages I posted!
-
Caroline Colin was very disapointed when he saw what Jeremy had done with his sons belongings as he wanted to do it in his mind that was the last contact he would have with them :(
And who wouldn't be Susan? Seeing the twins belongings in bin liners must have been a stab in the heart.
-
I agree!! Also, you have to question why the most explicit pictures were at Goldhanger? I think he had the pictures all along and didn't give them to Colin because he already had plans to sell them.
Colin was her ex I would not have given them to Colin even, I would have destroyed them upon finding them.
-
Colin was her ex I would not have given them to Colin even, I would have destroyed them upon finding them.
So would I but I don't believe he didn't have them to hand when Colin asked for them.
-
And who wouldn't be Susan? Seeing the twins belongings in bin liners must have been a stab in the heart.
Caroline it was so cruel, cold and callous for Jeremy to have so little regard for clothes and toys belonging to the twins but to put them in bin liners as if they were garbage.
-
Caroline it was so cruel, cold and callous for Jeremy to have so little regard for clothes and toys belonging to the twins but to put them in bin liners as if they were garbage.
I can imagine that he didn't even give a thought to how it looked. Instances like this make me think of the P word! ;)
-
I can imagine that he didn't even give a thought to how it looked. Instances like this make me think of the P word! ;)
;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Caroline it was so cruel, cold and callous for Jeremy to have so little regard for clothes and toys belonging to the twins but to put them in bin liners as if they were garbage.
He figured since they were dead they would not longer be needed. He had no sentimental attachment to anything because he didn't like his family and didn't even consider that Colin would want any of the stuff.
-
He figured since they were dead they would not longer be needed. He had no sentimental attachment to anything because he didn't like his family and didn't even consider that Colin would want any of the stuff.
Like I said, sparks of the P word.
-
Jeremy had no need to bag up the twins belongings like he did. Gives you an insight into his mind, he didn't care!
Thanks for posting the pages, Caroline.
-
Jeremy had no need to bag up the twins belongings like he did. Gives you an insight into his mind, he didn't care!
Thanks for posting the pages, Caroline.
Cheers Mat, no problem, not sure why a couple of them decided to liay down! They aren't like that on my lap top, just when I uploaded them.
I agree about JB, very telling!
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
-
is it possble for somone to post an extract of colins book so we can all see his exact words.
No matter what JB did or didn't do would be painted as bad, Nugs. From the extracts and, more importantly, the statements there is no dispute that Colin didn't visit Sheila's flat to collect or do anything until a month after the murders.
It is somewhat harsh to criticise Jeremy for putting the twins belongings into black bags. What was he supposed to put them in? What are the rules? Should he leave it until Colin decides the time is right? I think he is damned here whatever he does.
Colin's recollections in the book are coloured by a hindsight that has been influenced by events. His initial reaction was that Sheila "had finally done it" and it is worth noting that his opinion only started to change after JB's arrest and negative stories in the press along with the family plotting and "ganging up on him". It is self evident that at this time that Colin still believed Sheila responsible and that he felt that the family were motivated by financial interests. However it is painted, Colin believed the relatives were attempting to blame Jeremy and this was motivated by money and not a true belief in his guilt.
His own recollections are also self serving. In his statement Colin talks of his disappointment at not having had the opportunity to buy some of the more valuable antiques from the flat as he and his mother would have been interested in buying some, as they were Antique dealers.
In the book nothing is mentioned of Colin wishing to have the opportunity to deal in some antiques but it has become all about the heritage.
As for the pictures, why on earth should Colin be the guardian of personal photos of Sheila. She was his ex wife and he was now in another relationship. Who would think upon finding nude pictures of your dead sister that you should immediately give them to her ex husband? Colin and Sheila's relationship had broken down seemingly irretrievably so why wouldn't the pictures be kept safe at Jeremy's?
Colin's book, wrote long after the events, may have proved cathartic for him personally but it is not a contemporaneous version and has little value as a source because it is coloured by time and events since.
-
ive missed somthing. who is christine.
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
What you and other Jeremy supporters like to use are Colins subjective feelings like you just raised while people those who accept Jeremy's guilt point to factual claims. It is a factual claim Jeremy moved into Sheila's flat. It is a factual claim he didn't ask Colin if he wanted anything from the boys or even form Sheila's things. It is a factual claim that he sold everything of value very quickly. We draw conclusions from these factual claims.
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
I don't think she, or anyone, is picking and choosing dependant on what makes Jeremy look good or bad.....but she posted the pages about the photos because that's what this topic is actually about.
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
I know what I think of the book too,particularly the robin scenario. ::) Far-fetched !!
-
No matter what JB did or didn't do would be painted as bad, Nugs. From the extracts and, more importantly, the statements there is no dispute that Colin didn't visit Sheila's flat to collect or do anything until a month after the murders.
It is somewhat harsh to criticise Jeremy for putting the twins belongings into black bags. What was he supposed to put them in? What are the rules? Should he leave it until Colin decides the time is right? I think he is damned here whatever he does.
Colin's recollections in the book are coloured by a hindsight that has been influenced by events. His initial reaction was that Sheila "had finally done it" and it is worth noting that his opinion only started to change after JB's arrest and negative stories in the press along with the family plotting and "ganging up on him". It is self evident that at this time that Colin still believed Sheila responsible and that he felt that the family were motivated by financial interests. However it is painted, Colin believed the relatives were attempting to blame Jeremy and this was motivated by money and not a true belief in his guilt.
His own recollections are also self serving. In his statement Colin talks of his disappointment at not having had the opportunity to buy some of the more valuable antiques from the flat as he and his mother would have been interested in buying some, as they were Antique dealers.
In the book nothing is mentioned of Colin wishing to have the opportunity to deal in some antiques but it has become all about the heritage.
As for the pictures, why on earth should Colin be the guardian of personal photos of Sheila. She was his ex wife and he was now in another relationship. Who would think upon finding nude pictures of your dead sister that you should immediately give them to her ex husband? Colin and Sheila's relationship had broken down seemingly irretrievably so why wouldn't the pictures be kept safe at Jeremy's?
Colin's book, wrote long after the events, may have proved cathartic for him personally but it is not a contemporaneous version and has little value as a source because it is coloured by time and events since.
Agreed,Gringo.
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
He has a warped and callous mind and is evil beyond belief.
-
There's something radically wrong with you,unless you expect a financial result by turning everyone to support his guilt. That wouldn't surprise me----------------an ulterior motive.!! But you're WRONG. ;D ;D
-
I don't think she, or anyone, is picking and choosing dependant on what makes Jeremy look good or bad.....but she posted the pages about the photos because that's what this topic is actually about.
Oh sorry I forgot no one ever goes off topic .And it is still relevant as they were commented on as an indication of his character - so I think to balance it out is fair.
-
Jan you must stop supporting Jeremy.
He has a warped and callous mind and is evil beyond belief.
Adam you must stop supporting Julie - she is a proven liar and supported a child killer.
-
No matter what JB did or didn't do would be painted as bad, Nugs. From the extracts and, more importantly, the statements there is no dispute that Colin didn't visit Sheila's flat to collect or do anything until a month after the murders.
It is somewhat harsh to criticise Jeremy for putting the twins belongings into black bags. What was he supposed to put them in? What are the rules? Should he leave it until Colin decides the time is right? I think he is damned here whatever he does.
Colin's recollections in the book are coloured by a hindsight that has been influenced by events. His initial reaction was that Sheila "had finally done it" and it is worth noting that his opinion only started to change after JB's arrest and negative stories in the press along with the family plotting and "ganging up on him". It is self evident that at this time that Colin still believed Sheila responsible and that he felt that the family were motivated by financial interests. However it is painted, Colin believed the relatives were attempting to blame Jeremy and this was motivated by money and not a true belief in his guilt.
His own recollections are also self serving. In his statement Colin talks of his disappointment at not having had the opportunity to buy some of the more valuable antiques from the flat as he and his mother would have been interested in buying some, as they were Antique dealers.
In the book nothing is mentioned of Colin wishing to have the opportunity to deal in some antiques but it has become all about the heritage.
As for the pictures, why on earth should Colin be the guardian of personal photos of Sheila. She was his ex wife and he was now in another relationship. Who would think upon finding nude pictures of your dead sister that you should immediately give them to her ex husband? Colin and Sheila's relationship had broken down seemingly irretrievably so why wouldn't the pictures be kept safe at Jeremy's?
Colin's book, wrote long after the events, may have proved cathartic for him personally but it is not a contemporaneous version and has little value as a source because it is coloured by time and events since.
it would on weather his book was consitant with his statements i dont think hed have any reason to lie in ethere years later he could of got a couple of things wrong.
-
And yet Colin also wrote about how Jeremy was the only one sympathetic to how he wanted to conduct the twins funerals and how the family were in his view very cold towards Sheilas ceremony .
So all that shows is how you can pick and chose from his book to use the bits you want.
Book reviews are very personal - I know what I think about his book -others will have a different interpretation .
Jeremy's FAKE sympathy lasted only as far as the funeral. Do you think that bagging up the twins belongings in bin liners was fitting?
-
it would on weather his book was consitant with his statements i dont think hed have any reason to lie in ethere years later he could of got a couple of things wrong.
He only gave a couple of statements and they are consistent. His suspicions about Jeremy develope over time. At first he believes Sheila guilty but after the twins funeral, Jeremy's haste to sell everything, his trying to sell the photographs and just his general attitude set off warning bells in Colin.
-
Oh sorry I forgot no one ever goes off topic .And it is still relevant as they were commented on as an indication of his character - so I think to balance it out is fair.
But that isn't balanced at all - he started off believing it was Sheila but all that changed after the funeral because of Jeremy's attitude. He even gave a statement to police about the intended selling of the photographs. His suspicion about Jeremy 'developed' and that is clear in his book.
-
He only gave a couple of statements and they are consistent. His suspicions about Jeremy develope over time. At first he believes Sheila guilty but after the twins funeral, Jeremy's haste to sell everything, his trying to sell the photographs and just his general attitude set off warning bells in Colin.
there was intresting snippet about the phonecall from david bouflour.
-
there was intresting snippet about the phonecall from david bouflour.
Why is that interesting? The family were told by police that Bamber would be arrested, Boutfour said it MIGHT be in the paper? So what? That has nothing to do with the intention of selling pictures to the Sun.
-
I can't understand the interest that DB had-------------or can I ?
-
I can't understand the interest that DB had-------------or can I ?
You can't understand why DB would be interested in Jeremy being arrested? Seriously? ::)
-
You can't understand why DB would be interested in Jeremy being arrested? Seriously? ::)
Being family, surely he has more interest and right than any of us.
-
Why is that interesting? The family were told by police that Bamber would be arrested, Boutfour said it MIGHT be in the paper? So what? That has nothing to do with the intention of selling pictures to the Sun.
he knew there was going to be a story in the sun the next day.
how did he know it would be in the sun.
-
You can't understand why DB would be interested in Jeremy being arrested? Seriously? ::)
I didn't quite say that now,did I ? I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. ::)
-
I didn't quite say that now,did I ? I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. ::)
I have no idea what you were on about. ::)
-
No matter what JB did or didn't do would be painted as bad, Nugs. From the extracts and, more importantly, the statements there is no dispute that Colin didn't visit Sheila's flat to collect or do anything until a month after the murders.
It is somewhat harsh to criticise Jeremy for putting the twins belongings into black bags. What was he supposed to put them in? What are the rules? Should he leave it until Colin decides the time is right? I think he is damned here whatever he does.
Colin's recollections in the book are coloured by a hindsight that has been influenced by events. His initial reaction was that Sheila "had finally done it" and it is worth noting that his opinion only started to change after JB's arrest and negative stories in the press along with the family plotting and "ganging up on him". It is self evident that at this time that Colin still believed Sheila responsible and that he felt that the family were motivated by financial interests. However it is painted, Colin believed the relatives were attempting to blame Jeremy and this was motivated by money and not a true belief in his guilt.
His own recollections are also self serving. In his statement Colin talks of his disappointment at not having had the opportunity to buy some of the more valuable antiques from the flat as he and his mother would have been interested in buying some, as they were Antique dealers.
In the book nothing is mentioned of Colin wishing to have the opportunity to deal in some antiques but it has become all about the heritage.
As for the pictures, why on earth should Colin be the guardian of personal photos of Sheila. She was his ex wife and he was now in another relationship. Who would think upon finding nude pictures of your dead sister that you should immediately give them to her ex husband? Colin and Sheila's relationship had broken down seemingly irretrievably so why wouldn't the pictures be kept safe at Jeremy's?
Colin's book, wrote long after the events, may have proved cathartic for him personally but it is not a contemporaneous version and has little value as a source because it is coloured by time and events since.
The comment "she's finally done it" made by Colin was in response to Police informing him of Sheila's death,before he knew the fate of his own sons. I'm perfectly willing to accept Sheila broached the subject of suicide with him in the past as she seems to have done with anybody who sat down for two minutes to listen to her. Colin believing Jeremy was the subject of multiple bereavement is obviously not going to thrust his desires immediately onto him as regards the twins' belongings,but Jeremy(or at least Julie) could have had the foresight to empathise and allow him to grieve with his sons' memories in the flat.
-
The comment "she's finally done it" made by Colin was in response to Police informing him of Sheila's death,before he knew the fate of his own sons. I'm perfectly willing to accept Sheila broached the subject of suicide with him in the past as she seems to have done with anybody who sat down for two minutes to listen to her. Colin believing Jeremy was the subject of multiple bereavement is obviously not going to thrust his desires immediately onto him as regards the twins' belongings,but Jeremy(or at least Julie) could have had the foresight to empathise and allow him to grieve with his sons' memories in the flat.
From the perspective of the innocent side Jeremy was also grieving. He had cleaned the flat and gathered the boys belongings and it is harsh in my view to suggest or imply that Jeremy somehow treated the belongings as rubbish. It does seem that he is damned whatever his reaction to everything.
-
so jeremy is supposed to have done this while out on bail.
if he did it hes got to be the stupidist man allive hasnt.
-
so jeremy is supposed to have done this while out on bail.
if he did it hes got to be the stupidist man allive hasnt.
No he's very clever Nugs, which is why he made so many mistakes and was eventually convicted.
-
so jeremy is supposed to have done this while out on bail.
if he did it hes got to be the stupidist man allive hasnt.
Nugnug do you mean Jeremy was on bail when he met with the Sun reporter did not know that he must have been confident he was going to walk free.
-
Nugnug do you mean Jeremy was on bail when he met with the Sun reporter did not know that he must have been confident he was going to walk free.
Of course he was Susan - one might say 'arrogantly so'! ;)
-
so the sun know hes suspected of murder he knows that they know this and he does that knowing full well it will make him a bigger suspect i find that hard to belive.
-
Arrogance=Innocence.
-
Arrogance=Innocence.
Arrogance=psychopathy
-
Arrogance=psychopathy
Agreed!
-
so what we have established is fielder and the sun knew he was suspected of killing his family before the meeting.
-
Arrogance=Innocence.
If I was under suspicion or murdering my entire family, arrogance would be the last trait that would show up. I wouldn't sit saying "no comment"... I would answer the questions to quickly clear my name so that they could move on.
But Jeremy believed he was smart enough to get away with it and wasn't about to say anything that they could use to trip him up, "no comment" at that time is very telling.
-
so jeremy is supposed to have done this while out on bail.
if he did it hes got to be the stupidist man allive hasnt.
That is a good point nugs. It all seems so unlikely and rests on so little "evidence" that the whole claim can be regarded as highly unlikely.
It is hard to believe that this is such an article of faith amongst many who believe JB guilty.
-
so what we have established is fielder and the sun knew he was suspected of killing his family before the meeting.
nugnug he must have done if Jeremy was on bail the Sun would know that.
-
so the sun know hes suspected of murder he knows that they know this and he does that knowing full well it will make him a bigger suspect i find that hard to belive.
He thought BC had made an alliance after previously giving Fielder an exclusive on Jeremy's (and his own) arrest. He thought he was clever enough to get him onside. If he didn't try to sell the pictures, how did Fielder know about them? How did he use the same sentence that was told to Colin? Why is Jeremy now saying they never existed?
-
If I was under suspicion or murdering my entire family, arrogance would be the last trait that would show up. I wouldn't sit saying "no comment"... I would answer the questions to quickly clear my name so that they could move on.
But Jeremy believed he was smart enough to get away with it and wasn't about to say anything that they could use to trip him up, "no comment" at that time is very telling.
Head up and sure of myself. That would be me. Unless I had a solicitor present,I wpuldn't answer any questions either as I know how answers can ne twisted.Even with a solicitor present,it's they who usually advice when to speak.
It's a legal right for an accused to answer with " no comment ".It doesn't mean that you have no intention of answering,it's on the orders of a lawyer not to do,as by answering,such as Jeremy had rattled when first arrested,he shot himself in the foot as the officers took what he'd said as read-------a big mistake,especially where times are concerned when later you discover you were wrong.
-
Head up and sure of myself. That would be me. Unless I had a solicitor present,I wpuldn't answer any questions either as I know how answers can ne twisted.Even with a solicitor present,it's they who usually advice when to speak.
It's a legal right for an accused to answer with " no comment ".It doesn't mean that you have no intention of answering,it's on the orders of a lawyer not to do,as by answering,such as Jeremy had rattled when first arrested,he shot himself in the foot as the officers took what he'd said as read-------a big mistake,especially where times are concerned when later you discover you were wrong.
They don't add up!
-
if i was under suspion i certanly wouldent do that angian i suppose im not him so i cant really say.
-
Head up and sure of myself. That would be me. Unless I had a solicitor present,I wouldn't answer any questions either as I know how answers can ne twisted.Even with a solicitor present,it's they who usually advice when to speak.
It's a legal right for an accused to answer with " no comment ".It doesn't mean that you have no intention of answering,it's on the orders of a lawyer not to do,as by answering,such as Jeremy had rattled when first arrested,he shot himself in the foot as the officers took what he'd said as read-------a big mistake,especially where times are concerned when later you discover you were wrong.
-
Jeremy claimed the times were wrong at trial but now he's saying the original times are correct!! OOPS!!
-
They don't add up!
Nothing adds up when you're under duress and suspicion,all that you know is that you're right and answer what you're asked to the best of your ability but when your mind is all over the place and you're trying to think of times,it's difficult. Officers are alright as they've got their notebooks and can argue with what you told them if you happen to change your mind.
Nobody can be expected to remember everything-------------unless of course they committed the crime,then they'd know everything off by heart. :)
I wouldn't imagine that Jeremy would have made any notes pre-arrest.
-
Nothing adds up when you're under duress and suspicion,all that you know is that you're right and answer what you're asked to the best of your ability but when your mind is all over the place and you're trying to think of times,it's difficult. Officers are alright as they've got their notebooks and can argue with what you told them if you happen to change your mind.
Nobody can be expected to remember everything-------------unless of course they committed the crime,then they'd know everything off by heart. :)
I wouldn't imagine that Jeremy would have made any notes pre-arrest.
Which in no way equates with being "head up and sure of myself" which could also include Jeremy who seemed to relish treating the interviewing officers like prize prats.
-
Which in no way equates with being "head up and sure of myself" which could also include Jeremy who seemed to relish treating the interviewing officers like prize prats.
When you know that you're right and they're wrong,this is a natural reaction of some. Doesn't mean that they're guilty of anything,just cock-sure of themselves to the degree of arrogance. Okay it's not the right attitude to take,but seeing that Jeremy hadn't done anything,this is how he'd reacted because he didn't know any better. He was showing off in other words and police don't do " showing off ".
-
He thought BC had made an alliance after previously giving Fielder an exclusive on Jeremy's (and his own) arrest. He thought he was clever enough to get him onside. If he didn't try to sell the pictures, how did Fielder know about them? How did he use the same sentence that was told to Colin? Why is Jeremy now saying they never existed?
when did fielder say it in the orignal aritical or did he say it on the documentry.
-
Nothing adds up when you're under duress and suspicion,all that you know is that you're right and answer what you're asked to the best of your ability but when your mind is all over the place and you're trying to think of times,it's difficult. Officers are alright as they've got their notebooks and can argue with what you told them if you happen to change your mind.
Nobody can be expected to remember everything-------------unless of course they committed the crime,then they'd know everything off by heart. :)
I wouldn't imagine that Jeremy would have made any notes pre-arrest.
He didn't have to remember the Gettysburg Address Lookout, just the time his father called him, the time he called police and Julie and in what order. If he was stressed by the call, he'd have dialled 999, if he didn't think it was that urgent, why would he be stressed?
-
He didn't have to remember the Gettysburg Address Lookout, just the time his father called him, the time he called police and Julie and in what order. If he was stressed by the call, he'd have dialled 999, if he didn't think it was that urgent, why would he be stressed?
I didn't mention stressed,as at the point the phone rang,he wouldn't have been stressed at not knowing there was anything to be stressed about. A call at that hour of the morning is disorientating if you'd been in a deep sleep,especially if as Jeremy had had a heavy day in the fields.
There is far more to human behaviour than saying what you as an individual would have done. If you were expecting such a call,then you would be more organised and less confused, at any time of the day or night and would be prepared.
Receiving a call like that in the early hours WOULD leave someone confused to the point that the caller would be asked to repeat their message to make sure you got it right.
Those who were older than Jeremy at the time,would realise that receiving a call at that hour is usually an accident or death,particularly death as 3am is when the normal body is at its lowest ebb,and as I'd said,if death had been imminent,then a call at such a time would have been the norm.
It's alright saying what each of us had done under the circumstances,but an unexpected ( which it was ) call would send most of us in a spin. It would take a good 5 minutes to gather your senses as well as getting over the initial shock.
The way Jeremy was brought up dictated how he reacted to his father's call-----------no panic. Neville was a level-headed man and was the calming influence in the family.I'd imagine he thought things out before he made a move and managed things his way before calling for drastic measures,thus why he himself didn't initially ring the police.
I tend to study the people involved rather than jump into anything feet first. We're all individuals and act differently under pressure.
-
He didn't have to remember the Gettysburg Address Lookout, just the time his father called him, the time he called police and Julie and in what order. If he was stressed by the call, he'd have dialled 999, if he didn't think it was that urgent, why would he be stressed?
It's a pity he didn't need to remember the Gettysburg address, as I'm sure knew that.
-
It's a pity he didn't need to remember the Gettysburg address, as I'm sure knew that.
Chances are,he wouldn't have known. He wasn't the brightest of scholars.
-
I didn't mention stressed,as at the point the phone rang,he wouldn't have been stressed at not knowing there was anything to be stressed about. A call at that hour of the morning is disorientating if you'd been in a deep sleep,especially if as Jeremy had had a heavy day in the fields.
There is far more to human behaviour than saying what you as an individual would have done. If you were expecting such a call,then you would be more organised and less confused, at any time of the day or night and would be prepared.
Receiving a call like that in the early hours WOULD leave someone confused to the point that the caller would be asked to repeat their message to make sure you got it right.
Those who were older than Jeremy at the time,would realise that receiving a call at that hour is usually an accident or death,particularly death as 3am is when the normal body is at its lowest ebb,and as I'd said,if death had been imminent,then a call at such a time would have been the norm.
It's alright saying what each of us had done under the circumstances,but an unexpected ( which it was ) call would send most of us in a spin. It would take a good 5 minutes to gather your senses as well as getting over the initial shock.
The way Jeremy was brought up dictated how he reacted to his father's call-----------no panic. Neville was a level-headed man and was the calming influence in the family.I'd imagine he thought things out before he made a move and managed things his way before calling for drastic measures,thus why he himself didn't initially ring the police.
I tend to study the people involved rather than jump into anything feet first. We're all individuals and act differently under pressure.
Does not a usually calm and rational man making a call circa 3am and sounding -in Jeremy's own words- panicked, suggest that something was VERY wrong?
-
Does not a usually calm and rational man making a call circa 3am and sounding -in Jeremy's own words- panicked, suggest that something was VERY wrong?
"Psychopaths" don't panic. ;D
-
I didn't mention stressed,as at the point the phone rang,he wouldn't have been stressed at not knowing there was anything to be stressed about. A call at that hour of the morning is disorientating if you'd been in a deep sleep,especially if as Jeremy had had a heavy day in the fields.
There is far more to human behaviour than saying what you as an individual would have done. If you were expecting such a call,then you would be more organised and less confused, at any time of the day or night and would be prepared.
Receiving a call like that in the early hours WOULD leave someone confused to the point that the caller would be asked to repeat their message to make sure you got it right.
Those who were older than Jeremy at the time,would realise that receiving a call at that hour is usually an accident or death,particularly death as 3am is when the normal body is at its lowest ebb,and as I'd said,if death had been imminent,then a call at such a time would have been the norm.
It's alright saying what each of us had done under the circumstances,but an unexpected ( which it was ) call would send most of us in a spin. It would take a good 5 minutes to gather your senses as well as getting over the initial shock.
The way Jeremy was brought up dictated how he reacted to his father's call-----------no panic. Neville was a level-headed man and was the calming influence in the family.I'd imagine he thought things out before he made a move and managed things his way before calling for drastic measures,thus why he himself didn't initially ring the police.
I tend to study the people involved rather than jump into anything feet first. We're all individuals and act differently under pressure.
Jeremy said his father sounded terrified and he had plenty of time to 'gather his thoughts' because not only did he call Julie first, he is saying he didn't call the police until 03:36 - that's 30 mins to 'gather his thoughts' Lookout. The reason he buggered up the times is because he was trying to apply logic to something that didn't happen. He couldn't know what questions people would later ask, so he couldn't cover those bases.
You study the individuals do you? When did you get the opportunity to do that? You don't know any of them!
-
"Psychopaths" don't panic. ;D
Which is the probable reason for Jeremy diddling away his time looking for local police stations instead of calling 999. Checkmate ;D ;D ;D
-
Does not a usually calm and rational man making a call circa 3am and sounding -in Jeremy's own words- panicked, suggest that something was VERY wrong?
Not if it's all been heard before in similar circumstances------------of which we don't know of as yet.
-
Neville mightn't have sounded panicky.We're taking Jeremy's word aren't we ? And you all know that he " lies ".
-
Neville mightn't have sounded panicky.We're taking Jeremy's word aren't we ? And you all know that he " lies ".
He didn't sound 'panicky' because he didn't call.
-
He didn't sound 'panicky' because he didn't call.
Well there are 6 logs to say that Neville did call,albeit copied/edited retaining the same mistakes that were originally made.
-
Not if it's all been heard before in similar circumstances------------of which we don't know of as yet.
There has been NOTHING to suggest it had, Lookout, not even from Jeremy who would SURELY have said if it had been a regular occurrence. There have been no stories of Jeremy accompanying his father to London to calm Sheila down -a journey THEN of possibly 2 hours- and on no more than 2 occasions is it documented that Neville did. If we started releasing all of those who protest their innocence on the grounds that it MAY have been heard before in similar circumstances -IMO, another way of straw clutching- our prisons would very soon have fewer residents.
-
There has been NOTHING to suggest it had, Lookout, not even from Jeremy who would SURELY have said if it had been a regular occurrence. There have been no stories of Jeremy accompanying his father to London to calm Sheila down -a journey THEN of possibly 2 hours- and on no more than 2 occasions is it documented that Neville did. If we started releasing all of those who protest their innocence on the grounds that it MAY have been heard before in similar circumstances -IMO, another way of straw clutching- our prisons would very soon have fewer residents.
I already knew that Neville hadn't travelled to London to calm Sheila down.He went next day as he'd said he would and not straight-away.( not that this is relevant,it isn't ? )
It's not ME who's clutching at straws. I couldn't give a monkeys.
-
Well there are 6 logs to say that Neville did call,albeit copied/edited retaining the same mistakes that were originally made.
Yes, I have copies of these logs and they ALL contain the same information, except Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly on one of them. None of these logs prove Nevill called because they are copies of West's log - from JEREMY'S call. Had they been the Bonnet log, it might have been more interesting!! ;D ;D
-
Well there are 6 logs to say that Neville did call,albeit copied/edited retaining the same mistakes that were originally made.
I don't believe I've EVER seen a log stating that a call had been received from Mr Neville -OR, if you prefer, RALPH- Bamber to say that his daughter had gone mad and had got hold of a gun. The only one I've seen is the one which states that a call had been received from Mr JEREMY Bamber saying he'd received a call from his father..........................this call being passed from one operative to another.
-
I don't believe I've EVER seen a log stating that a call had been received from Mr Neville -OR, if you prefer, RALPH- Bamber to say that his daughter had gone mad and had got hold of a gun. The only one I've seen is the one which states that a call had been received from Mr JEREMY Bamber saying he'd received a call from his father..........................this call being passed from one operative to another.
Because there isn't one ;D ;D
-
I already knew that Neville hadn't travelled to London to calm Sheila down.He went next day as he'd said he would and not straight-away.( not that this is relevant,it isn't ? )
It's not ME who's clutching at straws. I couldn't give a monkeys.
But it IS you who is suggesting the possibility that it MAY "all have been heard before in similar circumstances" which doesn't sound like someone who doesn't give a monkey's.
-
Yes, I have copies of these logs and they ALL contain the same information, except Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly on one of them. None of these logs prove Nevill called because they are copies of West's log - from JEREMY'S call. Had they been the Bonnet log, it might have been more interesting!! ;D ;D
So you still maintain that Jeremy left WHF for Goldhanger in less than 10 minutes ?
-
ALL emergency calls are taped usually,so where is that proof,the tapes ?
-
ALL emergency calls are taped usually,so where is that proof,the tapes ?
Jeremy didn't call the emergency number!
-
geting back to the orignal topic does anybody else think its a bit unusaul that jeremy used exactly the same words in a conversion with to diffrent people.
-
geting back to the orignal topic does anybody else think its a bit unusaul that jeremy used exactly the same words in a conversion with to diffrent people.
No.
-
ALL emergency calls are taped usually,so where is that proof,the tapes ?
If Jeremy had MADE an emergency call, they'd have been there, which also suggests that the call Neville didn't make to the police was a non emergency call.
-
Jeremy didn't call the emergency number!
Neville did.
-
No.
how likely is it that somone is going to use iexactly the same sentence when talking to diffrent people.
-
Unless it's planned/scripted/embedded in your brain, you don't.
-
Neville did.
Oh really? ;D ;D ;D ;D and how do you know this?
-
how likely is it that somone is going to use iexactly the same sentence when talking to diffrent people.
Very if they're describing the same thing! Not sure what you're getting at Nugs? Firstly you say you would be inclined to believe Colin, not you're questioning what he said! It's in his statement or are you suggesting he must be lying?
-
you said jeremy used exactly the same words to describe the pictures to colin and fielder.
now where did fielder say exactly the same thing as colin was it in the arical he wrote or on the documentry.
-
Neville did.
Where is it documented that he did?
-
you said jeremy used exactly the same words to describe the pictures to colin and fielder.
Colin said it both in his book and in his statement - and? I posted the extract from the book, his statement is available for you to read. What more do you want?
-
That is a good point nugs. It all seems so unlikely and rests on so little "evidence" that the whole claim can be regarded as highly unlikely.
It is hard to believe that this is such an article of faith amongst many who believe JB guilty.
well i can think of a reason why colin and fielder description might be the same and its ver obvios when i think about it.
-
well i can think of a reason why colin and fielder description might be the same and its ver obvios when i think about it.
You're surely not trying to make Colin part of the Great Conspiracy, too, Nugs :o ::) ::) ::)
-
no not at all but its there simple when you think about it.
does fielder actully use the same description in the originall articale he wrote or just on the documentry.
-
no not at all but its there simple when you think about it.
does fielder actully use the same description in the originall articale he wrote or just on the documentry.
Colin said he used the exact words in the article. In order to know for SURE, we would have to try and get a copy.
-
no not at all but its there simple when you think about it.
does fielder actully use the same description in the originall articale he wrote or just on the documentry.
I'm trying to get my head round why this would matter. Jeremy had already said the words to Colin which is why he -Colin- was able to recognize the words Fielder attributed to Jeremy were the same words Jeremy had used previously, to him. IMO, the expression Fielder used in the, much later, documentary is neither here nor there..................although it's my experience that I tend to use words and expression that I've previously put in writing.
-
do you think it might just be posble that has had a read of colins book as well.
-
I'm trying to get my head round why this would matter. Jeremy had already said the words to Colin which is why he -Colin- was able to recognize the words Fielder attributed to Jeremy were the same words Jeremy had used previously, to him. IMO, the expression Fielder used in the, much later, documentary is neither here nor there..................although it's my experience that I tend to use words and expression that I've previously put in writing.
That's it in a nutshell April BUT, it all looks bad on Jeremy so it has to be played down or dismissed altogether. However, it can't be dismissed because it's Colin who is making the claim and not Fielder. Some people will still try and play it down or even go so far as to try and discredit Colin but it's just denial and kind of shows that people aren't interested in the truth, just interested in Jeremy being innocent - at whatever cost.
-
do you think it might just be posble that has had a read of colins book as well.
You've lost me. Colin's book was written in the 1990's how could Fielder see it? (unless he had a time machine?). Colin's statement (however), was written a few days after the Sun article. Colin mentions in the statement that Fielder documented what Jeremy told him at the meeting 'You see everything right down to the last detail'. These words were also used to describe the pictures by Jeremy to Colin on 7th September. It's easy enough to understand!
-
do you think it might just be posble that has had a read of colins book as well.
;D
Colin speaks about the incident in his book...... ;D
You just made me laugh out loud.
-
;D
Colin speaks about the incident in his book...... ;D
You just made me laugh out loud.
Fielder either had a time machine or a DeLorean ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Fielder either had a time machine or a DeLorean ;D ;D ;D ;D
Or a meeting with Bamber!
I know which one my money is on.
-
Fielder either had a time machine or a DeLorean ;D ;D ;D ;D
did fielder say this in the orgnal aritcal or in later interviews.
-
Where is it documented that he did?
OWS.
-
dont you also think theres a good chance that fielder has seen colins statements.
-
OWS.
Well they would, wouldn't they? I wonder where is their proof.
-
Well they would, wouldn't they? I wonder where is their proof.
I've no idea but the site reckons that everything is documented which is good enough for me.More than can be said for the books that appear. Where's their documentation or proof that what they've written is Kosher ?
-
I've no idea but the site reckons that everything is documented which is good enough for me.More than can be said for the books that appear. Where's their documentation or proof that what they've written is Kosher ?
Lookout, THIS, on your part, would seem to be a change of stance. I distinctly recall that you once said you would rather get your information from books and web sites than rely on the documentation available here. I, on the other hand, FREQUENTLY challenge the information given by authors who knew NONE of the family and write the "truth" years after the event.
As for THE site, they MAY say that everything THEY say is documented but without proof of it HOW are we supposed to know? And you reckon YOU challenge everything?
-
Well they would, wouldn't they? I wonder where is their proof.
I've no idea but the site reckons that everything is documented which is good enough for me.More than can be said for the books that appear. Where's their documentation or proof that what they've written is Kosher ?
-
I've no idea but the site reckons that everything is documented which is good enough for me.More than can be said for the books that appear. Where's their documentation or proof that what they've written is Kosher ?
The sources listed don't stand for the propositions asserted on the site. They distort everything to pretend things are how they wish they were instead of how they actually were.
Just one example- a log states police were in conversation with those in the house but no one in the house responded. By definition since no one in the house responded they were not actually in a conversation with anyone it was a poor choice of words. The police used a megaphone to speak to those inside the house but received no response. This was carelessly worded as police in conversation with those inside the house. But the careless wording was CORRECTED by noting no response was received from those inside. The campaign site neglects to mention the second part of the entry noting no one inside and dishonestly asserts someone inside was communicating with the police. This is done in order to deceive people into thinking Sheila was alive inside and was communicating with police. This is thoroughly dishonest the log doesn't support such at all it clearly states no response was received. They fail to actually post a copy of the log in question so that people can see they are lying. Instead they just say things like "see log". We have the actual log on this site and this is the actual complete entry:
(http://s1.postimg.org/4fv9wdcqn/logchallenge.jpg)
Everything on the site is spin and distortion and why does the site resort to spin and distortion? Because they have nothing legitimate to raise that suggests Jeremy is innocent.
-
hes posted somthing on a white background agian and we are supposed to be impressed.
-
The sources listed don't stand for the propositions asserted on the site. They distort everything to pretend things are how they wish they were instead of how they actually were.
Just one example- a log states police were in conversation with those in the house but no one in the house responded. By definition since no one in the house responded they were not actually in a conversation with anyone it was a poor choice of words. The police used a megaphone to speak to those inside the house but received no response. This was carelessly worded as police in conversation with those inside the house. But the careless wording was CORRECTED by noting no response was received from those inside. The campaign site neglects to mention the second part of the entry noting no one inside and dishonestly asserts someone inside was communicating with the police. This is done in order to deceive people into thinking Sheila was alive inside and was communicating with police. This is thoroughly dishonest the log doesn't support such at all it clearly states no response was received. They fail to actually post a copy of the log in question so that people can see they are lying. Instead they just say things like "see log". We have the actual log on this site and this is the actual complete entry:
(http://s1.postimg.org/4fv9wdcqn/logchallenge.jpg)
Everything on the site is spin and distortion and why does the site resort to spin and distortion? Because they have nothing legitimate to raise that suggests Jeremy is innocent.
After that handwritten hurried note,why did they wait nearly 4 hours after the " no response " bit ?
-
hes posted somthing on a white background agian and we are supposed to be impressed.
I posted the very log entry the site relies on for the bogus claim tha tsomeone inside the house was speaking to police.
I thus proved the site to be lying about this entry supporting their claim that someone inside the house was speaking to police.
Your bias prevents you from being objective or rational but luckily such is not contagious. I debate by posting facts and evidence while you respond with remarks like this that have no merit at all. You are like a hood ornament here you never have anything of value to contribute to the debate. Try refuting my post with other evidence or something substantive. Nope tha tis beyond you, all you are capable of is worthless snyde remarks.
-
you cliam to have we have know way of knowing weather you have or not.
youve proved abslutly nothing.
-
After that handwritten hurried note,why did they wait nearly 4 hours after the " no response " bit ?
That notation of no response was when they requested more officers so that they could raid the house. They said since no one was responding they would likely need to go inside but Adams didn't have enough men on scene to raid the house and still contain the scene as well so requested more. That is when the second firearms team was assembled. They arrived around 7am at which time a plan was made, the raid team was selected the others were positioned at the containment sites and then at 7:30 they entered.
-
I posted the very log entry the site relies on for the bogus claim tha tsomeone inside the house was speaking to police.
I thus proved the site to be lying about this entry supporting their claim that someone inside the house was speaking to police.
Your bias prevents you from being objective or rational but luckily such is not contagious. I debate by posting facts and evidence while you respond with remarks like this that have no merit at all. You are like a hood ornament here you never have anything of value to contribute to the debate. Try refuting my post with other evidence or something substantive. Nope tha tis beyond you, all you are capable of is worthless snyde remarks.
And you don't post " worthless snide remarks ?" Tsk.
-
you cliam to have know way of knowing weather you have or not.
No way of knowing what?
I know the log entry in question is the one the site asserts proves someone was alive inside communicating with police.
I know for sure this log doesn't stand for such proposition it clearly asserts no one responded so the site LIED.
I know that the police at the scene say no one responded just like the entry says.
I know the evidence proves someone else killed Sheila and everyone else in the house.
I know you can't establish anything to the contrary and instead just resort to unintelligible trollish remarks.
-
And you don't post " worthless snide remarks ?" Tsk.
I post them along with substance unlike nugs who couldn't post something substantive if his/her life depended on it.
-
you posted some words on a white background and cliamed its from the docuents. that proves abslutly nothing anybody can do that.
-
you posted some words on a white background and cliamed its from the docuents. that proves abslutly nothing anybody can do that.
That's more than the campaign site did which posted simply a claim that a log exists. If you can't recognize the entry it means you have not read the documents on this site which is hilarious do you do anything here beside post gibberish?
Here is the complete page of the log it is at the bottom:
(http://s14.postimg.org/40qirh4ch/logs6_001.jpg)
-
you posted some words on a white background and cliamed its from the docuents. that proves abslutly nothing anybody can do that.
Nugs!!! How very unworthy of you. You're being grossly unfair and small minded. Scipio isn't the only one on this forum to post words on white backgrounds -a fact you can't possibly be unaware of- so why is HE the only one you have a dig at?
-
well hes the only one who i know for a fact makes up rubbish.
-
There's a 14 page thread on the forum headed Michael Fielder.The year 2012. There should be a few answers .
-
well hes the only one who i know for a fact makes up rubbish.
And you're perfectly certain of that, are you Nugs? Personally I wouldn't like to bet on it.
-
There's another thread called Modelling Photo's,but------------there's more scrapping than discussion,and guess what ? It's not me who's involved. :-X
-
well hes the only one who i know for a fact makes up rubbish.
You make up rubbish all the time including the false claim that I needed NGB to tell me the difference between a military weapon and civilian weapon. When you were challenged to post evidence you ran away. I actually post evidence to support my claims including the very log entry which is evidence. Instead of simply quoting from it I posted a snapshot so it could be seen.
I sizable number of Jeremy supporters who I need not name make up rubbish cliams all the time and such claims have been demonstrated as rubbish.
What you fail to do is to prove that I post anything that is rubbish you instead just make unsupported claims that you have no ability to back up and act trollish in general.
How can you be on this site for so long and not have seen the logs discussed so often and the other documents discussed so often? Aside from seeing them as they are posted you can find them easily because they are indexed in the archive section.
Since i have not been here for years I played catch-up by actually reading through the threads that have documents posted. That is how I got up to speed on what the documents say. People always ask how I gained so much knowledge about the case- I read all the raw materials that were made publicly available- most of which are on this site- that is how. There is no mystery and nothing mystical at work.
The only way to determine whether other people's characterizations of these documents that are accurate is to actually read them and for the most part the characterizations presented in books, news articles and on websites has been less than fully accurate.
-
Nugs!!! How very unworthy of you. You're being grossly unfair and small minded. Scipio isn't the only one on this forum to post words on white backgrounds -a fact you can't possibly be unaware of- so why is HE the only one you have a dig at?
dont you think in all the years of somone else of the guilty persauision would of pointed out all these documents and sources if they were real.
-
That's more than the campaign site did which posted simply a claim that a log exists. If you can't recognize the entry it means you have not read the documents on this site which is hilarious do you do anything here beside post gibberish?
Here is the complete page of the log it is at the bottom:
(http://s14.postimg.org/40qirh4ch/logs6_001.jpg)
Everyone who has posted here for a while and knows the case well, SHOULD have seen this log!
-
dont you think in all the years of somone else of the guilty persauision would of pointed out all these documents and sources if they were real.
There is NO doubt they are real. They aren't new. If you have studied the case you would have seen them all before.
What a low thing to try and do though Nugs - when the evidence doesn't go your way you try and make out Scip is making the documents up.
-
Everyone who has posted here for a while and knows the case well, SHOULD have seen this log!
Took the words right out of my mouth! ;D
-
did fielder say this in the orgnal aritcal or in later interviews.
He mentioned it in the original article or how would Colin mention it in his statement that he made a few days after the article appeared in the Sun?
-
dont you think in all the years of somone else of the guilty persauision would of pointed out all these documents and sources if they were real.
OK. So it seems that now you're saying that anyone else who posts words on white paper are posting the genuine thing but Scipio posts fakes!!!! Are you also suggesting that he goes to the bother of faking them himself?!!!!!
-
dont you think in all the years of somone else of the guilty persauision would of pointed out all these documents and sources if they were real.
People in the "guilty camp" have LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG pointed out that the log expressly states no response was received by the police. I am not by any stretch the first to notice this and raise it.
Nor am I the first to notice that these log entries don't actually state where the 5 bodies were found neither entry says whether bodies were upstairs or downstairs.
(http://s16.postimg.org/pm5xcrx85/log2.jpg)
(http://s30.postimg.org/4tl496gk1/log1.jpg)
Nor am I the first to notice that the raid team declared they saw June's body second, before they even went fully upstairs by using a primitive periscope. Nor am I the first to note that by the time of the first message the raid team had already found Nevill and June hence why they said male and female found so far.
My points are not new everything I raise has been raised previously. It is not my fault that old disproved points keep being raised again and again but that necessitates me reraising the rebuttals used in the past.
-
Now Nugs is saying documents posted by another poster have been falsely drawn up. But has no evidence to back this up.
They may have told you not to call nugs names or something but certainly didn't tell you that you can't try to disprove his posts by using evidence. I may fight in the trenches with people but at least I do so by posting arguments and evidence I don't simply call people names and that's it.
I think nugs embarrassed himself enough by not recognizing the log I posted from was originally posted here by Mike and suggesting it is fake. There isn't any great need to pile on even more.
If there is any doubt at all as to who posted it this should end that:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
-
They may have told you not to call nugs names or something but certainly didn't tell you that you can't try to disprove his posts by using evidence. I may fight in the trenches with people but at least I do so by posting arguments and evidence I don't simply call people names and that's it.
I think nugs embarrassed himself enough by not recognizing the log I posted from was originally posted here by Mike and suggesting it is fake. There isn't any great need to pile on even more.
If there is any doubt at all as to who posted it this should end that:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
The log you posted was written by Bonnet, it's on the back of the log he wrote from the call received from West.
-
Adam can you please stop making personal remarks about posters, stirring and dragging up old grievances. I have removed the offending posts.
-
Adam can you please stop making personal remarks about posters, stirring and dragging up old grievances. I have removed the offending posts.
Of course Maggie.
We can all just discuss the current issue. Whether the documents Scipio posted are fake, as Nugs claims.
-
Of course Maggie.
We can all just discuss the current issue. Whether the documents Scipio posted are fake, as Nugs claims.
Thank you Adam.
-
Well, that was awkward :o :o ;D ;D
-
Well, that was awkward :o :o ;D ;D
April always requests I am banned whenever I post the truth about Nugs.
Although she happy to let him claim documents posted by Scipio are fake or have him call my posts 'bullshit' while I am offline.
Maybe they were buddies when she was a Jeremy supporter.
Anyway, hopefully Nugs will elaborate on his fake documents claim on this thread. And also answer my question on the David Boutflour thread he created. I cannot see how this thread supports guilt or innocence. In other words what was the point ?
-
April always requests I am banned whenever I post the truth about Nugs.
Although she happy to let him claim documents posted by Scipio are fake or have him call my posts 'bullshit' while I am offline.
Maybe they were buddies when she was a Jeremy supporter.
Anyway, hopefully Nugs will elaborate on his fake documents claim on this thread. And also answer my question on the David Boutflour thread he created. I cannot see how this thread supports guilt or innocence.
Do you have literacy problems, Adam OR do you simply not bother to read correctly what others post? Please point me to any of my posts which support Nug's suggestion that Scipio posts fake documents.
-
April always requests I am banned whenever I post the truth about Nugs.
Although she happy to let him claim documents posted by Scipio are fake or have him call my posts 'bullshit' while I am offline.
Maybe they were buddies when she was a Jeremy supporter.
Anyway, hopefully Nugs will elaborate on his fake documents claim on this thread. And also answer my question on the David Boutflour thread he created. I cannot see how this thread supports guilt or innocence. In other words what was the point ?
Not buddies and not enemies, just people on a forum Adam.
The point of the thread (I believe) was to suggest that Fielder is a liar, therefore he must have lied about the photographs, therefore Jeremy didn't try to sell them, therefore there is a big conspiracy and everyone is lying except Jeremy. That's the way it usually goes!
-
........................ I cannot see how this thread supports guilt or innocence. In other words what was the point ?
No, you wouldn't see the point because you appear to have little tolerance for any thread which you can't crow about having created.
-
The log you posted was written by Bonnet, it's on the back of the log he wrote from the call received from West.
My point though was Mike initially posted it. I merely copied the snippet from the document he posted. So if claiming this is a fake then the claim is Mike posted a fake and I merely copied from his fake. Nugs didn't realize Mike posted it which says much more than I could say....
-
My point though was Mike initially posted it. I merely copied the snippet from the document he posted. So if claiming this is a fake then the claim is Mike posted a fake and I merely copied from his fake. Nugs didn't realize Mike posted it which says much more than I could say....
Yes, I know - was just clarifying where it came from. ;D
-
My point though was Mike initially posted it. I merely copied the snippet from the document he posted. So if claiming this is a fake then the claim is Mike posted a fake and I merely copied from his fake. Nugs didn't realize Mike posted it which says much more than I could say....
Which was the point I was making when I told Nugs that you weren't the only person to post words written on white paper but he didn't accuse anyone else of posting fakes.
-
Yes, I know - was just clarifying where it came from. ;D
Who wrote the key entries on the logs stamped 257 and 258 are the ones I am unclear about. I have not seen any documents that state who was keeping the log at that point only that Bonnett was replaced at 5:42. It is not clear whether it was the same person who wrote 267. The message stamped 267 was taken and later transferred onto the log. Later still the log was rewritten by someone (page stamped 263).
-
He mentioned it in the original article or how would Colin mention it in his statement that he made a few days after the article appeared in the Sun?
do you know for a fact fielder said exactly the same thing in his orginal artical.
-
Who wrote the key entries on the logs stamped 257 and 258 are the ones I am unclear about. I have not seen any documents that state who was keeping the log at that point only that Bonnett was replaced at 5:42. It is not clear whether it was the same person who wrote 267. The message stamped 267 was taken and later transferred onto the log. Later still the log was rewritten by someone (page stamped 263).
Part of 257 looks as though West wrote it because it's the same writing as the log. In my last job we had to keep a rolling log of events, and whoever was near the PC at the time would make the entry. I guess it was a similar case because it looks as though several people made entries.
-
do you know for a fact fielder said exactly the same thing in his orginal artical.
Having never read the article myself, I obviously can't say yes BUT, Colin said the words were the same. I will try and get a copy of the article to settle things once and for all.
-
Part of 257 looks as though West wrote it because it's the same writing as the log. In my last job we had to keep a rolling log of events, and whoever was near the PC at the time would make the entry. I guess it was a similar case because it looks as though several people made entries.
These logs are one of the areas where deception and trickery is resorted to.
Here is the memo made with respect to the notification from CA/7 that they entered the premises and so far 2 bodies were found one male and one female who obviously is June because the second body located was June:
(http://s7.postimg.org/ycfqnz5x7/loga.jpg)
such was then accurately recorded on this running log:
(http://s3.postimg.org/981waqnwj/logb.jpg)
Someone else though keeping another log made a mistake and claimed they reported 2 bodies in the kitchen though obviously that is not actually what was reported. The actual report was they entered and so far 2 bodies were found.
(http://s1.postimg.org/cxriwcpvz/loge.jpg)
This is the next page of the person who made this error:
(http://s11.postimg.org/yfongd55f/logf.jpg)
Note how it simply records the 8:10 message as saying 5 bodies total. Nothing about where the other 3 bodies were found.
The next page of the running log that correctly recorded the message as police entered and 2 bodies found so far is the one that tlaks about 3 further bodies but still doesn't indicate where they were found, it never even indicated where the first 2 bodies were found:
(http://s17.postimg.org/53o193gv3/logc.jpg)
What unscrupulous people do is to mix the logs using page 1 from the running log that says 2 bodies found in the kitchen and page 2 of the other log that notes 3 further bodies and pretends it says these 3 bodies were upstairs.
It is obvious there were 2 different running logs being kept and multiple people involved. One such person interpreted 2 bodies in the kitchen while the others did not and clearly the actual message from CA/7 didn't state where the bodies were found. It is rather obvious that the report was police entered and so far found 2 bodies but were continuing to search the rest of the house.
This doesn't contradict the claims of the raid team in any way it comports with their claims. 1 of the people keeping logs simply misunderstood and incorrectly thought they meant 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. This makes clear they saw June's body before they actually went up the stairs, they obviously passed the first message about 2 bodies being found before they actually went upstairs and entered the master bedroom and discovered there were actually 2 bodies in it:
(http://s3.postimg.org/ayyphg9kz/mirror.jpg)
Another dishonest thing is that even though the references are simply to a male and female simply and doesn't state which female- it is insisted they meant Sheila though there is nothing at all to support this.
If one is still hell bent on trying to explore if they can find evidence that another body was in the kitchen then one has to figure out who the person who wrote 2 bodies in the kitchen was and try to question him/her as to who specifically they heard such from and if it was expressly said that 2 bodies were in the kitchen or he/she simply assumed such. If the person claims it was expressly said then you would question the person he/she alleges to have expressly said it to find out where they got the claim from. Jeremy supporters do not do that though they don't try to follow the trail and see if they can get it to lead anywhere. Instead they claim it is absolute proof that a female body was in the kitchen and not just any body but Sheila's body. Jeremy supporters don't bother trying to follow a trial because they know it will lead no where. Ultimately the information provided from the house was provided from the raid team. The raid team insists there was only 1 body in the kitchen and denies claiming they reported two bodies were in the kitchen which means for sure someone part of the grapevine screwed up. There is thus no reason to even investigate who made the mistake.
To try using a mistake by an administrative worker to prove the entire raid team and everyone who entered the house lied is beyond absurd yet that is precisely what the campaign team and other Jeremy supporters do.
-
They may have told you not to call nugs names or something but certainly didn't tell you that you can't try to disprove his posts by using evidence. I may fight in the trenches with people but at least I do so by posting arguments and evidence I don't simply call people names and that's it.
I think nugs embarrassed himself enough by not recognizing the log I posted from was originally posted here by Mike and suggesting it is fake. There isn't any great need to pile on even more.
If there is any doubt at all as to who posted it this should end that:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html
well im just going by your previos history of posting bullshit sory if you werent posting it this time.
-
well im just going by your previos history of posting bullshit sory if you werent posting it this time.
Moderators can you request that Nugnug doesn't call other people's posts 'bullshit'.
A moderator has previously informed me it is acceptable as it is apparently not a swear word. However it is unpleasant and disrespectful. And degrades the forum.
-
Don't start !!
-
Moderators can you request that Nugnug doesn't call other people's posts 'bullshit'.
A moderator has previously informed me it is acceptable as it is apparently not a swear word. However it is unpleasant and disrespectful. And degrades the forum.
Your posts are a perfect example of how one doesn't need to use bad language to make their posts "unpleasant and disrespectful". Inserting the words "I asked politely" doesn't make an otherwise sneering and insulting post into an acceptable one.
-
These logs are one of the areas where deception and trickery is resorted to.
Here is the memo made with respect to the notification from CA/7 that they entered the premises and so far 2 bodies were found one male and one female who obviously is June because the second body located was June:
(http://s7.postimg.org/ycfqnz5x7/loga.jpg)
such was then accurately recorded on this running log:
(http://s3.postimg.org/981waqnwj/logb.jpg)
Someone else though keeping another log made a mistake and claimed they reported 2 bodies in the kitchen though obviously that is not actually what was reported. The actual report was they entered and so far 2 bodies were found.
(http://s1.postimg.org/cxriwcpvz/loge.jpg)
This is the next page of the person who made this error:
(http://s11.postimg.org/yfongd55f/logf.jpg)
Note how it simply records the 8:10 message as saying 5 bodies total. Nothing about where the other 3 bodies were found.
The next page of the running log that correctly recorded the message as police entered and 2 bodies found so far is the one that tlaks about 3 further bodies but still doesn't indicate where they were found, it never even indicated where the first 2 bodies were found:
(http://s17.postimg.org/53o193gv3/logc.jpg)
What unscrupulous people do is to mix the logs using page 1 from the running log that says 2 bodies found in the kitchen and page 2 of the other log that notes 3 further bodies and pretends it says these 3 bodies were upstairs.
It is obvious there were 2 different running logs being kept and multiple people involved. One such person interpreted 2 bodies in the kitchen while the others did not and clearly the actual message from CA/7 didn't state where the bodies were found. It is rather obvious that the report was police entered and so far found 2 bodies but were continuing to search the rest of the house.
This doesn't contradict the claims of the raid team in any way it comports with their claims. 1 of the people keeping logs simply misunderstood and incorrectly thought they meant 2 bodies were found in the kitchen. This makes clear they saw June's body before they actually went up the stairs, they obviously passed the first message about 2 bodies being found before they actually went upstairs and entered the master bedroom and discovered there were actually 2 bodies in it:
(http://s3.postimg.org/ayyphg9kz/mirror.jpg)
Another dishonest thing is that even though the references are simply to a male and female simply and doesn't state which female- it is insisted they meant Sheila though there is nothing at all to support this.
If one is still hell bent on trying to explore if they can find evidence that another body was in the kitchen then one has to figure out who the person who wrote 2 bodies in the kitchen was and try to question him/her as to who specifically they heard such from and if it was expressly said that 2 bodies were in the kitchen or he/she simply assumed such. If the person claims it was expressly said then you would question the person he/she alleges to have expressly said it to find out where they got the claim from. Jeremy supporters do not do that though they don't try to follow the trail and see if they can get it to lead anywhere. Instead they claim it is absolute proof that a female body was in the kitchen and not just any body but Sheila's body. Jeremy supporters don't bother trying to follow a trial because they know it will lead no where. Ultimately the information provided from the house was provided from the raid team. The raid team insists there was only 1 body in the kitchen and denies claiming they reported two bodies were in the kitchen which means for sure someone part of the grapevine screwed up. There is thus no reason to even investigate who made the mistake.
To try using a mistake by an administrative worker to prove the entire raid team and everyone who entered the house lied is beyond absurd yet that is precisely what the campaign team and other Jeremy supporters do.
With various logs being kept by different people, it's easy to understand how mistakes were made. No conspiracy, just a simple misunderstanding.
-
Too many cooks--------a dangerous practice.
-
Too many cooks--------a dangerous practice.
Exactly!
-
With various logs being kept by different people, it's easy to understand how mistakes were made. No conspiracy, just a simple misunderstanding.
Very true, Caroline
-
maybe it was a mistake to read to much into it but that does not make the capaghn team dishonest or liars.
-
maybe it was a mistake to read to much into it but that does not make the capaghn team dishonest or liars.
It's their job to promote his innocence but some stuff on the OS should be removed or edited because it's pretty misleading. It may not be intentional but it's misleading nevertheless.
-
Your posts are a perfect example of how one doesn't need to use bad language to make their posts "unpleasant and disrespectful". Inserting the words "I asked politely" doesn't make an otherwise sneering and insulting post into an acceptable one.
I don't call anyone names, or say their posts are 'bullshit'.
Hopefully the moderators will respond to my polite request and change their stance.
Continuing to say it is acceptable for Nugnug to call other peoples posts 'bullshit' is wrong.
-
I don't call anyone names, or say their posts are 'bullshit'.
Hopefully the moderators will respond to my polite request and change their stance.
Continuing to say it is acceptable for Nugnug to call other peoples posts 'bullshit' is wrong.
I notice that despite your apparent dislike of the term, you are promoting the use of it.
-
If anyone criticises Nugnug's posts all hell breaks loose.
April starts demanding bans and moderators start removing posts as if there is no tomorrow.
-
It's their job to promote his innocence but some stuff on the OS should be removed or edited because it's pretty misleading. It may not be intentional but it's misleading nevertheless.
well you should allways take any site promoting somthing with a pinch of salt but that doesnt make it a con
-
If anyone criticises Nugnug's posts all hell breaks loose.
April starts demanding bans and moderators start removing posts as if there is no tomorrow.
The only hell breaking loose here is the one you're creating by what you insinuate.
-
well you should allways take any site promoting somthing with a pinch of salt but that doesnt make it a con
So we can include this one, can we? ;)
-
this ones not promoting anything as far as i know and we all take the owner with a big pinch of salt anyway.
-
well im just going by your previos history of posting bullshit sory if you werent posting it this time.
You have failed to demonstrate anything I posted to be untrue or bullshit. You simply act like a troll on this site. I'm still waiting for you to post a link to the thread where NGB had to tell me the difference between military and civilian weapons which you claimed proves I have no military experience. You make many claims but never provide a single shred of evidence to ever back up your claims. In contrast I post evidence to back up mine. You call my evidence bull shit because you simply don't want to face the truth and worse yet you are too ignorant to even recognize the documents I post were originally posted here by your hero Mike so anytime you assert such documents are fake you are effectively asserting Mike posted fake documents.
You are the one posting nonsense. It is not even possible to have a debate with you because you refuse to debate. Anytime I challenge you do so you simply run away claiming I post bull shit and that is it. I have no fear of debating anyone. I explain how and why my opponents are wrong and produce evidence to establish such. That is well beyond you though, you would rather be like a monkey who sits in a tree flinging his crap at people who pass by.
-
maybe it was a mistake to read to much into it but that does not make the capaghn team dishonest or liars.
Mixing logs makes one a liar. Failing to mention the other logs makes one dishonest. Misrepresenting that a log states 3 further bodies were found upstairs when it doesn't mention such is dishonest. Asserting a log states that people were found in the kitchen when it merely states police entered and so far found 2 bodies asserts 2 bodies were found in the kitchen is dishonest.
There is great twisting going on. There was a single log that contained the error of 2 bodies found in the kitchen. AT MOST this log could be used for investigative purposes to try to find out who wrote it and to ask if they recall with precision the words of those who provided the information and who provided the information they recorded on the log. Then the person who said it could be questioned about what they actually said. If they respond that they were listening in to CA/7 like other people were then we already know what CA/7 said because there was a memo page devoted exclusively to that message and it didn't state 2 bodies found in the kitchen which means the person who wrote such made a mistake. To knowingly use a mistake to try to establish something is dishonest.
The defense didn't go into such inquiry because they knew it would lead no where. You follow the trail when you are unsure where the trail will ultimately lead. We know where the trail leads- we know which officers are the eyewitnesses who entered the kitchen. That is who you speak to the eyewitnesses not the grapevine. Only a few members of the raid team entered the master bedroom and saw Sheila. A larger number of those in charge and support personnel ended up seeing her body. A majority of the raid team entered the kitchen though and saw only 1 body. These are the only accounts that matter with respect to establish where the bodies were. What the grapevine said is not of any consequence.
The campaign team knows that Sheila's body was not in the kitchen. No eyewitnesses claim it had been there, no blood evidence or other physical evidence establishes she had been in the kitchen at all let alone her body in there and no photos or the like establish her body had been there. Blood evidence, eyewitness testimony and photos do establish her body was in the master bedroom.
The campaign team has no evidentiary basis to assert her body had been in the kitchen and has no logical reason why police would move her body anyway. The campaign team intentionally distorts the significance of a log that claimed two bodies were found in the kitchen and intentionally distorted what various other logs state in a dishonest attempt to pretend there is reason to believe Sheila's body had originally been in the kitchen even though female body could have meant June as easily as Sheila and clearly the second body found was in fact June. Furthermore they thought it was June in the kitchen before entry because Collins though Nevill was an old woman from behind he saw wild gray hair that he thought belonged to a female.
This is just one of many distortions on he site and when all the distortions are stripped away the campaign site has nothing left. They raise nothing legitimate just nonsense claims of bodies moved, the dishonest claim that someone inside the house was talking to police dishonest claim that Nevill phoned police... If Jeremy were actually innocent they would not need to resort to lies and would have something legitimate to raise.
-
With various logs being kept by different people, it's easy to understand how mistakes were made. No conspiracy, just a simple misunderstanding.
They know it was a misunderstanding on the part of the person who posted 2 bodies int he kitchen so make no effort to figure out who wrote that error. If you want to investigate you figure out who wrote it and try to figure to figure out what they were actually told and by whom.
We know they can't have heard the claim directly from any of those inside the house because the raid team wasn't using radios they were passing messages to those outside by calling to other raid team members and the raid team members closest to the door spreading the information to those outside the door. Montgomery was rather close outside receiving messages passed.
We know for a fact that none of the raid team and those directly outside acting as information conduits like Montgomery claim more than 1 body was found in the kitchen. Nor does anyone who entered after the house was cleared. So we know the mistake was made further down the line and by a single person because only 1 person reported 2 bodies in the kitchen though 3 different people had written logs down related to CA/7s radio report.
The horse's mouths are the people who went in the kitchen and the person outside who received the information directly from the raid team. That is what actually matters and we know for a fact they say only 1 body was in the kitchen so trying to pretend that there were 2 bodies is deceptive.
-
Just asked this on another thread but I guess it also belongs here. What lies did Fielder tell about Colin Stagg?
-
You have failed to demonstrate anything I posted to be untrue or bullshit. You simply act like a troll on this site. I'm still waiting for you to post a link to the thread where NGB had to tell me the difference between military and civilian weapons which you claimed proves I have no military experience. You make many claims but never provide a single shred of evidence to ever back up your claims. In contrast I post evidence to back up mine. You call my evidence bull shit because you simply don't want to face the truth and worse yet you are too ignorant to even recognize the documents I post were originally posted here by your hero Mike so anytime you assert such documents are fake you are effectively asserting Mike posted fake documents.
You are the one posting nonsense. It is not even possible to have a debate with you because you refuse to debate. Anytime I challenge you do so you simply run away claiming I post bull shit and that is it. I have no fear of debating anyone. I explain how and why my opponents are wrong and produce evidence to establish such. That is well beyond you though, you would rather be like a monkey who sits in a tree flinging his crap at people who pass by.
To be fair this is how supporters work.
They have no proof to refute the evidence showing guilt. So supporters just say the evidence has been tampered with. But have no proof.
They then turn it on to the guilters saying we have to prove the evidence has not been falsified.
-
They know it was a misunderstanding on the part of the person who posted 2 bodies int he kitchen so make no effort to figure out who wrote that error. If you want to investigate you figure out who wrote it and try to figure to figure out what they were actually told and by whom.
We know they can't have heard the claim directly from any of those inside the house because the raid team wasn't using radios they were passing messages to those outside by calling to other raid team members and the raid team members closest to the door spreading the information to those outside the door. Montgomery was rather close outside receiving messages passed.
We know for a fact that none of the raid team and those directly outside acting as information conduits like Montgomery claim more than 1 body was found in the kitchen. Nor does anyone who entered after the house was cleared. So we know the mistake was made further down the line and by a single person because only 1 person reported 2 bodies in the kitchen though 3 different people had written logs down related to CA/7s radio report.
The horse's mouths are the people who went in the kitchen and the person outside who received the information directly from the raid team. That is what actually matters and we know for a fact they say only 1 body was in the kitchen so trying to pretend that there were 2 bodies is deceptive.
it cant be said it was fact that it was a misunderstanding the suppoerters page could have point there just over staeting there case.
-
it cant be said it was fact that it was a misunderstanding the suppoerters page could have point there just over staeting there case.
Like claiming Mike Fielder lied about Colin Stagg?
-
Just asked this on another thread but I guess it also belongs here. What lies did Fielder tell about Colin Stagg?
he cliamed stag wrote pervy letter to an undercover policewoan when in fact it was the other way around.
-
it cant be said it was fact that it was a misunderstanding the suppoerters page could have point there just over staeting there case.
They have no case, aside from an obvious error there is nothing at all to suggest a female was originally in the kitchen and thus illicitly relocated by police to the bedroom. It is dishonest of the site to even broach the claim. When all such worthless spin is stripped away the website has nothing left.
-
he cliamed stag wrote pervy letter to an undercover policewoan when in fact it was the other way around.
They exchanged what you call 'pervy letters'. The policewoman was trying to get him to write violent letters and to reveal he killed Rachel Nickell. He didn't reply with violent letters, but he did write quite explicit letters back - so Fielder didn't lie.
-
he cliamed stag wrote pervy letter to an undercover policewoan when in fact it was the other way around.
He wrote pervy letters to the officer as well and in 1 even claimed he killed a little girl with his cousin.
-
He wrote pervy letters to the officer as well and in 1 even claimed he killed a little girl with his cousin.
He certainly did, he later retracted what he said and told 'Lizzy' he's lied. So Fielder didn't lie about this and we don't know that he lied in the Gibraltar story, he may have simply reported what he was told.
-
Figures shown are average circulations for January of each year. Only newspapers with circulations of more than 100,000 copies per day in January 2012 are listed. Regardless of immediate source, all figures originate from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
Title 2015[7] 2014[8] 2013[9] 2012[10] 2011[11] 2010[12][13]
The Sun 1,978,702 2,213,659 2,409,811 2,582,301 3,001,822 3,006,565
Daily Mail 1,688,727 1,780,565 1,863,151 1,945,496 2,136,568 2,120,347
Daily Mirror 992,235 992,256 1,058,488 1,102,810 1,194,097 1,218,425
Evening Standard TBA 805,309[14] 695,645[15] 699,368[16] 704,008[17] 601,960[18]
Daily Telegraph 494,675 544,546 555,817 578,774 651,184 691,128
Daily Express 457,914 500,473 529,648 577,543 639,875 674,640
Daily Star 425,246 489,067 535,957 617,082 734,311 779,376
The Times 396,621 384,304 399,339 397,549 457,250 508,250
i 280,351 298,266 293,946 264,432 133,472 N/A
Financial Times 219,444 234,193 275,375 316,493 383,067 390,315
Daily Record 203,725 227,639 251,535 291,825 306,872 323,831
The Guardian 185,429 207,958 204,440 215,988 279,308 302,285
The Independent 61,338 66,576 76,802 105,160 185,035 185,815
-
Jeremy testified that he likes the good things in life. You can say again, the way be spent after the massacre. DB saying in the video he lived way beyond his means pre massacre.
He robbed the caravan site and spent the money. He testified this was done out of greed. He may have even smuggled heroin to get more money.
He had put the 6k he spent in Amsterdam on the farm account. Which he couldn't do forever. The finalising of the wills was a long way off.
It is perfectly believable that he tried to sell pictures after finding them when rummaging around his new London pad. The potential pay off was high.
-
He certainly did, he later retracted what he said and told 'Lizzy' he's lied. So Fielder didn't lie about this and we don't know that he lied in the Gibraltar story, he may have simply reported what he was told.
fielder was at the trial who new the exact context everything was said in becouse tha judge made it very clear but he chose to not to report and continue the perscution of stagg.
-
They exchanged what you call 'pervy letters'. The policewoman was trying to get him to write violent letters and to reveal he killed Rachel Nickell. He didn't reply with violent letters, but he did write quite explicit letters back - so Fielder didn't lie.
she wrote some abslutly disgusting letters to stag wich fielder chose not mention wich as he knew what was written was delbrate dishonesty.
-
she wrote some abslutly disgusting letters to stag wich fielder chose not mention wich as he knew what was written was delbrate dishonesty.
Again, I'll ask where you are getting this from?
-
do a basic bit of resarch on the case and why the judge made the scathing coments about the police that he did.
what fieldr said im getting from his own book were choses to imply a wrongly acused man is still guilty and the police did no wrong.
when its known they did and he knew they did
-
do a basic bit of resarch on the case and why the judge made the scathing coments about the police that he did.
what fieldr said im getting from his own book were choses to imply a wrongly acused man is still guilty and the police did no wrong.
when its known they did and he knew they did
Which book? This one?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Murder-Rachel-Nickell-Blakes-Library/dp/1857823389/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434449711&sr=8-1&keywords=Mike+Fielder
-
yes thats the one.
-
yes thats the one.
OK, I have this book, where does he imply that Colin Stagg is still guilty?
-
They exchanged what you call 'pervy letters'. The policewoman was trying to get him to write violent letters and to reveal he killed Rachel Nickell. He didn't reply with violent letters, but he did write quite explicit letters back - so Fielder didn't lie.
the letters stag wrote were pretty tame and fielder knew he delbratly misrepresnted them.
-
the letters stag wrote were pretty tame and fielder knew he delbratly misrepresnted them.
Nugs, how can he misrepresent the letters, when he includes an account of them in the book? This is all just your own opinion because Fielder makes it clear that he didn't think Stagg was the killer - and the book was written LONG before Robert Napper was caught.
There is some misrepresenting going on but not by Fielder!!
-
a selective acount.
-
a selective acount.
It's not selective at all, he includes Colin Stagg's letters and Lizzy's. He makes it clear that Stagg was innocent and that Operation Edzel was a complete farce, so where did he lie? He may not (in your OPINION) have shouted it loud enough from the roof tops but he didn't lie. How hard he defended Stagg is a matter of opinion and Colin admits himself that he was extremely naive.
-
the letters stag wrote were pretty tame and fielder knew he delbratly misrepresnted them.
Stagg claimed he killed someone in a letter, that is tame? All you are doing is killing your own credibility not Fielder's.
-
your kiling your own to defend a sun reporter thats losing battel.
your also kiling your own be contiuing to make acusations agianst a man who was proved innocent.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/25/comment.homeaffairs
-
your kiling your own to defend a sun reporter thats losing battel.
your also kiling your own be contiuing to make acusations agianst a man who was proved innocent.
I'm merely reporting a fact. It is a fact that Stagg told the cop he had killed someone, that is not mild. It doesn't matter that he lied in such letter you claimed he didn't write such types of letters and asserted Fielder made such letters up. Stagg did write them though you were wrong and thus called Fielder a liar for nothing.
-
I'm merely reporting a fact. It is a fact that Stagg told the cop he had killed someone, that is not mild. It doesn't matter that he lied in such letter you claimed he didn't write such types of letters and asserted Fielder made such letters up. Stagg did write them though you were wrong and thus called Fielder a liar for nothing.
I don't in anyway shape or forum condone what the police (and Paul Britton - ESPECIALLY Paul Britton!!) did to Colin Stagg, but to use this as a basis to Call Michael Fielder a liar - is dishonest. I have read his book and he doesn't accuse Colin Stagg of anything he didn't do. Fielder admits that the case was a fiasco and supports the judges decision to kick the case out of court.
There were supposed to be lots of instances where it could be PROVEN that Fielder was a liar and yet we have one attempt to blame him from the Gibraltar story, without knowing where the source of the story came from - and now this attempt to suggest he lied about Colin Stagg - which is completely INTRUE. It's looking less and less like Fielder is the liar!!
-
its rather funny nobody else reapeted. the gibralter story other than him.
-
its rather funny nobody else reapeted. the gibralter story other than him.
It didn't JUST appear in the Sun!
-
its rather funny nobody else reapeted. the gibralter story other than him.
I thought it was on the television.
-
I thought it was on the television.
It was, but it was also reported in the newspapers. This is an account of what happened and The Sun was NOT the only paper to carry the story but was the first to settle in court. We don't know that Fielder made this story up, or if it was fed to him from elsewhere. There is evidence to show the police gave the reporters certain info about Carmen Proetta and her husband. However, for the sake of playing down the facts of the pictures, he has to be made out to be a liar. ::)
https://www.academia.edu/3176252/The_Media_on_the_Rock_The_Media_and_the_Gibraltar_Killings
-
they seteled first becouse they new what they had said wasnt true not all the other papers did.
-
they seteled first becouse they new what they had said wasnt true not all the other papers did.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D - You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing!
-
they seteled first becouse they new what they had said wasnt true not all the other papers did.
You're missing the point, the link I posted shows that several newspapers ran similar stories, they were being fed by someone - the police were thought to be the source of the information, although it was denied later. Fielder wasn't writing for ALL of those newspapers, only the Sun, but they all had a similar tale to tell. The source was obviously NOT Fielder and he simply reported what he was told - without checking his facts properly. However, in Jeremy's case - he got the story from the horses mouth.
-
The first reporter on the scene at WHF also got the info from " the horse's mouth ",by a cop who'd told him that it was the grandmother who'd opened fire. Until he was stopped mid-track before returning with his story which changed to the daughter.
This proves that journo's CAN and Do get it wrong when they're going at break-neck speed for a front page cover story. Famously named The Rat Pack,because that's what they are,these reporters,every one of them. It was one such character who was responsible for the death of Princess Diana,but the blame has gone to everyone else under the sun,bar the one who directly caused the death.
-
The first reporter on the scene at WHF also got the info from " the horse's mouth ",by a cop who'd told him that it was the grandmother who'd opened fire. Until he was stopped mid-track before returning with his story which changed to the daughter.
This proves that journo's CAN and Do get it wrong when they're going at break-neck speed for a front page cover story. Famously named The Rat Pack,because that's what they are,these reporters,every one of them. It was one such character who was responsible for the death of Princess Diana,but the blame has gone to everyone else under the sun,bar the one who directly caused the death.
Who was that Lookout? Was it a major player? Was it someone involved in the crime scene investigation or just someone who heard something from someone, who heard something from someone? In the photograph article - JEREMY was the horses mouth!!
-
Who was that Lookout? Was it a major player? Was it someone involved in the crime scene investigation or just someone who heard something from someone, who heard something from someone? In the photograph article - JEREMY was the horses mouth!!
The cop and journo in question were mentioned at the start of Claire Powell's book. And yes,she was doing her own investigating. It would have appeared that she herself had spoken to the cop on duty at Page's Lane.
-
The cop and journo in question were mentioned at the start of Claire Powell's book. And yes,she was doing her own investigating. It would have appeared that she herself had spoken to the cop on duty at Page's Lane.
So they weren't involved with the scene then? Thought not! Oh and it's OK for you to use CP's book but you criticise others when they use it?
-
So they weren't involved with the scene then? Thought not! Oh and it's OK for you to use CP's book but you criticise others when they use it?
I enjoy being facetious when the literature has been penned by someone on the guilty side. They're not always Kosher in their musings.
-
I enjoy being facetious when the literature has been penned by someone on the guilty side. They're not always Kosher in their musings.
Then don't use her to defend your posts.
-
As far as I know there is no officer who says the grandmother opened fire - the source is Claire, she's the one who makes the claim that an officer said it - this has been used by Lookout for the longest time to throw accusations towards June.
-
Then don't use her to defend your posts.
What ? Ha ha ha,that's a corker.
-
What ? Ha ha ha,that's a corker.
If you're going to criticise the woman why use her to back up what you post? Or are we supposed to only take the quotes you like as being kosher?
-
If you're going to criticise the woman why use her to back up what you post? Or are we supposed to only take the quotes you like as being kosher?
I'm not asking you to take anything believable as Kosher. It's that some remarks coming from someone who is supposedly a guilty supporter are somewhat contradictory.
-
I'm not asking you to take anything believable as Kosher. It's that some remarks coming from someone who is supposedly a guilty supporter are somewhat contradictory.
Well, Lookout if that's not the pot calling the kettle grimey arse!
-
Well, Lookout if that's not the pot calling the kettle grimey arse!
Yes,that's exactly what I thought.
-
I notice that Sutcliffe is STILL getting publicity !!
Nobody dare mention Jeremy in case it opens up a can of worms.
-
I notice that Sutcliffe is STILL getting publicity !!
Nobody dare mention Jeremy in case it opens up a can of worms.
I think it's more likely that there is nothing to say about Jeremy.
-
I think it's more likely that there is nothing to say about Jeremy.
So what do you think that a " forgotten Birthday cake " for Sutcliffe's 69th has got to do with anything ?
Is that news ?
On the contrary,there's more than enough to say about Jeremy,given an " opener ".
-
So what do you think that a " forgotten Birthday cake " for Sutcliffe's 69th has got to do with anything ?
Is that news ?
On the contrary,there's more than enough to say about Jeremy,given an " opener ".
Well, lets get them both in the news, Jeremy could bake him a cake? Win, win! ;D ;D ;D 8)
-
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.
And? Is Peter Gruner (journo at the Evening Standard at the time) also a liar? He interviewed Bamber after The Sun article, Bamber didn't deny trying to sell the pictures, just brushed it off but admitted he wanted £100,000.00 for his story. Fielder told the same story. He did try to sell the pictures, he mentioned selling his story to both journalists and used the same words as he'd used to Colin to describe the them. It really is futile to deny that he didn't ;D ;D ;D
-
And? Is Peter Gruner (journo at the Evening Standard at the time) also a liar? He interviewed Bamber after The Sun article, Bamber didn't deny trying to sell the pictures, just brushed it off but admitted he wanted £100,000.00 for his story. Fielder told the same story. He did try to sell the pictures, he mentioned selling his story to both journalists and used the same words as he'd used to Colin to describe the them. It really is futile to deny that he didn't ;D ;D ;D
gunner just repeated said gunner was not there.
-
gunner just repeated said gunner was not there.
NO! He interviewed Jeremy. He asked him about the story and Jeremy DIDN'T deny it! Wish you people would get the story right! Part of the problem is that you rely on what people have said here. Like posting Gingo's post as proof. Do some research yourself!
-
Nor did I until I read up on it today nugs. Just google fielder tart of gib and you get a few links.
here she is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Proetta
-
here she is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Proetta
Read it before - and?
-
Read it before - and?
and its not the first feilder has made shit up.
-
and its not the first feilder has made shit up.
Maybe not, he didn't make Bamber trying to sell pics of his dead sister up - too many other corroborations!
-
Maybe not, he didn't make Bamber trying to sell pics of his dead sister up - too many other corroborations!
how can there be corbaration there was only 3 people there one of them is person he acuses the other 1 has not said anything since moving back to newzealand.
-
how can there be corbaration there was only 3 people there one of them is person he acuses the other 1 has not said anything since moving back to newzealand.
Because he used the SAME words as he said to Colin and he didn't deny it to the other reporter and also mentioned he wanted to see his life story. I can't explain it any simpler than that! If Fielder is lying, HOW did he manage to print the exact same words as Fielder had used to Colin and HOW did Fielder know he wanted to also sell his life story? This is like pulling teeth!
-
The bottom line is he tried to sell nude photographs of his dead sister. This in itself does not prove his guilt but is indicative of the materialistic and callous nature of the man we are discussing. I sometimes think the people who defend him on this issue are the ones who also fall for the story that nothing was amiss at the farmhouse when this tragedy occurred out of the blue, and that Jeremy so loved his parents..
-
I'll repeat---------not half as bad as what EP did in using his deceased family as props. Disgusting.
-
The bottom line is he tried to sell nude photographs of his dead sister. This in itself does not prove his guilt but is indicative of the materialistic and callous nature of the man we are discussing. I sometimes think the people who defend him on this issue are the ones who also fall for the story that nothing was amiss at the farmhouse when this tragedy occurred out of the blue, and that Jeremy so loved his parents..
the bottom line theres no proof he did anything the sort.
just of a man who lies for a living.
-
the bottom line theres no proof he did anything the sort.
just of a man who lies for a living.
Since he's on record for repeating the allegations the interested parties should sue. It surprises me from studying Brett Collins' character that he has done nothing of the sort. If anything he's hiding away..
-
the bottom line theres no proof he did anything the sort.
just of a man who lies for a living.
Yes, there is.
-
dident colin say he festroyed the photos if thats true how could jeremy offer to sell them.
why would somone who is allready a suspect in a murder want to make themselves a bigger suspect.
why would feilder and mckenxie suddenly develop a consense after showing no sighns of ever 1 before.
-
Weren't there also some photo's in a drawer at WHF which June had found and went mad ?
-
Weren't there also some photo's in a drawer at WHF which June had found and went mad ?
Yes I think Colin said June kept them as a hold over her daughter should she feel she was losing an argument. They may have been the ones he took himself in a cornfield in 1978, but there were also the photographs an Australian photographer took at one of Sheila's friends house in Maida Vale, which Jeremy seized upon and told Colin about.
-
And? Is Peter Gruner (journo at the Evening Standard at the time) also a liar? He interviewed Bamber after The Sun article, Bamber didn't deny trying to sell the pictures, just brushed it off but admitted he wanted £100,000.00 for his story. Fielder told the same story. He did try to sell the pictures, he mentioned selling his story to both journalists and used the same words as he'd used to Colin to describe the them. It really is futile to deny that he didn't ;D ;D ;D
Gruner didn't ask whether JB had attempted to sell them so why would Bamber deny something that he wasn't asked.
He also didn't deny lots of other things to Gruner because he wasn't asked.
The supposed non denial to Gruner is absurd.
-
Yes I think Colin said June kept them as a hold over her daughter should she feel she was losing an argument. They may have been the ones he took himself in a cornfield in 1978, but there were also the photographs an Australian photographer took at one of Sheila's friends house in Maida Vale, which Jeremy seized upon and told Colin about.
erm dident colin say that jb gave him the photos and he later destroyed them so how could he be trying to sell them if he he had given them to colin.
-
erm dident colin say that jb gave him the photos and he later destroyed them so how could he be trying to sell them if he he had given them to colin.
Well he did take some photos from the bottom drawer of a bedroom in Moreshead Mansions, but Jeremy insisted that he keep others, and I'm assuming that he held some back on Brett Collins' advice.
-
Gruner didn't ask whether JB had attempted to sell them so why would Bamber deny something that he wasn't asked.
He also didn't deny lots of other things to Gruner because he wasn't asked.
The supposed non denial to Gruner is absurd.
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!
-
erm dident colin say that jb gave him the photos and he later destroyed them so how could he be trying to sell them if he he had given them to colin.
Completely WRONG! He gave Colin some of the pictures but not the ones where "you can see everything, right down to the last detail" - those he tried to flog to Fielder!
-
Well he did take some photos from the bottom drawer of a bedroom in Moreshead Mansions, but Jeremy insisted that he keep others, and I'm assuming that he held some back on Brett Collins' advice.
if jeremy wanted to sell the photos surely he would of wanted all of them.
-
if jeremy wanted to sell the photos surely he would of wanted all of them.
He kept those that he thought he could get the most cash for.
-
He kept those that he thought he could get the most cash for.
but those were the ones he could of got more cash for becouse they could be published.
-
but those were the ones he could of got more cash for becouse they could be published.
Well he obviously thought he could get more for the explicit pictures.
-
Why leave such things around anyway when there were two small children ? No wonder the kids drawings were weird.
-
Well he obviously thought he could get more for the explicit pictures.
hes dad was magistrate he would of known it would not be legal for a newspaper to publish such pictures and therefore wouldn't be able to sell them
but he would o also known that the ones he had given away to colin. could be sold.
-
hes dad was magistrate he would of known it would not be legal for a newspaper to publish such pictures and therefore wouldn't be able to sell them
but he would o also known that the ones he had given away to colin. could be sold.
Nugs, he tried to see the pictures - why he did so, only he knows, and he's not telling.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
-
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!
-
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.
-
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. (https://forums.wesnoth.org/images/smilies/icon_laugh.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ask Roch how damning Caroline's letters are. (https://forums.wesnoth.org/images/smilies/icon_laugh.gif)
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? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Ask Roch how damning Caroline's letters are. (https://forums.wesnoth.org/images/smilies/icon_laugh.gif)
I have discussed these letters enough to know exactly how much credence I should lend any claims emanating from them.
-
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 ::)
-
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, ;) ;D 8)
-
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.
-
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
-
More denial - pathetic.
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.
So how many questions exactly has JB "avoided"? What leads you to believe that they were avoided rather than overlooked?
The last time that you claimed that he had avoided answering a question for two years, it turned out that he had in fact answered your question upon prompting by you after a few weeks. You however apparently lacked the basic comprehension skills, such as the ability to draw inferences, to understand this.
From the evidence that you presented my 12 and 13 year old grandchildren were able to infer that JB answered your wallet question when he gave you an answer of, "no, or I didn't", with the caveat that he didn't remember the "specific" question.
That you chose to ask the same insensitive question two years later despite your question having already being answered, at least to anyone with the comprehension skills of the average 12 year old, shows more about you than anything you imagine it reveals about JB.
-
Nugs, he tried to see the pictures - why he did so, only he knows, and he's not telling.
No he didn't and once again I repeat there has never ever been proof Jeremy tried to sell photos of Sheila
Fact
-
Difference is, I KNOW the truth, you only think you do, ;) ;D 8)
O you don't
I know the truth and I asked him on the telephone and he answered immediately
-
But he wasn't a convicted murderer at that stage. He was an eligible bachelor with all the Bamber money and name behind him.
On remand for murder. You missed a bit. These aren't even arguments, Steve.
-
On remand for murder. You missed a bit. These aren't even arguments, Steve.
How could he be on remand for murder if he's meeting Fielder at a Chelmsford pub? The fact that he didn't threaten libel straightaway speaks volumes.
-
From the Campaign for Freedom -
'After his first arrest and release without charge Jeremy was approached by the newspapers for his story. Naively he went to meet with one after his solicitor advised him against it. Jeremy was tired of being vilified by the newspapers after his arrest and wanted to tell his story. Jeremy said that Brett Collins also advised that he should go to meet with the journalist. The Sun journalist wasn’t interested in Jeremy’s account, and continually asked questions about Sheila Caffell and requested any modelling pictures which might have been pornographic. Jeremy had told him that there were none and that there might have been some topless ones but Colin Caffell would have those. The journalist ran the story reporting that the newspaper had been offered these pictures and they also went to the police. The newspaper never obtained pictures of Sheila, because they didn’t exist, further proof that Jeremy Bamber had not intended to sell any pictures to the newspaper.'
---------------------
The common ground is -
There was a meeting.
The meeting was with Fielder, Bamber & Brett.
Brett was instrumental in arranging the meeting.
Bamber wanted to give his account.
Photos of Sheila were discussed.
No photos were displayed at the meeting.
The Sun ran a front page headline the following day.
-
The problem with TCFF version is Fielder wouldn't have asked for photos.
If Bamber was offerring his account for free, that was as good as any photos.
Fielder would have biten Bamber's hand off for a big free exclusive & published Bamber's account the following day.
According to Nugs Fielder had lied before about an unrelated case. However no journalist is dumb enough to turn down a big free exclusive.
-
The problem with TCFF version is Fielder wouldn't have asked for photos.
If Bamber was offerring his account for free, that was as good as any photos.
Fielder would have biten Bamber's hand off for a big free exclusive & published Bamber's account the following day.
According to Nugs Fielder had lied before about an unrelated case. However no journalist is dumb enough to turn down a big free exclusive.
would he bollocks 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.
-
How could he be on remand for murder if he's meeting Fielder at a Chelmsford pub? The fact that he didn't threaten libel straightaway speaks volumes.
by that logic why haven't any of the relatives sued or threatened Jeremy's campaign team.
-
by that logic why haven't any of the relatives sued or threatened Jeremy's campaign team.
Because they would rather sit back and watch them make fools of themselves.
-
So how many questions exactly has JB "avoided"? What leads you to believe that they were avoided rather than overlooked?
The last time that you claimed that he had avoided answering a question for two years, it turned out that he had in fact answered your question upon prompting by you after a few weeks. You however apparently lacked the basic comprehension skills, such as the ability to draw inferences, to understand this.
From the evidence that you presented my 12 and 13 year old grandchildren were able to infer that JB answered your wallet question when he gave you an answer of, "no, or I didn't", with the caveat that he didn't remember the "specific" question.
That you chose to ask the same insensitive question two years later despite your question having already being answered, at least to anyone with the comprehension skills of the average 12 year old, shows more about you than anything you imagine it reveals about JB.
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.
-
No he didn't and once again I repeat there has never ever been prove Jeremy tried to sell photos of Sheila
Fact
Yes there is.
-
O you don't
I know the truth and I asked him on the telephone and he answered immediately
You didn't ask him about the pictures Jackie - pull the other one! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At last, the voice of reason, thank you
I never ever believed the story
So why did you (as you say you did ::)) ask Jeremy about it?
-
would he bollocks 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.
Ok Nugs. So you believe The Sun would have turned down Bamber's request to give 'his account'. In what would be a big, free, exclusive for them.
Instead they made up a front page lie & committed libel. About photo's they didn't know existed. As they like to help the police in framing innocent men.
A pity Bamber & Brett chose the wrong newspaper.
Nugs you're talking bollocks again.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
how many times have you made the same comment now do you never get bored with repeating yourself.
Nugs you need to find another conspiracy theory. Which won't be hard for you.
Maybe suggest the judge was biased because he didn't like Bamber's haircut or something.
-
she has done hes denied it in fact hes allways denied it theres a bit on his officail site about i belive.
Where?
-
Where?
Such a shame you never got a chance to ask Jeremy on the phone
Whoops I forgot he never wanted to speak to you on the phone did he
-
Nugs you need to find another conspiracy theory. Which won't be hard for you.
Maybe suggest the judge was biased because he didn't like Bamber's haircut or something.
adam belives the sun newspaper allways tell the truth lol.
-
adam belibes the sun newspaper allways tell the truth lol.
Not really.
I've just gone by the following sources -
CAL
Campaign for freedom.
Fielder
The Sun
CC
Gringo
And come to a conclusion why Bamber's offer to give 'his account' was turned down. Which is the same conclusion I had in the first place.
-
well when the second half of the lvsin inquiry kicks off I know I will be proved right.
-
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.
I cant believe you actually took the time to bother, well done. Maybe the emperor now realises it has no clothes!
-
I cant believe you actually took the time to bother, well done. Maybe the emperor now realises it has no clothes!
Far from it - I'm wearing double layers ;D ;D ;D! You pair are talking about things you weren't even party to. It just shows the arrogance and stupidity of you both. Your problem is that you STILL haven't gotten over me bursting your bubble over the palm print 'break though'. Silly little man! ::)
-
What would a palm print prove ?
-
I cant believe you actually took the time to bother, well done. Maybe the emperor now realises it has no clothes!
i very much doubt if the empereror will.
-
What would a palm print prove ?
A palm print proves nothing.
However a 999 call from Sheila at 6.09am does. Surprised the CT have made this public & given the crown 'time to prepare'.
-
of course if i could find feilder i could ask him if he taped the interview i wonder what he would say.
-
A palm print proves nothing.
However a 999 call from Sheila at 6.09am does. Surprised the CT have made this public & given the crown 'time to prepare'.
Prepared or not,it hasn't been denied by those who must read what the CT put out,has it ?
-
now where are feilders tapes if they existed in the first of course.
-
now where are feilders tapes if they existed in the first of course.
Why ask for something you don't even know exists?
-
Why ask for something you don't even know exists?
well to weather they exit or not.
-
Nugs's only remaining back up to his theory that The Sun met Bamber but unbelievably turned down a big, free, exclusive of Bamber's own account, is Fielder has not released a tape recording of the conversation.
Dismissing Gringo's post saying the obvious, that reporters tape conversations. And forgetting that Fielder hasn't needed to supply any tapes.
Nugs doesn't believe The Sun turned down Bamber's offer of existing photo's for £20,000+. Despite several sources.
Bamber again being - the unluckiest man alive.
-
And why did Fielder sign a witness statement & say he was prepared to testify ?
Oh yes, because he knew he wouldn't be called !
-
Why ask for something you don't even know exists?
.
Have you got a source that Bamber wanted £100,000 for his life story.
-
And why did Fielder sign a witness statement & say he was prepared to testify ?
Oh yes, because he knew he wouldn't be called !
yes exactly it wouldent of been admissable i have explianed why im sure our resdent barrister will back me up on that.
-
.
Have you got a source that Bamber wanted £100,000 for his life story.
It's in CAL's book - page 320-321
-
It's in CAL's book.
What page ? The only page I have seen says £20,000 for the photo & more for his life story.
-
What page ? The only page I have seen says £20,000 for the photo & more for his life story.
Had to go and check - 320-321
-
Had to go and check - 320-321
That says £20,000 for the photos & a large fee for his life story.
-
That says £20,000 for the photos & a large fee for his life story.
First paragraph on 321
-
It's in CAL's book - page 320-321
Oh in a book it must be true then???
-
First paragraph on 321
I can't get page 321 up online. Can you quote it ?
-
Oh in a book it must be true then???
and guess who cals source for it is.
-
Oh in a book it must be true then???
What a stupid comment - if it wasn't for books, no one would know anything. I guess you don't read - that explains a lot!
-
What a stupid comment - if it wasn't for books, no one would know anything. I guess you don't read - that explains a lot!
so its changed from 20 thousand to one hundred thousand now has it.
-
I can't get page 321 up online. Can you quote it ?
Bottom of Page 320 (last paragraph) which runs over to 321.
"The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila's flat, Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn't denied The Sun's claims, responding "That's interesting, I haven't read the papers today", Although he did confirm "I want a lot of money for my story about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me".
-
yes exactly it wouldent of been admissable i have explianed why im sure our resdent barrister will back me up on that.
I do back you up on that nugnug.
-
so its changed from 20 thousand to one hundred thousand now has it.
20 thousand was for the photographs £1000,000 was for his life story! I thought you said you had the book? Of you have, you should know this stuff - it's easy to look up.
-
so its changed from 20 thousand to one hundred thousand now has it.
Nugnug I understand that a story emanating from a proven liar has to be scrutinized, but you and others are on a sticky wicket with this one and would do well to accept that the incident may well have happened. The fact that you all kick up such a fuss is indicative of your position that anything which puts Bamber in a bad light has to be shot down.
I know the tone of the debate has deteriorated of late because of the lull in new information available.
-
And why did Fielder sign a witness statement & say he was prepared to testify ?
Oh yes, because he knew he wouldn't be called !
Probably the same reasons as he had when he lied and testified in the Carmen Proetta libel trial.
He lied for a living and because it was on behalf of the authorities he was arrogant and confident enough that he wouldn't be held to account. There really is enough information out there for you to be able to conclude this yourself.
-
Bottom of Page 320 (last paragraph) which runs over to 321.
"The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila's flat, Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn't denied The Sun's claims, responding "That's interesting, I haven't read the papers today", Although he did confirm "I want a lot of money for my story about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me".
Good. So that backs up Fielder and The Sun.
Nug's conspiracy theory has been dismissed. Not that anyone ran with it or it was ever viable.
-
Probably the same reasons as he had when he lied and testified in the Carmen Proetta libel trial.
He lied for a living and because it was on behalf of the authorities he was arrogant and confident enough that he wouldn't be held to account. There really is enough information out there for you to be able to conclude this yourself.
oh yes he comited perjury there dident he.
-
Probably the same reasons as he had when he lied and testified in the Carmen Proetta libel trial.
He lied for a living and because it was on behalf of the authorities he was arrogant and confident enough that he wouldn't be held to account. There really is enough information out there for you to be able to conclude this yourself.
You completely overlook that Jeremy Bamber used exactly the same description of the photographs to Michael Fielder as he did to Colin Caffell, namely that "they show everything down to the last detail."
-
You completely overlook that Jeremy Bamber used exactly the same description of the photographs to Michael Fielder as he did to Colin Caffell, namely that "they show everything down to the last detail."
I have said all of that Steve, it's like talking to a wall. How would Fielder even know Bamber had such pictures unless he (Bamber) told him? This is a sticking point because although it doesn't mean Bamber is guilty, given the circumstances, it makes he the kind of person that might.
-
I have said all of that Steve, it's like talking to a wall. How would Fielder even know Bamber had such pictures unless he (Bamber) told him? This is a sticking point because although it doesn't mean Bamber is guilty, given the circumstances, it makes he the kind of person that might.
becouse he knew was a model and in the minds of tabliod journlists that only means 1 thing.
and also jeremy wasnt the only person who knew about them.
-
I have said all of that Steve, it's like talking to a wall. How would Fielder even know Bamber had such pictures unless he (Bamber) told him? This is a sticking point because although it doesn't mean Bamber is guilty, given the circumstances, it makes he the kind of person that might.
It's also about time this thread was either locked or merged with the others on Brett Collins and The Sun.
-
Nugnug I understand that a story emanating from a proven liar has to be scrutinized, but you and others are on a sticky wicket with this one and would do well to accept that the incident may well have happened. The fact that you all kick up such a fuss is indicative of your position that anything which puts Bamber in a bad light has to be shot down.
I know the tone of the debate has deteriorated of late because of the lull in new information available.
Nugs created a thread on whether Claire Powell used Brett Collins as a source.
Not sure how that shows Bamber is innocent.
-
Nugs created a thread on whether Claire Powell used Brett Collins as a source.
Not sure how that shows Bamber is innocent.
its ment to you xxxxx i just wanted the real source for some of the cliams made in her book.
-
becouse he knew was a model and in the minds of tabliod journlists that only means 1 thing.
and also jeremy wasnt the only person who knew about them.
Do you think Bamber is the unluckiest man ever ?
He couldn't even give his account to the media. Although he offerred it free of charge !
-
becouse he knew was a model and in the minds of tabliod journlists that only means 1 thing.
and also jeremy wasnt the only person who knew about them.
Ah ok - so only days before Bamber was talking to Colin about pictures in which he claimed "You can see everything right down to the last detail" - Bamber meets journo Michael Fielder who prints a story about him trying to sell explicit pictures claiming he said "You can see everything right down to the last detail"? From that you deduce Fielder just guessed? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
its ment to you xxxxx i just wanted the real source for some of the cliams made in her book.
But Nugs all of you're conspiracy theories just makes you look like an xxxx & makes Bamber look more guilty.
-
Ah ok - so only days before Bamber was talking to Colin about pictures in which "You can see everything right down to the last detail" - Bamber meets journo Michael Fielder who prints a story about him trying to sell explicit pictures claims he said "You can see everything right down to the last detail"? From that you deduce Fielder just guessed? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You know what's coming from Nugs.
Fielder spoke to CC within the few hours between meeting Bamber & publishing the story.
-
You know what's coming from Nugs. Fielder spoke to CC within the few hours between meeting Bamber & publishing the story.
sugesting that a proven liar might be lying is comspriacy theory is it maybe you should look up what the words mean as you clearly dont understand what a conspriacy theory is.
-
You know what's coming from Nugs.
Fielder spoke to CC within the few hours between meeting Bamber & publishing the story.
Yes, I did think of that too, problem with that is, he'd have to call Colin a liar to argue that. I don't know why they don't just give it up. It's obvious he tried to sell the pictures. It's collateral damage - don't make him a killer, just someone very little moral fiber. ;)
-
sugesting that a proven liar might be lying is comspriacy theory is it maybe you should look up what the words mean as you clearly dont understand what a conspriacy theory is.
There is 'usually' some substance to it - not in this case! Fielder might have lied or exaggerated - not in this case, he didn't need to.
-
You completely overlook that Jeremy Bamber used exactly the same description of the photographs to Michael Fielder as he did to Colin Caffell, namely that "they show everything down to the last detail."
I don't ignore this at all and have shown in detail exactly how Fielder could have known already that JB had described the photos to Colin in this way.
In a nutshell, the relatives were talking to Colin giving Colin the impression that they were trying to frame him. They were also interfering in the police investigation. It has been shown previously that a number of people were aware of the existence of the photos. Given the conversations that the family had with Colin and their obvious attempts to frame JB, I would be surprised if they hadn't found out about the pics themselves through Colin.
If your case that JB tried to sell the pics relies on Fielder's use of nine words in his 300/500 word article then it is a weak argument, Steve.
-
sugesting that a proven liar might be lying is comspriacy theory is it maybe you should look up what the words mean as you clearly dont understand what a conspriacy theory is.
Bamber is a proven multiple liar. He's spent 32 years in jail for it.
Fielder had no reason to lie. The Campaign for Freedom says Bamber was offerring 'his account' for free. A big, free exclusive.
Or do you disagree with 'The campaign for freedom' ?
-
It's also about time this thread was either locked or merged with the others on Brett Collins and The Sun.
Steve I have been too busy this week to do anything much on the forum. I doubt I will have time to do anything with it til next week. You will just have to cope til then.
-
I don't ignore this at all and have shown in detail exactly how Fielder could have known already that JB had described the photos to Colin in this way.
In a nutshell, the relatives were talking to Colin giving Colin the impression that they were trying to frame him. They were also interfering in the police investigation. It has been shown previously that a number of people were aware of the existence of the photos. Given the conversations that the family had with Colin and their obvious attempts to frame JB, I would be surprised if they hadn't found out about the pics themselves through Colin.
If your case that JB tried to sell the pics relies on Fielder's use of nine words in his 300/500 word article then it is a weak argument, Steve.
and im sure the police knew as well.
-
Bamber is a proven multiple liar. He's spent 32 years in jail for it.
Fielder had no reason to lie. The Campaign for Freedom says Bamber was offerring 'his account' for free. A big, free exclusive.
Or do you disagree with 'The campaign for freedom' ?
so what reason did he have to lie in the tart of gibralter case then we know he did lie.
-
I don't ignore this at all and have shown in detail exactly how Fielder could have known already that JB had described the photos to Colin in this way.
In a nutshell, the relatives were talking to Colin giving Colin the impression that they were trying to frame him. They were also interfering in the police investigation. It has been shown previously that a number of people were aware of the existence of the photos. Given the conversations that the family had with Colin and their obvious attempts to frame JB, I would be surprised if they hadn't found out about the pics themselves through Colin.
If your case that JB tried to sell the pics relies on Fielder's use of nine words in his 300/500 word article then it is a weak argument, Steve.
No it's conclusive; just you won't admit it.
-
I don't ignore this at all and have shown in detail exactly how Fielder could have known already that JB had described the photos to Colin in this way.
In a nutshell, the relatives were talking to Colin giving Colin the impression that they were trying to frame him. They were also interfering in the police investigation. It has been shown previously that a number of people were aware of the existence of the photos. Given the conversations that the family had with Colin and their obvious attempts to frame JB, I would be surprised if they hadn't found out about the pics themselves through Colin.
If your case that JB tried to sell the pics relies on Fielder's use of nine words in his 300/500 word article then it is a weak argument, Steve.
The likelihood of Fielder coming up with the exact same 9 words is almost nil - that's not a weak argument. You argument hinges on a faint possibility that the relatives found out about the photographs. That's not just weak, it's pathetic!
He tried to sell the pictures, it's obvious ::)
-
so what reason did he have to lie in the tart of gibralter case then we know he did lie.
Don't know and don't care because that has nothing to do with Bamber trying to sell dodgy pictures of his dead sister.
-
so what reason did he have to lie in the tart of gibralter case then we know he did lie.
Gibraltar. That's a curve ball.
At least me saying Bamber is a multiple liar is to do with the case.
So you disagree with 'The Campaign for freedom'.
Nugs, you're again on you're own.
-
Nugs created a thread on whether Claire Powell used Brett Collins as a source.
Not sure how that shows Bamber is innocent.
Well Adam you are a fine one to talk.... how many threads have you created which proved absolutely nothing.
-
Don't know and don't care because that has nothing to do with Bamber trying to sell dodgy pictures of his dead sister.
it has everything to do with it when a man sighns a false afdavit and lies in court that means he is not a credible witness in any other case.
-
It seems that Michael Fielder was fed false information from Police regarding Carmen Proetta. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s9yxCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=michael+fielder+carmen+proetta&source=bl&ots=JJWQe5hJ_u&sig=lRwwJw1HQbIgvOE24JoN6CQQO_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicp56rn7fWAhVqLsAKHQQHAm8Q6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=michael%20fielder%20carmen%20proetta&f=false
-
It seems that Michael Fielder was fed false information from Police regarding Carmen Proetta. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s9yxCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=michael+fielder+carmen+proetta&source=bl&ots=JJWQe5hJ_u&sig=lRwwJw1HQbIgvOE24JoN6CQQO_g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicp56rn7fWAhVqLsAKHQQHAm8Q6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=michael%20fielder%20carmen%20proetta&f=false
that's according to Michael fielder.
-
Again, no one has agreed with Nugs's latest conspiracy theory.
Nugs has even disagreed with Gringo & 'The Campaign for Freedom' to keep his theory going. And has now brought up, you guessed it - Gibraltar.
-
Again, no one has agreed with Nugs's latest conspiracy theory.
Nugs has even disagreed with Gringo & 'The Campaign for Freedom' to keep his theory going. And has now brought up, you guessed it - Gibraltar.
it have escaped your notice but I'm not part of the campaign and can disagree as i feel fit.
-
it has everything to do with it when a man sighns a false afdavit and lies in court that means he is not a credible witness in any other case.
Each case is taken on it's own merits and in this one, we don't just have Fielders word, we have Colin's!
-
Each case is taken on it's own merits and in this one, we don't just have Fielders word, we have Colin's!
you cant have colins he wasn't there.
-
Bottom of Page 320 (last paragraph) which runs over to 321.
"The Evening Standard ran a follow up story that day, after one of their journalists spoke to Jeremy at Sheila's flat, Peter Gruner recalled that Jeremy hadn't denied The Sun's claims, responding "That's interesting, I haven't read the papers today", Although he did confirm "I want a lot of money for my story about £100,000. I think newspapers tend to make up stories about me".
This confirms Fielders account.
Bamber confirming to Gruner he wanted money for his story. Something he had arranged with the NOTW if acquited.
This backs up 'The Campaign for Freedom' who said Bamber wanted to give his 'own account'. Although they accidentially forgot to say Bamber wanted money.
It also backs up CAL's book & CC's confirmation the photos exist.
A farmers son wanting £100,000. Bamber was being optimistic. Now if it was Lord Lucan.....
-
This confirms Fielders account.
Bamber confirming to Gruner he wanted money for his story, which he would have received from the NOTW if acquited.
This backs up 'The Campaign for Freedom' who said Bamber wanted to give his 'own account'. Although they accidentially forgot to say Bamber wanted money.
It also backs up CAL's book & CC's confirmation the photos exist.
it cant confirms because he is the orinal source.
A farmers son wanting £100,000. Now if it was Lord Lucan.....
it cant comfirm it because he is the orginal source.
-
you cant have colins he wasn't there.
But Jeremy's conversation with Fielder was reported in the Sun newspaper for goodness sake and tallied with what Jeremy himself had told Colin. How many more times do we have to endure this skirting around the issue?
-
But Jeremy's conversation with Fielder was reported in the Sun newspaper for goodness sake and tallied with what Jeremy himself had told Colin. How many more times do we have to endure this skirting around the issue?
what tailed exactly word for word I dind that hard to belive what is he supposed to have said.
i find it hard to belive he would use exactly the same words in 2 different conversations bettwen 2 very different people.
-
Fielder's and The Sun's confidence in the what happened suggests they had a tape recording.
They published a story discrediting a man who had just lost his family. They wouldn't make up the story just to sell a few more copies. Not that it would. The hype had died down.
we can allways ask weather there is if we can track him down.
-
what do colins orginal statements about the incedent say.
-
what do colins orginal statements about the incedent say.
I have told you this the last time we discussed it. It's Colin who stated that the exact same words were used to him as were printed in The Sun. In you haste to beguile Fielder and stick up for Bamber you miss important issues. Whether YOU believe he used the same words or not - Colin reports that he did. So you don't have to believe Fielder, it's Colin who made the association and the words spoke (for the umpteenth bloody time) are "You can see everything right down to the last detail". Not just nine words that reflect what was posted in The Sun, but nine words in the SAME order. ::)
-
I have told you this the last time we discussed it. It's Colin who stated that the exact same words were used to him as were printed in The Sun. In you haste to beguile Fielder and stick up for Bamber you miss important issues. Whether YOU believe he used the same words or not - Colin reports that he did. So you don't have to believe Fielder, it's Colin who made the association and the words spoke (for the umpteenth bloody time) are "You can see everything right down to the last detail". Not just nine words that reflect what was posted in The Sun, but nine words in the SAME order. ::)
what did colins statement say at the time that is the question I am asking
hees statements at the time would be the most accurate.
-
what did colins statement say at the time that is the question I am asking
hees statements at the time would be the most accurate.
He wasn't asked about the photographs in his statement - why would he be?
-
Colin made his statement on 07/08/85 - weeks before the photograph incident!
-
Colin's claim that Jeremy used the same words to describe the pictures of Sheila to him that Fielder attributed to Bamber proves nothing at all. If it were the case that this proved the story then Colin's statement of 11th September by the same logic would prove some sort of manipulation on the part of EP.
From his statement of 11th September:
"During the following Friday Jeremy and Julie came to stay at my address for the weekend, they left on the Sunday.
On the Friday night a discussion took place at my house between myself, Jeremy, Julie(Jeremy's girlfriend) and Janice Flowers(an ex girlfriend of mine).
We were trying to put together the facts of what had happened at the farm that night. As a result Jeremy told us that after he'd left during the conversation about fostering the children he'd gone home. He stated that he'd been woken up by the phone at about 3am by Mr. Bamber saying something like "Sheila's gone berserk with a gun"."
According to EP the "gone berserk with a gun" quote was never made by Jeremy or Neville but in fact was paraphrasing from one officer to another. How coincidental that Jeremy then uses the same words to Colin that West allegedly paraphrased to Bonnet.
Does that prove anything in your world or does it only apply when it suits your agenda?
very true they want it both ways.
-
very true they want it both ways.
No, you and gringo want it both ways. No way that those nine words could have been coincidence. I will leave you and gringo to live in La la Land!
-
No, you and gringo want it both ways. No way that those nine words could have been coincidence. I will leave you and gringo to live in La la Land!
what were these 9 words then.
-
what were these 9 words then.
Are you for real?
-
It's actually 10 words, gringo can't count!
These are the words once again just for you nugs. If you look back they appear in just about every post I have made in the past few days. Not sure how you could have missed them but ....... for the last time. Jeremy stated to BOTH Colin and Fielder when describing the photographs.
"YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING RIGHT DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL"
-
It's actually 10 words, gringo can't count!
These are the words once again just for you nugs. If you look back they appear in just about every post I have made in the past few days. Not sure how you could have missed them but ....... for the last time. Jeremy stated to BOTH Colin and Fielder when describing the photographs.
"YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING RIGHT DOWN TO THE LAST DETAIL"
and that is supposed to be damming evdence its a sentence in common use.
they idea that feilder couldent have thought of that description indepedantly of jeremy is absurd.
-
The damning evidence is Bamber met The Sun.
The following day The Sun printed a front page headline 'Bambi brother in photo scandal'. The Sun somehow finding out photos existed from someone other than Bamber.
Gruner said Bamber wanted a 'substantial fee' for his life story. Which again backs up The Sun.
However you believe Bamber didn't mention photos or a life story fee. He just offerred his account for free. The Sun turned down this very generous offer.
-
and that is supposed to be damming evdence its a sentence in common use.
they idea that feilder couldent have thought of that description indepedantly of jeremy is absurd.
In common use - pull the other one! ::) This is just silly now and beneath any intelligent debate!
-
In common use - pull the other one! ::) This is just silly now and beneath any intelligent debate!
well seeing as not capable of intellgient debate i dont think that really matters.
1 you asume that colins rembered the exact same words correctly 30 years after wich is bloody hard.
and 2 your asuming the book was writtan entierly by colin and there was no ghost writing involved.
3 im not sure after the rubbish with the wallet i trust your cliam that there the exact same words.
4 when your describing pictures of a naked woman what other sentence would you use to describe.
thas a standered sentence used. especaily by newspapers.
-
well seeing as not capable of intellgient debate i dont think that really matters.
1 you asume that colins rembered the exact same words correctly 30 years after wich is bloody hard.
and 2 your asuming the book was writtan entierly by colin and there was no ghost writing involved.
3 im not sure after the rubbish with the wallet i trust your cliam that there the exact same words.
4 when your describing pictures of a naked woman what other sentence would you use to describe.
thasa standered sentence especaily by newspapers.
1. The book wasn't written 30 years after the event it was published in 1994! I'm not assuming anything YOU ARE - or rather you're making dumb excuses because that's all you can come up with - commonly used sentence my arse!
2. Colin DID write the book himself, perhaps you think Fielder nipped into his house and slipped in a chapter of his own? Unbelievable!
3. I don't trust you to grasp even the most basic of concepts so your opinion on the wallet or any other aspect of the case is worth squat. I'm all for making allowances for people but you take the prize!
4. I won't even qualify your last comment is a reply! The fact that you made that point shows you don't understand any point that has been put forward.
Little point in arguing this with you from here on in. Bamber tried to sell the pictures END OF!
-
1. The book wasn't written 30 years after the event it was published in 1994! I'm not assuming anything YOU ARE - or rather you're making dumb excuses because that's all you can come up with - commonly used sentence my arse!
2. Colin DID write the book himself, perhaps you think Fielder nipped into his house and slipped in a chapter of his own? Unbelievable!
3. I don't trust you to grasp even the most basic of concepts so your opinion on the wallet or any other aspect of the case is worth squat. I'm all for making allowances for people but you take the prize!
4. I won't even qualify your last comment is a reply! The fact that you made that point shows you don't understand any point that has been put forward.
Little point in arguing this with you from here on in. Bamber tried to sell the pictures END OF!
you have know way of knowing he wrote all the book himself as ghost writers rant credited.
you falsely claimed that Jeremy knew the exact amount of money when the documents he dident.
so why the hell would I belive you about the exact words written book.
and the fact I got the date makes no difference its hard to rember someones exact words 6 months let alone 6 years.
-
In the few days I've been away, the intelligence quotient of this debate has descended from questionable to just plain, downright STUPID, not to mention, convoluted. From what I can make out, it appears that it doesn't matter that Jeremy murdered his family. The important thing is that he has to be shown as being innocent of trying to sell porny pics of the sister he recently killed, and in order to do this, it also has to be shown that there was no interview between him and the journalist -who, because he told a lie ONCE, is clearly guilty of lying again?- he had the conversation with, MORE an obvious attempt is being made to bring Colin's integrity into question. The lengths some people will go to just to see a convicted murderer set free defies belief.
-
In the few days I've been away, the intelligence quotient of this debate has descended from questionable to just plain, downright STUPID, not to mention, convoluted. From what I can make out, it appears that it doesn't matter that Jeremy murdered his family. The important thing is that he has to be shown as being innocent of trying to sell porny pics of the sister he recently killed, and in order to do this, it also has to be shown that there was no interview between him and the journalist -who, because he told a lie ONCE, is clearly guilty of lying again?- he had the conversation with, MORE an obvious attempt is being made to bring Colin's integrity into question. The lengths some people will go to just to see a convicted murderer set free defies belief.
i havent made up up load of crap anbout somone not ansering a qustion that they dident need to answer in the first place becouse the answer was allready in the document.
so in real poistion to preach about that.
-
i havent made up up load of crap anbout somone not ansering a qustion that they dident need to answer in the first place becouse the answer was allready in the document.
so in real poistion to preach about that.
No, but you're happy enough to write your own "load of crap" and call someone else a liar when you have no proof of it.
-
In the few days I've been away, the intelligence quotient of this debate has descended from questionable to just plain, downright STUPID, not to mention, convoluted. From what I can make out, it appears that it doesn't matter that Jeremy murdered his family. The important thing is that he has to be shown as being innocent of trying to sell porny pics of the sister he recently killed, and in order to do this, it also has to be shown that there was no interview between him and the journalist -who, because he told a lie ONCE, is clearly guilty of lying again?- he had the conversation with, MORE an obvious attempt is being made to bring Colin's integrity into question. The lengths some people will go to just to see a convicted murderer set free defies belief.
He didn't murder his family
-
No, but you're happy enough to write your own "load of crap" and call someone else a liar when you have no proof of it.
who am I supposed to be calling a liar.
-
He didn't murder his family
As of this moment, THE LAW says he did, ergo, it entitles me to call him such.
-
Oh shit! 7th and 8th line down! There it is!
http://ourlady.ca/stories/pacoSept.htm (http://ourlady.ca/stories/pacoSept.htm)
How many members of his family did the author of this webpage massacre?
-
you have know way of knowing he wrote all the book himself as ghost writers rant credited.
you falsely claimed that Jeremy knew the exact amount of money when the documents he dident.
so why the hell would I belive you about the exact words written book.
and the fact I got the date makes no difference its hard to rember someones exact words 6 months let alone 6 years.
It was written by COLIN!
I didn't claim Jeremy knew the 'exact' amount of money, I said "HE AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT IT"
READ THE BLOODY BOOK YOURSELF instead of coming here talking ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!
As for your last point - I agree that YOU might think in easy to forget something someone told you 10 seconds ago.
If anyone can be honest enough to do so, please look at page 93 of Colin's book and tell him what it says about the words Jeremy used to describe the explicit pictures of Sheila? Because I wash my hands of the idiot! The QUOTE is at the end of the third paragraph.
Nugs, you have called me a liar several time now, but let me tell you something, you're not clever enough to understand the bloody truth, it could smack you straight in the face and you'd still look confused! GOOD CHOICE OF NAME THOUGH!
-
In the few days I've been away, the intelligence quotient of this debate has descended from questionable to just plain, downright STUPID, not to mention, convoluted. From what I can make out, it appears that it doesn't matter that Jeremy murdered his family. The important thing is that he has to be shown as being innocent of trying to sell porny pics of the sister he recently killed, and in order to do this, it also has to be shown that there was no interview between him and the journalist -who, because he told a lie ONCE, is clearly guilty of lying again?- he had the conversation with, MORE an obvious attempt is being made to bring Colin's integrity into question. The lengths some people will go to just to see a convicted murderer set free defies belief.
You should stay away more often,it's been bliss on here !!
-
It was written by COLIN!
I didn't claim Jeremy knew the 'exact' amount of money, I said "HE AVOIDED ANSWERING THE QUESTION WHEN I ASKED HIM ABOUT IT"
READ THE BLOODY BOOK YOURSELF instead of coming here talking ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS!
As for your last point - I agree that YOU might think in easy to forget something someone told you 10 seconds ago.
If anyone can be honest enough to do so, please look at page 93 of Colin's book and tell him what it says about the words Jeremy used to describe the explicit pictures of Sheila? Because I wash my hands of the idiot! The QUOTE is at the end of the third paragraph.
Nugs, you have called me a liar several time now, but let me tell you something, you're not clever enough to understand the bloody truth, it could smack you straight in the face and you'd still look confused! GOOD CHOICE OF NAME THOUGH!
i called you a liar lardgely it pretty plian that you a liar and really you only have yourself to blame for that.
-
i called a liar lardgely it pretty plian that you a liar and really only have tourself to blame for that.
Again, in English?
-
You should stay away more often,it's been bliss on here !!
Not from what I'VE read. I see TSV has been spewing again. All it's capable of.
-
Not from what I'VE read. I see TSV has been spewing again. All it's capable of.
Well all I can say is that your break didn't do much good did it ? Finding fault as soon as you set eyes on the screen.You don't have to be here. ::)
-
Well all I can say is that your break didn't do much good did it ? Finding fault as soon as you set eyes on the screen.You don't have to be here. ::)
Exactly the vilest women on the forum is back spewing her usual rubbish
-
Exactly the vilest women on the forum is back spewing her usual rubbish
TSV is alive and doing what it does best. It proves my point AGAIN.
-
Well all I can say is that your break didn't do much good did it ? Finding fault as soon as you set eyes on the screen.You don't have to be here. ::)
Come now, Lookout. If I wasn't here, who else would you be able to shriek LIAR at?
-
Exactly the vilest women on the forum is back spewing her usual rubbish
Don't be so hard on yourself Jackie!
-
Don't be so hard on yourself Jackie!
She can be as hard on herself as she wants, Caroline. I won't mind. She comes on here specifically to blame us for coming on here to cause trouble, but she's not bright enough to see that SHE has to cause trouble in order to get US to respond. She then pats herself on the back for getting our posts removed, never realizing that when ours go, hers go with them ;D
-
Come now, Lookout. If I wasn't here, who else would you be able to shriek LIAR at?
It's NOT my favourite use of the word--------------it's YOURS !!
My mother hated the word and it was NEVER said in our house. We called it " fibbing ". So you see,it's not me who's not been brought up decently !!
-
You should stay away more often,it's been bliss on here !!
Ditto Lookout
-
It's NOT my favourite use of the word--------------it's YOURS !!
My mother hated the word and it was NEVER said in our house. We called it " fibbing ". So you see,it's not me who's not been brought up decently !!
Hahaha! It's rather pathetic, at YOUR age, to play the "My mother would have hated it" card, don't you think -and nothing would ever have changed, OR would have been very wrong if we'd never done other than what our mothers approved. NOR do I imagine you'll be very popular for suggesting that you're the ONLY one here who was bought up 'decently'...................I'll grant it probably ISN'T your favourite word -something to do with guilt about mother's disapproval perhaps- but it didn't stop you using it, did it?
-
Hahaha! It's rather pathetic, at YOUR age, to play the "My mother would have hated it" card, don't you think -and nothing would ever have changed, OR would have been very wrong if we'd never done other than what our mothers approved. NOR do I imagine you'll be very popular for suggesting that you're the ONLY one here who was bought up 'decently'...................I'll grant it probably ISN'T your favourite word -something to do with guilt about mother's disapproval perhaps- but it didn't stop you using it, did it?
I did NOT use the word and you know it--------BULLY !!
-
I did NOT use the word and you know it--------BULLY !!
YOU MOST DEFINITELY DID. I DON'T lie. I asked you, at least three times to apologize and you refused. YOU'RE the one who sees it as weakness to admit to being wrong -God knows which parent gave you that idea- so it stands to reason you'd HAVE to lie to avoid being seen as weak.
-
I repeat------I'M NO LIAR !! On the contrary-----------------------------
-
I repeat------I'M NO LIAR !! On the contrary-----------------------------
And I'M saying you act like you're EXACTLY that, and we BOTH know it. Not only that, you act lioke a coward because you haven't the guts to admit what you, did. When you stop acting like a liar, I'll stop calling you such.
-
so where are the alleged photos now then why has nobody ever seen them since.
-
so where are the alleged photos now then why has nobody ever seen them since.
Why? Do you want to see them so that you know they exist? It would appear to be the only way you'd be convinced.
-
Why? Do you want to see them so that you know they exist? It would appear to be the only way you'd be convinced.
i just asked a simple qustion what happend to them why were they never found.
these are photos that everbody cliams exist but nobody seems to have ever seen them.
if jeremy had them why dident the police find them when they looked through his flat.
-
i just asked a simple qustion what happend to them why were they never found.
these are photos that everbody cliams exist but nobody seems to have ever seen them.
if jeremy had them why dident the police find them when they looked through his flat.
I imagine they disappeared before the police could find them. Anyway, if they missed the silencer, perhaps they missed the photos?
-
And also the scratches under the mantel ?
-
I imagine they disappeared before the police could find them. Anyway, if they missed the silencer, perhaps they missed the photos?
i doubt if they would of missed somthing like that they found the videos he was watching went through everything else with a fine toth comb why wouldent they have found the photos.
-
i doubt if they would of missed somthing like that they found the videos he was watching went through everything else with a fine toth comb why wouldent they have found the photos.
Perhaps Brett took them?
-
Perhaps Brett took them?
and what would he have done with them if he had.
its never been properly explianed how these photos would of come in to jeremys possen in the first place or why for all the years they existed nobody else ever saw them other than him.
-
i just asked a simple qustion what happend to them why were they never found.
these are photos that everbody cliams exist but nobody seems to have ever seen them.
if jeremy had them why dident the police find them when they looked through his flat.
If the police had found them it would have been another string to their bow of " evidence " against JB. Or worse if RWB had got his mitts on them. The list gets longer ::)
Mind you,the world and its dog saw JM's pic in the NOTW.
-
If the police had found them it would have been another string to their bow of " evidence " against JB. Or worse if RWB had got his mitts on them. The list gets longer ::)
Mind you,the world and its dog saw JM's pic in the NOTW.
it would of been so clearly they dident find them what I'm not sure about is how they were supposed to have come into gis possen in the first place.
-
and what would he have done with them if he had.
its never been properly explianed how these photos would of come in to jeremys possen in the first place or why for all the years they existed nobody else ever saw them other than him.
Err, they were Sheila's. They were in her flat. Jeremy took possession of her flat.
-
Err, they were Sheila's. They were in her flat. Jeremy took possession of her flat.
and in the entire time these pictures have been at her flat nobody else has ever seen them.
and nobody else has entered her flat before Jeremy took possen of it.
-
and in the entire time these pictures have been at her flat nobody else has ever seen them.
and nobody else has entered her flat before Jeremy took possen of it.
'COURSE they had, Nugs. OK, so they MAY have. She'd probably shown them round to people every time she had a party!!!!!! You're making very sweeping statements here. I hope you have something to back them up.
-
'COURSE they had, Nugs. OK, so they MAY have. She'd probably shown them round to people every time she had a party!!!!!! You're making very sweeping statements here. I hope you have something to back them up.
so she was allegedly ashmed of these pictures but if that was the case why wouldent she of destroyed them.
all the other photos of her had been seen by people why wouldent these of been.
-
so was allegedly ashmed of these pictures but if that was the case why wouldent she of destroyed them.
all the other photos of her had been seen by people why wouldent these of been.
Allegedly!!! But if she was off her head with drugs -as SOME would have us believe- who knows what she may have done?
-
Allegedly!!! But if she was off her head with drugs -as SOME would have us believe- who knows what she may have done?
being of your head on drugs would make it more likely you would detroy your own photos not less.
-
being of your head on drugs would make it more likely you would detroy your own photos not less.
Are you speaking from experience, Nugs?
-
Pictures existed, Jeremy tried to sell them to The Sun. he got stung - end of!
-
Are you speaking from experience, Nugs?
i certanly am.
-
Pictures existed, Jeremy tried to sell them to The Sun. he got stung - end of!
so where are they now then.
why has nobody seen them.
-
so where are they now then.
why has nobody seen them.
Jeremy has them squirreled away to flog when he gets out of prison?
-
so where are they now then.
why has nobody seen them.
It's quite obvious RWB never saw them or we wouldn't have heard the last of them.
-
It's quite obvious RWB never saw them or we wouldn't have heard the last of them.
If it's never been suggested that he had, it's irrelevant, isn't it?
-
Jeremy has them squirreled away to flog when he gets out of prison?
so where would he of put them.
-
so where are they now then.
why has nobody seen them.
Like who?
-
Nugs isn't still going on about his conspiracy theory which was dismissed weeks ago.
How would anyone know where photos which are over 30 years old are.
Why weren't they printed by The Sun ? They were too raunchy for a national tabloid.
-
Nugs isn't still going on about his conspiracy theory which was dismissed weeks ago.
How would anyone know where photos which are over 30 years old are.
Why weren't they printed by The Sun ? They were too raunchy for a national tabloid.
well somobebody would have to know if they exited or ever did.
why were they never found at the time.
-
so where would he of put them.
Don't ask me. Write to him and ask.
-
Don't ask me. Write to him and ask.
well if did would hardly be likely to tell me would he.
so as you came up with the suggestion i have to ask you.
-
If it's never been suggested that he had, it's irrelevant, isn't it?
Why ? He'd picked up on just about everything else that was irrelevant.
-
Why ? He'd picked up on just about everything else that was irrelevant.
yes that's true there not mentioned in his famous dairy.
it seems to be the one bit of gossip he never picked up on.
-
Why ? He'd picked up on just about everything else that was irrelevant.
He painted a picture of a character as he saw it. He's not alone in being judgemental.
-
He painted a picture of a character as he saw it. He's not alone in being judgemental.
Painting a picture and openly accusing are two different things.
-
yes that's true there not mentioned in his famous dairy.
it seems to be the one bit of gossip he never picked up on.
Possibly because it was nothing to do with the murders. But they were reported in the paper or is all that made up to? ;D
-
Painting a picture and openly accusing are two different things.
Hold that thought, Lookout.
-
Possibly because it was nothing to do with the murders. But they were reported in the paper or is all that made up to? ;D
a lot of things were nothing to do with the murders but he seemed to make it his business to know about them.
the eatons seemed to know the familys affairs better than the family did but they dident know anything about this.
-
a lot of things were nothing to do with the murders but he seemed to make it his business to know about them.
the eatons seemed to know the familys affairs better than the family did but they dident know anything about this.
Of course they did - it was in the newspaper! ::)
-
a lot of things were nothing to do with the murders but he seemed to make it his business to know about them.
the eatons seemed to know the familys affairs better than the family did but they dident know anything about this.
As Jane said the photographs were kept at Moreshead Mansions, which Jeremy took possession of immediately after the murders. It's possible June had snooped around the flat at one time (she had a key and seemed to come and go as she pleased) and taken some back to White House Farm as a hold against her daughter, or they may well have been the photographs Colin had taken of her sunbathing in the nude in a cornfield in 1978, which again ended up in June's possession.
In either case there's no reason for the Eatons to know about their existence.
-
Of course they did - it was in the newspaper! ::)
They certainly kept that one quiet if they'd read/seen it then.
-
Of course they did - it was in the newspaper! ::)
but before then they knew nothing about the existence of such photos.
-
As Jane said the photographs were kept at Moreshead Mansions, which Jeremy took possession of immediately after the murders. It's possible June had snooped around the flat at one time (she had a key and seemed to come and go as she pleased) and taken some back to White House Farm as a hold against her daughter, or they may well have been the photographs Colin had taken of her sunbathing in the nude in a cornfield in 1978, which again ended up in June's possession.
In either case there's no reason for the Eatons to know about their existence.
well they knew about everything else.
if june had that then those pictures would of been found at after the murders wouldent they.
clearly she hadent.
-
As Jane said the photographs were kept at Moreshead Mansions, which Jeremy took possession of immediately after the murders. It's possible June had snooped around the flat at one time (she had a key and seemed to come and go as she pleased) and taken some back to White House Farm as a hold against her daughter, or they may well have been the photographs Colin had taken of her sunbathing in the nude in a cornfield in 1978, which again ended up in June's possession.
In either case there's no reason for the Eatons to know about their existence.
and what would he have done with them if he had.
its never been properly explianed how these photos would of come in to jeremys possen in the first place or why for all the years they existed nobody else ever saw them other than him.
I think Steve is correct here, nugs.
It seems that the pictures allegedly at Jeremy's cottage were ones that June had found after snooping around at Sheila's, at least according to Colin.
Having read Colin's differing accounts of this episode I am not convinced that Colin's recollections are reliable.
The relevant excerpts from Colin's book are on page 22 of this thread and below is the link to Colin's statements of 7/8/85, 11/09/85 and 24/09/85.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.0.html
-
well that poses a diffrent if they were at whf were did they go.
becouse they were not found after the murders.
-
I am of the opinion that the phone call to Colin from DB contained rather more than we are told. Colin tells how he had never received such a "disturbing and evasive telephone call in my life".
From reading Colin's statements it is clear that he believed Sheila to be guilty for a considerable time after the murders. From his statement of 11/09/85 it is apparent that he still thought Sheila had killed everyone at this time. He believes at this point that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
It is only by the time of his statement of 24/09/85 and after the Fielder story that Colin appears to suspect Jeremy.
I believe that during the "disturbing and evasive" call from DB, Colin probably let slip the existence of the photographs. The letter written to Jeremy by Colin whilst on holiday makes little sense in the context of Colin's statements. No arrangement was made to collect them and Colin is apparently unconcerned enough to go on holiday for two weeks the day after recovering one set but making no arrangement to collect the others. Quite why Colin believes that he, Sheila's ex husband, should be responsible for the slides is unexplained. The slides in question are also ones that Colin himself took of Sheila some years earlier in the WHF fields when she was 18?
By the time of his book, Colin had arranged to collect the slides the next day before going on holiday again.
Colin's accounts are, in my view, unreliable and increasingly, albeit understandably, self serving.
It is my belief that his statements of 7/8/85 and 11/9/85 are the most accurate of his accounts, before he was influenced by others with vested interests.
-
I think Steve is correct here, nugs.
It seems that the pictures allegedly at Jeremy's cottage were ones that June had found after snooping around at Sheila's, at least according to Colin.
Having read Colin's differing accounts of this episode I am not convinced that Colin's recollections are reliable.
The relevant excerpts from Colin's book are on page 22 of this thread and below is the link to Colin's statements of 7/8/85, 11/09/85 and 24/09/85.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1560.0.html
Sorry? :o What differing accounts? The statements are in relation to questions asked. This PROVES the incident occurred and Jeremy tried to sell the prints! He confirms in his statement that Jeremy used EXACTLY the same words to describe the pictures and was printed in The Sun. His statement was written 7 days after the article appeared in The Sun bout you're not sure if his recollections are accurate? ::)
-
I am of the opinion that the phone call to Colin from DB contained rather more than we are told. Colin tells how he had never received such a "disturbing and evasive telephone call in my life".
From reading Colin's statements it is clear that he believed Sheila to be guilty for a considerable time after the murders. From his statement of 11/09/85 it is apparent that he still thought Sheila had killed everyone at this time. He believes at this point that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
It is only by the time of his statement of 24/09/85 and after the Fielder story that Colin appears to suspect Jeremy.
I believe that during the "disturbing and evasive" call from DB, Colin probably let slip the existence of the photographs. The letter written to Jeremy by Colin whilst on holiday makes little sense in the context of Colin's statements. No arrangement was made to collect them and Colin is apparently unconcerned enough to go on holiday for two weeks the day after recovering one set but making no arrangement to collect the others. Quite why Colin believes that he, Sheila's ex husband, should be responsible for the slides is unexplained. The slides in question are also ones that Colin himself took of Sheila some years earlier in the WHF fields when she was 18?
By the time of his book, Colin had arranged to collect the slides the next day before going on holiday again.
Colin's accounts are, in my view, unreliable and increasingly, albeit understandably, self serving.
It is my belief that his statements of 7/8/85 and 11/9/85 are the most accurate of his accounts, before he was influenced by others with vested interests.
I couldn't agree more.
-
Colin had worked out what the relatives were and also what S.Jones was about. No love lost between those mentioned. Though it shows how easy it is to be swayed by the media if you're that way inclined.
-
I am of the opinion that the phone call to Colin from DB contained rather more than we are told. Colin tells how he had never received such a "disturbing and evasive telephone call in my life".
From reading Colin's statements it is clear that he believed Sheila to be guilty for a considerable time after the murders. From his statement of 11/09/85 it is apparent that he still thought Sheila had killed everyone at this time. He believes at this point that the relatives were trying to frame Jeremy.
It is only by the time of his statement of 24/09/85 and after the Fielder story that Colin appears to suspect Jeremy.
I believe that during the "disturbing and evasive" call from DB, Colin probably let slip the existence of the photographs. The letter written to Jeremy by Colin whilst on holiday makes little sense in the context of Colin's statements. No arrangement was made to collect them and Colin is apparently unconcerned enough to go on holiday for two weeks the day after recovering one set but making no arrangement to collect the others. Quite why Colin believes that he, Sheila's ex husband, should be responsible for the slides is unexplained. The slides in question are also ones that Colin himself took of Sheila some years earlier in the WHF fields when she was 18?
By the time of his book, Colin had arranged to collect the slides the next day before going on holiday again.
Colin's accounts are, in my view, unreliable and increasingly, albeit understandably, self serving.
It is my belief that his statements of 7/8/85 and 11/9/85 are the most accurate of his accounts, before he was influenced by others with vested interests.
also theres the qustion of why jb would of handed over photos that could of been printed and then tried to sell photos that couldent of been.
-
also theres the qustion of why jb would of handed over photos that could of been printed and then tried to sell photos that couldent of been.
Because he didn't know!
-
Because he didn't know!
what he dident know that a national newpaper wasnt allowed to print hardcore porn pictures he would have to be the only person in the country who dident.
and also dident know that the sun would buy topless photos like the ones he gave to colin he would have to be the only person in the country who dident know that ethere.
-
Well according to many JB was greedy and had his eye to business ? Obviously not !
-
Well according to many JB was greedy and had his eye to business ? Obviously not !
He was certainly greedy but 'business' -of the grafting sort- didn't seem to be what he had in mind. Actually, what WAS he qualified to do? 24 years old. A handful of menial jobs and a bit of farm labouring under his belt aren't exactly qualifications for anything.
-
He was certainly greedy but 'business' -of the grafting sort- didn't seem to be what he had in mind. Actually, what WAS he qualified to do? 24 years old. A handful of menial jobs and a bit of farm labouring under his belt aren't exactly qualifications for anything.
I didn't mention qualifications or work of any kind. Having ones eye to business also covers the fact that a person is always on the alert for easy money either by theft/fraud or other criminal means. JB had been slow on the uptake in many things until he learned what people were like. He was no criminal.
-
I didn't mention qualifications or work of any kind. Having ones eye to business also covers the fact that a person is always on the alert for easy money either by theft/fraud or other criminal means. JB had been slow on the uptake in many things until he learned what people were like. He was no criminal.
well if the story about him handing over printable picture to burned and then trying to sell unprintable ones he certanly was he would of had to have been the slowest man on the planet.
-
Like when he left a loaded rifle and ammunition out in the kitchen with 2 six year old children inside the farmhouse. Nothing criminal about that ::)
And let's just brush the caravan burglary and drug dealing under the carpet ::)
-
Like when he left a loaded rifle and ammunition out in the kitchen with 2 six year old children inside the farmhouse. Nothing criminal about that ::)
And let's just brush the caravan burglary and drug dealing under the carpet ::)
And you would personally know that ? How ?
For all any of us know,his father could have been putting the guns safely away as he normally did. What about the shotgun found upstairs by AE ? JB hadn't put that there ?
As for the caravan burglary,he had help from his then girlfriend ? Who also assisted in the drug-dealing too.
-
I didn't mention qualifications or work of any kind. Having ones eye to business also covers the fact that a person is always on the alert for easy money either by theft/fraud or other criminal means. JB had been slow on the uptake in many things until he learned what people were like. He was no criminal.
No, but you did mention business, therefore the type of business he was qualified for -or in this case NOT qualified for, was a natural progression, and the fact remains, that at 24, despite his expensive education, he actually wasn't qualified for anything. Inheriting would have been his saviour as he'd never have had to soil his hands by working.
-
No, but you did mention business, therefore the type of business he was qualified for -or in this case NOT qualified for, was a natural progression, and the fact remains, that at 24, despite his expensive education, he actually wasn't qualified for anything. Inheriting would have been his saviour as he'd never have had to soil his hands by working.
Business as in the criminal type ::)
-
Business as in the criminal type ::)
Hold that thought Lookout
-
And you would personally know that ? How ?
For all any of us know,his father could have been putting the guns safely away as he normally did. What about the shotgun found upstairs by AE ? JB hadn't put that there ?
As for the caravan burglary,he had help from his then girlfriend ? Who also assisted in the drug-dealing too.
Oh dear,we're in denial now.
-
Now who told me to do that yesterday ? Ah,it was Jane. How strange.
You must have both attended the same school which excelled in thinly veiled insults.
-
Now who told me to do that yesterday ? Ah,it was Jane. How strange.
You must have both attended the same school which excelled in thinly veiled insults.
No Lookout I was hoping you would see how you contradict yourself left right and centre but it seems you are too preoccupied with your thinly veiled insults
-
Now who told me to do that yesterday ? Ah,it was Jane. How strange.
You must have both attended the same school which excelled in thinly veiled insults.
Nothing of the sort. It was advice given me by both tutors and therapists when a point arose which they felt would be beneficial for me to reflect on. By what means, other than by listening to those with more knowledge, can we hope to progress and grow? Perhaps you could look at it, as did I, as an aid to furthering knowledge.
-
Nothing of the sort. It was advice given me by both tutors and therapists when a point arose which they felt would be beneficial for me to reflect on. By what means, other than by listening to those with more knowledge, can we hope to progress and grow? Perhaps you could look at it, as did I, as an aid to furthering knowledge.
Perhaps that could also be relayed to Stephanie too ?
-
No, but you did mention business, therefore the type of business he was qualified for -or in this case NOT qualified for, was a natural progression, and the fact remains, that at 24, despite his expensive education, he actually wasn't qualified for anything. Inheriting would have been his saviour as he'd never have had to soil his hands by working.
In every post you come across obsessively jealous of Jeremy's life
So he was adopted into a wealth family. I am sure he would he would have worked out exactly what he wanted to do in time
The fact remains he is locked up because of a jealous girlfriend, greedy relatives/dodgy silencer evidence and lieing police officers
-
In every post you come across obsessively jealous of Jeremy's life
So he was adopted into a wealth family. I am sure he would he would have worked out exactly what he wanted to do in time
The fact remains he is locked up because of a jealous girlfriend, greedy relatives/dodgy silencer evidence and lieing police officers
Jane doesn't come over that way to me, but you sound jealous of Julie and more than a little obsessed.
-
In every post you come across obsessively jealous of Jeremy's life
So he was adopted into a wealth family. I am sure he would he would have worked out exactly what he wanted to do in time
The fact remains he is locked up because of a jealous girlfriend, greedy relatives/dodgy silencer evidence and lieing police officers
You have a very opposite and out of kilter view of most things. It appears to reach it's zenith with all things Jeremy related. He certainly wasn't the only one to be adopted into a wealthy family and have money thrown at his education. Sadly, that education has availed him of nothing. Had he actually had some training for something instead of avoiding anything which smacked of serious work, he'd have probably been earning a damn sight more than he was earning on the farm, with no indication of when he'd be considered competent enough to rise above farm labourer status.
Not for the life of me can I see any reason -OTHER than your usual projection- why you'd think I'd be mildly jealous of him, let alone, obsessively so.
-
The murders had nothing to do with inheritance,but it was the easy way out for EP !
-
if what colin is saying about the being pictures kept at whf.
he is the source i belive correct me if i am wrong
what could of happend.
-
The murders had nothing to do with inheritance,but it was the easy way out for EP !
It had everything to do with inheritance....................but NOT an inheritance which could easily have been another 30+ years down the line (I've just seen the irony!!!) In order to gain his inheritance, Jeremy had to be seen to be dedicated to the farm. He wasn't going to receive it UNTIL Nevill's death and unless that death could be bought forward, Jeremy was likely to be well into middle age before it came his way and leading a life he wasn't cut out for. Certainly, he'd probably have received monies from other quarters but he'd still have had to work on the farm before he received the bulk. He believed it was important to have money whilst one was young. He wanted his inheritance NOW.
-
It had everything to do with inheritance....................but NOT an inheritance which could easily have been another 30+ years down the line (I've just seen the irony!!!) In order to gain his inheritance, Jeremy had to be seen to be dedicated to the farm. He wasn't going to receive it UNTIL Nevill's death and unless that death could be bought forward, Jeremy was likely to be well into middle age before it came his way and leading a life he wasn't cut out for. Certainly, he'd probably have received monies from other quarters but he'd still have had to work on the farm before he received the bulk. He believed it was important to have money whilst one was young. He wanted his inheritance NOW.
As I've said many a time,the grannie's days were numbered and JB probably already knew that his mother would see both Sheila and himself alright by contributing a bob or two to them after her death. JB had no enormous debts or anything which unduly worried him about wanting to get his hands on ready cash,so it's a ridiculous notion to repeat that this murder had been an inheritance one.
JB would also have known that having money in that way takes time,as it would have been 4 months+ for probate,therefore it wouldn't have amounted to " ready cash " any more.
He would have also been permanently on edge and it would have shown. The handing over of the keys to the place spelled honesty towards his relatives because he himself was honest and trusting. Would a mass murderer have done the same ? I would very much doubt it. Mass murderers or those intent on inheritance,want the cash,jewellery,goods now ! That's their whole purpose in committing such heinous crimes,they're ruthless and will stop at nothing.
How many 24 year olds in that position in which JB was in with everything he'd wanted and got go on to commit mass murder which included two little children ? Not a lot,if any. It's more the older person who snaps at the thought of losing everything after having built up a business then through some quirk or other find themselves in a hole and some,through pride,will go on to murder their family then commit suicide as a means to end the problem.
If you,or anyone else can show me proof of a 24 year old killing his family for their inheritance then I will admit that it does happen.
Better still,statistics that also show this along with the same for those with mental illnesses.
-
I also think that letting the relatives into the house was risky, but Jeremy didn't seem to mind. I would have thought he'd want to get rid of the moderator because he'd know there might be blood on it.
-
There could have been anything left behind,hair sweat and spit ( as seen through a microscope )
Would anyone else have taken that chance ?? I don't think so.
-
As I've said many a time,the grannie's days were numbered and JB probably already knew that his mother would see both Sheila and himself alright by contributing a bob or two to them after her death. JB had no enormous debts or anything which unduly worried him about wanting to get his hands on ready cash,so it's a ridiculous notion to repeat that this murder had been an inheritance one.
JB would also have known that having money in that way takes time,as it would have been 4 months+ for probate,therefore it wouldn't have amounted to " ready cash " any more.
He would have also been permanently on edge and it would have shown. The handing over of the keys to the place spelled honesty towards his relatives because he himself was honest and trusting. Would a mass murderer have done the same ? I would very much doubt it. Mass murderers or those intent on inheritance,want the cash,jewellery,goods now ! That's their whole purpose in committing such heinous crimes,they're ruthless and will stop at nothing.
How many 24 year olds in that position in which JB was in with everything he'd wanted and got go on to commit mass murder which included two little children ? Not a lot,if any. It's more the older person who snaps at the thought of losing everything after having built up a business then through some quirk or other find themselves in a hole and some,through pride,will go on to murder their family then commit suicide as a means to end the problem.
If you,or anyone else can show me proof of a 24 year old killing his family for their inheritance then I will admit that it does happen.
Better still,statistics that also show this along with the same for those with mental illnesses.
`
He didn't want another handout from mummy - he wanted the lot!
So you're saying it doesn't happen? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
`
He didn't want another handout from mummy - he wanted the lot!
So you're saying it doesn't happen? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Can you prove to me that it does happen involving a 24 year old ?
-
Can you prove to me that it does happen involving a 24 year old ?
Involving a 24 year old? What's that got to do with it? So you have put that condition in place so that if the person is slightly older or younger you can just dismiss it? How silly Lookout. To be honest I haven't even looked because I know exactly what's behind it. ;D
-
Involving a 24 year old? What's that got to do with it? So you have put that condition in place so that if the person is slightly older or younger you can just dismiss it? How silly Lookout. To be honest I haven't even looked because I know exactly what's behind it. ;D
It has to do with a lot.For starters you can't answer it !! Secondly I didn't mention anything about dismissing the fact that it's an older person who commits mass murder. Thirdly,there's nothing behind anything as I'd asked a simple question which again you can't answer so you again " dismiss " it yourself by saying it's " silly ".
-
It has to do with a lot.For starters you can't answer it !! Secondly I didn't mention anything about dismissing the fact that it's an older person who commits mass murder. Thirdly,there's nothing behind anything as I'd asked a simple question which again you can't answer so you again " dismiss " it yourself by saying it's " silly ".
No, like Jackie, you asked a question and put silly conditions on it. The age is immaterial, the term inheritance killer' is a real term so that PROVES there are such killers and Bamber is one of them. If you think I am wasting my time trawling through list of killers just to have you pick at the differences (which of cause there will be), you have another thing coming. There is one I can think of off the top of my head - Brian Blackwell. He wasn't 24 though so you have your get out clause all set to dismiss him. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
As I've said many a time,the grannie's days were numbered and JB probably already knew that his mother would see both Sheila and himself alright by contributing a bob or two to them after her death. JB had no enormous debts or anything which unduly worried him about wanting to get his hands on ready cash,so it's a ridiculous notion to repeat that this murder had been an inheritance one.
JB would also have known that having money in that way takes time,as it would have been 4 months+ for probate,therefore it wouldn't have amounted to " ready cash " any more.
He would have also been permanently on edge and it would have shown. The handing over of the keys to the place spelled honesty towards his relatives because he himself was honest and trusting. Would a mass murderer have done the same ? I would very much doubt it. Mass murderers or those intent on inheritance,want the cash,jewellery,goods now ! That's their whole purpose in committing such heinous crimes,they're ruthless and will stop at nothing.
How many 24 year olds in that position in which JB was in with everything he'd wanted and got go on to commit mass murder which included two little children ? Not a lot,if any. It's more the older person who snaps at the thought of losing everything after having built up a business then through some quirk or other find themselves in a hole and some,through pride,will go on to murder their family then commit suicide as a means to end the problem.
If you,or anyone else can show me proof of a 24 year old killing his family for their inheritance then I will admit that it does happen.
Better still,statistics that also show this along with the same for those with mental illnesses.
You're deflecting from my post. All the 'understanding' you claim to have of Jeremy seems to be more about how YOU believe it was. You talk about him having "everything he wanted" but from various of his conversations with others, it's not how he saw it. You speak of "mass murderers" -how many others do you know?- wanting "the cash, jewellery, goods now". Jeremy was selling it off like there was no tomorrow but you defend HIM -as opposed to other mass murders- as needing it for death duties! Grannie's will? Yes, June may have given some of her inheritance to Sheila and Jeremy -although hardly enough for him to live the life he'd have preferred, I imagine- but we have Jeremy's own words about how he felt about Sheila getting anything. I have no idea why you want a precedent. Even if no 24 year old -or one a few years either side of that- had previously murdered for inheritance, it didn't stop Jeremy.
-
No, like Jackie, you asked a question and put silly conditions on it. The age is immaterial, the term inheritance killer' is a real term so that PROVES there are such killers and Bamber is one of them. If you think I am wasting my time trawling through list of killers just to have you pick at the differences (which of cause there will be), you have another thing coming. There is one I can think of off the top of my head - Brian Blackwell. He wasn't 24 though so you have your get out clause all set to dismiss him. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I'd NEVER dismiss a killer no matter who it is !! Hang him--------yes.
-
I'd NEVER dismiss a killer no matter who it is !! Hang him--------yes.
You would have done had I not said you would have. So there you go, there's an inheritance killer. Challenge complete!
-
You would have done had I not said you would have. So there you go, there's an inheritance killer. Challenge complete!
But JB ISN'T one of your inheritance killers.
-
But JB ISN'T one of your inheritance killers.
Oh whatever Lookout! I'm off out, can't be arsed with this silliness.
-
Oh whatever Lookout! I'm off out, can't be arsed with this silliness.
Well you'd be as well not to start it in future then wouldn't you ?
-
Well you'd be as well not to start it in future then wouldn't you ?
If I prove to you that you can't tell from looking at the open bible that the cover is dog eared - will that suffice?
-
No reply - typical ::) ......... Makes no never mind - back soon! ;D
-
No reply - typical ::) ......... Makes no never mind - back soon! ;D
I'm not convinced it's the same Bible at all no matter what you say or do.
-
I'm not convinced it's the same Bible at all no matter what you say or do.
What and admit you might be wrong? From the moment you posted that it was two bibles, you were NEVER going to admit being wrong - however ..........
-
The Bible on the floor was blue for a start.
-
What and admit you might be wrong? From the moment you posted that it was two bibles, you were NEVER going to admit being wrong - however ..........
Caroline, I can tell you now, that you'll have got it wrong. I'm sure Lookout will tell you that the bible you used is the wrong colour. ;D
-
The Bible on the floor was blue for a start.
So the colour of the bible makes the dog eared corner more visible? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The Bible on the floor was blue for a start.
You're not alone in "seeing through", it would seem.
-
Caroline, I can tell you now, that you'll have got it wrong. I'm sure Lookout will tell you that the bible you used is the wrong colour. ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
That's very good Caroline. Well done - I'm going to concede that point. :))
I was looking for a book to try it with, but I didn't want to bend the cover of any of them.
-
That's very good Caroline. Well done - I'm going to concede that point. :))
I was looking for a book to try it with, but I didn't want to bend the cover of any of them.
Thank you Kaldin, at least you have the grace to admit the dog eared theory is unlikely when you see the proof. The weight of the pages flattens out the corner.
-
Thank you Kaldin, at least you have the grace to admit the dog eared theory is unlikely when you see the proof. The weight of the pages flattens out the corner.
That's exactly what I was trying to tell him yesterday. Still, at least he took someone's word for it in the end.
-
That's exactly what I was trying to tell him yesterday. Still, at least he took someone's word for it in the end.
I didn't take anyone's word for it - I saw it. I thought you said you couldn't see the corner of the cover, or was that someone else?
-
I didn't take anyone's word for it - I saw it. I thought you said you couldn't see the corner of the cover, or was that someone else?
Oh do stop twisting words.
-
Oh do stop twisting words.
I'm not twisting anything. What did you actually say?
-
I'm not twisting anything. What did you actually say?
Having looked at the relevant thread, it now occurs to me that you spent the whole of last night winding us up. We, stupidly, by playing along, allowed you to do it. SHOULD it be of interest, there are 4 replies of mine, from yesterday, all saying exactly what you have finally decided to accept today.
-
Having looked at the relevant thread, it now occurs to me that you spent the whole of last night winding us up. We, stupidly, by playing along, allowed you to do it. SHOULD it be of interest, there are 4 replies of mine, from yesterday, all saying exactly what you have finally decided to accept today.
I haven't been winding anyone up. Caroline kindly demonstrated how the corners can look flat, and I've accepted that now.
I don't recall you saying that the corners would flat once the book was opened face up.