Why didn't Fielder appear as a witness?

[David1819]

Hopefully your wrong David 👍

Why hopefully?

[guest7363]

   The need for as much evidence as possible against Bamber was reflected in the 10-2 verdict. The non use of Fielder was not because they already had ample evidence. We all, including you, know that not to be the case. Were it so there would be nothing still to debate over 30 years later.
   It may be that Fielder's "evidence" would not be allowed because of non relevance. Perhaps it would be admissible on the grounds of relevance because it speaks of his character. I would be pretty confident in stating that it was most certainly not a surfeit of evidence that negated the need for Fielder's use.
    He has been exposed on this forum as a liar.
    Dissect his words in the video, RJ, and then honestly tell me that his account stands up to any scrutiny.
    Just the first five sentences that I have partially dissected discredit him. I could have dissected his entire blurb, it begs questions to fill in missing detail and Fielder's use of language betrays his lies. Nothing I have said in the initial post has been challenged by any guilter.
   Fielder isn't even clear on the question of who offered him the photos. Was it Bamber? Was it Collins? According to Fielder it was both of them. But no pictures were brought or seen at a meeting supposedly entirely devoted to negotiating the sale of said photos.
   Simple test here. Bambers version of the circumstances of the meeting requires no pictures to be present which fits the known facts.
   Fielder's version of the story does really require photos to be present if people are honest and yet no photos are present.

Would bringing Fielder in open up attack against them, did he give a statement, like you said without proof it’s not a wise move.   They didn’t have to Prove the Caravan robbery  he admitted to it and the drugs could be brought in with Julie, so not wise to bring someone in on his word against Bambers word, doesn’t mean it never happened though?  Every case involves both sides trying to discredit either a witness or suspect, so Bambers case is no different, it’s the strength that matters.

[David1819]

   It is more time consuming rather than difficult where Fielder is concerned, Jackie. Nothing he says is true. Has anyone had any luck in reading the front page off the video yet?

All I can make out is part of the first sentence in bold.

"The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell"

[nugnug]

Bad character evidence is predominantly ruled inadmissible.

Steven Avery poured petrol over a cat then threw it in a fire, witnesses then said he laughed as it ran round on fire before it eventually died. Kratz wanted to put this to the jury at his murder trial, but the judge didn't allow it.

thatsamerca completly diffrent legal system.

[gringo]

I would say if he’s been interviewed it’s down to the CPS to either present or use it? If he hasn’t been interviewed the CPS can’t look at it or use it.  It’s ok saying he’s willing to give evidence?  Do you mean he’s willing to give a statement?

   As far as I recall he did give a statement, hence the repeated canard by guilters that his willingness to give evidence somehow supported the allegations made by him. David may be correct in the admissibility. It would be a legal argument to be settled by the judge.
    Whilst the admissibility of the evidence at least can be argued, the reliability of the evidence and the witness; Well that horse bolted some time ago.

[guest7363]

   What's to like about Fielder? You know his record, I assume. He was demonstrably a liar who had no compunction in destroying people's lives with lies. Carmen Proetta and Colin Stagg being two of his known victims. Innocent people smeared and lied about because that was Fielder's job.
     I doubt his own mother liked him. Nothing to like. Do you like him?

I don’t know him Gringo, I wanted to know if he was a witness that’s all.  To me, the main focus is in the house and the lead up to the tragedy, with the main focus being Sheila’s death.  I do know and understand how the press work, look what they did to poor Cliff.

[David1819]

thatsamerca completly diffrent legal system.

Adversarial common law. Its more or less the same.

Nat Fraiser used to beat his wife up. Judge would not allow that at his trial for murdering her.

[nugnug]

Adversarial common law. Its more or less the same.

Nat Fraiser used to beat his wife up. Judge would not allow that at his trial for murdering her.

thats scottish law agian competly diffrent to english.

in english law bad character evedence is allowe under certan cercumstances.

though im not sure wether it was then it would of been enterly down to justice drake if it was.

[guest7363]

Adversarial common law. Its more or less the same.

Nat Fraiser used to beat his wife up. Judge would not allow that at his trial for murdering her.

I would agree they are very similar, NGB is well versed on this.  I case I’ve studied the Judge said to the defence  Let’s face it Bad Character evidence will be used”  So hopefully it’s going to be used?  They don’t normally allow it because it can open up the probable case for an appeal?

[susan]

David and Nat Fraser is happy going to his grave without revealing where her body is so her family can have closure.  Evil man

[guest7363]

thats scottish law agian competly diffrent to english.

in english law bad character evedence is allowe under certan cercumstances.

though im not sure wether it was then it would of been enterly down to justice drake if it was.

I think that’s what David is saying, predominantly meaning not very often or normally.

[David1819]

Bad character is always down to the judge, but it can be used if he gives the go ahead.  Has he given a witness statement David?

I don't see how the subject would help the prosecution. Their narrative was to portray Sheila as an innocent victim to the jury. A Jury back in 1985 would have got the impression of Sheila being a promiscuous sex deviant and aspiring porn star.

[gringo]

I don’t know him Gringo, I wanted to know if he was a witness that’s all.  To me, the main focus is in the house and the lead up to the tragedy, with the main focus being Sheila’s death.  I do know and understand how the press work, look what they did to poor Cliff.

   You made the comment towards me, intending sarcasm, and I answered honestly. I don't know him either but can make a judgement on his likeability based on his known output and history. Based on that he was someone who told lies about people destroying their lives in order to pay his bills. Sounds like a bastard to me.
    I am sure that there are plenty of people that you have never met but would be willing to make a judgement on so why so shy with Fielder. Admit that he is unreliable and move on. 
    His job was lying. For money. I have never met Jeffrey Epstein and don't know him. I still have an opinion on him though. 

[JackieD]

Drop off Jackie and grow up, you're older than most on this forum and it's about time you acted it!

If you watched what came out of your mouth you would keep getting pulled up for your tone

[gringo]

All I can make out is part of the first sentence in bold.

"The brother of farmhouse massacre model Bambi Caffell"

  I suspect that the rest of the article would give a clear picture of Fielder's motives behind the story. How much of the article is devoted to Fielder's invented descriptions?