Re-evaluation of the blood and silencer evidence

[ISpyWithMyEye]

A Sun story?

Are you trying to say The Sun lied?

And are you seriously suggesting the litigious jeremy Bamber wouldn’t have sued them for libel?

Do you want to see the headlines...I’ll post them up for you

Meanwhile, here’s one of the coward coming out of court after admitting to burglary and theft.  Are you saying that’s an illusion?

 And guess what? That jumper he’s hiding his  smarmy mug under actually belonged to Sheila!



[attachment deleted by admin]

[The General]

Are you trying to say The Sun lied?

The S*n routinely lies. Many, many lies.
The Bamber story may be true, I dunno. But many, many lies.

[Caroline]

Where's your sauce?

I take it you don't know much about this case?

Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a  statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).

[Caroline]

The S*n routinely lies. Many, many lies.
The Bamber story may be true, I dunno. But many, many lies.

Ha, ha!! Knew it! 

This time it's backed up by Colin! 

[The General]

I take it you don't know much about this case?

Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a  statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).

No, but I thought forum rules required a source / cite to back up claims, irrespective of whether you think it's 'common knowledge', or 'I read it once'. This is how Ispyweener is getting a free pass - never providing cites.
So you can do what I do and offer nothing, because I can't back it up or am too lazy to look, or don't post opinions as facts unless you can back your sh1t up.

....and who are 'the others'? Am I in a clique now? WOO!

[The General]

Ha, ha!! Knew it! 

This time it's backed up by Colin! 

What? You didn't know about The S*n's history of lies? Where would you like me to start?
Who's Colin?

[Holly Goodhead]

I take it you don't know much about this case?

Michael Fielder (the guy Bamber and Collins met in the pub), make a  statement. He has appeared in interviews and just about every book written. The episode is also recounted in detail in Colin's book. I am sure you and the others will make an excuse of about Fielder being a Sun reporter but Colin (who wasn't a Sun reporter) backs up Fielder's claim - Bamber even used the same words to both Colin and Fielder to describe the photographs. I asked Bamber about the article and he declines to answer (again).

CC also claims NB and JB like to play practical jokes on farm reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them.  Why couldn't this extend to The Sun? 

[Caroline]

What? You didn't know about The S*n's history of lies? Where would you like me to start?
Who's Colin?

I wouldn't like you to start anywhere. I think you're just taking the piss.

[Caroline]

CC also claims NB and JB like to play practical jokes on farm reps by placing large orders and then cancelling them.  Why couldn't this extend to The Sun?

So you're calling him a liar? There really is no end to the amount of excuses you and other will find to support this man is there? 

[The General]

I wouldn't like you to start anywhere. I think you're just taking the piss.

Are we at cross purposes here? I'm talking about that sh1tty rag's history of publishing heinous lies, quite non-specific.
What are you talking about?

[Holly Goodhead]

So you're calling him a liar? There really is no end to the amount of excuses you and other will find to support this man is there? 

Calling who a liar? 

[Caroline]

Are we at cross purposes here? I'm talking about that sh1tty rag's history of publishing heinous lies, quite non-specific.
What are you talking about?

I think it's pretty clear and I don't have time to draw you a diagram!

We're talking about ONE particular story, not the history of the newspaper - a story that was backed cup by the ex husband of Sheila. Bamber told him about the photographs, showing him some of them and stating that there were others where "you could see everything right down to the last details'. Colin was shocked to later see the pictures mentioned in The Sun in which he stated to Michael Fielder (the reporter) that n the photographs "you can see everything right down to the last detail. That's what I'm talking about!

[The General]

I think it's pretty clear and I don't have time to draw you a diagram!

We're talking about ONE particular story, not the history of the newspaper - a story that was backed cup by the ex husband of Sheila. Bamber told him about the photographs, showing him some of them and stating that there were others where "you could see everything right down to the last details'. Colin was shocked to later see the pictures mentioned in The Sun in which he stated to Michael Fielder (the reporter) that n the photographs "you can see everything right down to the last detail. That's what I'm talking about!

Oh right, OK.
I was talking about that sh1tarsed rag of a paper.
At ease soldier.

[Caroline]

Oh right, OK.
I was talking about that sh1tarsed rag of a paper.
At ease soldier.

Bollocks

[The General]

Bollocks

A bit rude that, Caz girl.