The New Yorker article

[Steve_uk]

I am not understanding the Milbank claim that he 'received' a 999 call from inside the farm. IF he received such a call, firstly, how could he know it was from 'inside the farm' without the caller confirming where they were calling from? They didn't have equipment that could detect where the call was coming from! And also, where's his call log or his memory of creating one?

I suppose the operator must have come on the line telling him they had patched up the line, then he listens and hears some sounds. As for the call log, he'll just say he wasn't asked to make one, and the conspiracy theorists will say it's all been hushed up.

[Roch]

There are LOTS of issues with what is being claimed, the main one I have come across is the phone call 'to' Milbank. He couldn't have 'received' the call and known where it came from.

The disowning of his statement and of ever being contacted during Stokenchurch is another issue.   

[Zoso]

I suppose the operator must have come on the line telling him they had patched up the line, then he listens and hears some sounds. As for the call log, he'll just say he wasn't asked to make one, and the conspiracy theorists will say it's all been hushed up.

That's not what he says, he says, "From what I remember, someone phoned 999 from inside the farmhouse ........ the caller hadn't spoken to him, but he recalled hearing what might have been muffled speech". Without the caller telling him 'where' he was calling from, he couldn't have known WHERE the call came from. This proves that he MUST have been simply monitoring the open line and that he received NO call.

[ILB]

Sounds like the transparent police I know and love.

[Zoso]

Sounds like the transparent police I know and love.

Yes, but that isn't new evidence, we all know that Jones did that and that he attended the bank with Mugford.

[Roch]

Yes, but that isn't new evidence, we all know that Jones did that and that he attended the bank with Mugford.

Doubt the jury would have known about altering the inflection of statements.  Us knowing doesn't make it right!

[snow66!]

No mention of Boyce's Aga evidence then!

[Zoso]

Doubt the jury would have known about altering the inflection of statements.  Us knowing doesn't make it right!

When did I say it made it right? The most important aspect is the supposed 999 call and that can't have happened the way Milbank is claiming, either that ro the journalist didn't understand what he said. He can have been listening in, he can't have received a call and known it was from 'inside the farmhouse'.

[Bubo bubo]

I am not understanding the Milbank claim that he 'received' a 999 call from inside the farm. IF he received such a call, firstly, how could he know it was from 'inside the farm' without the caller confirming where they were calling from? They didn't have equipment that could detect where the call was coming from! And also, where's his call log or his memory of creating one?

If you check the logs you will find an entry about the 999 call. I believe they asked for the call to be transferred to Chelmsford so that they had an open line into the house.

[Zoso]

If you check the logs you will find an entry about the 999 call. I believe they asked for the call to be transferred to Chelmsford so that they had an open line into the house.

Which is what I have just said ...... Milbank states he RECEIVED a 999 call from inside the farmhouse, but that no one spoke so he couldn't have known who the caller was. If an open line was patched through to him - that is different.

[Roch]

When did I say it made it right? The most important aspect is the supposed 999 call and that can't have happened the way Milbank is claiming, either that ro the journalist didn't understand what he said. He can have been listening in, he can't have received a call and known it was from 'inside the farmhouse'.

Why not put that to Millbank and see what he says? 

[Bubo bubo]

That's not what he says, he says, "From what I remember, someone phoned 999 from inside the farmhouse ........ the caller hadn't spoken to him, but he recalled hearing what might have been muffled speech". Without the caller telling him 'where' he was calling from, he couldn't have known WHERE the call came from. This proves that he MUST have been simply monitoring the open line and that he received NO call.

If the call went to CHQ where 999 calls are registered (Bonnett tells us this in his testimony) the operator could probably find out the caller. Is it possible for the technology of that time to show this?

[ILB]

Yes, but that isn't new evidence, we all know that Jones did that and that he attended the bank with Mugford.

There's lots of things in the case that's not evidence that's deemed as gospel because Bamber denies it.

For the record I was merely making an observation from personal experience.

[Zoso]

There's lots of things in the case that's not evidence that's deemed as gospel because Bamber denies it.

For the record I was merely making an observation from personal experience.

Yes, I get that.

[Roch]

If you check the logs you will find an entry about the 999 call. I believe they asked for the call to be transferred to Chelmsford so that they had an open line into the house.

This wasn't at 6.09, it was not long before then?