DocMaker article on Milbank

[David1819]

I do not know and I do not care where he is.  My guess is that he lost interest when his stupid rip off forum failed as soon as it started.

Had he not insisted on asking for personal details a lot more people may have joined.

[ngb1066]

Had he not insisted on asking for personal details a lot more people may have joined.

Possibly, but I doubt it.  He was of course entitled to set any rules he wanted for his own forum, but it was very bad to do that by presenting his fake "Erik Narramore" identity to those he was inducing to reveal their details to him.  He stole the identity of a real Erik Narramore in the USA, even using a genuine photo of that person's father in a profile.  I know that those who joined (probably no more than 5 at most) were taken in by his lies.

[Adam]

Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -

The 6.09am 999 call.

The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.

----------

Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.

Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old. 

[BarefootDanC]

Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -

The 6.09am 999 call.

The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.

----------

Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.

Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old.

This is the New Yorker's stance: https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered

[BarefootDanC]

Bill & the CT response to the PSOR say there are audios of -

The 6.09am 999 call.

The interview Millbank gave to Heidi Blake.

----------

Hopefully these will be put online and passed to the CCRC forthwith.

Surprised it has not already been done as the New Yorker article is a year old.

Audios of the 6:09 999 call, still available nearly 40 years later?

Is this a bit similar to the claim that the police had body cams when they went into White House Farm ?

[Adam]

This is the New Yorker's stance: https://theupsetterstrikes.substack.com/p/new-yorkered

'But The New Yorker has refused to disclose the tape recorded interview with the cop to Bamber’s legal team or the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which is about to decide whether to refer his case to the appeal court.'

----------

So the CCRC asked for the audio.

Doubt that the audio will enhance the New Yorker article or Bamber. If released.

[Adam]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB

Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.

[ngb1066]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB

Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.

That is interesting.  Al you have to do in order to become a member is give him your personal details.  I am sure many will take up that great offer.

[Adam]

'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility.  I never thought I would make that statement.  This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public'.

----------

Not another piece.

So make it public.

[ngb1066]

'I am now at the point where I believe his factual innocence is a significant possibility.  I never thought I would make that statement.  This change of stance is due to one specific piece of evidence I have seen that has never been made public'.

----------

Not another piece.

So make it public.

I think he is saying that if you accept his invitation and provide your personal details you can become a member of his private circle and he will share the information with you.

[Roch]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB

Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.

Thanks for posting this up. Interesting read.

[Jane]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://jeremybamberdiscussionforum.com/&ved=2ahUKEwiRsdOQzN-OAxUNVEEAHVBxHXQQFnoECBsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1NUp5L446Jla3-5UmU-wGB

Guest29835 has made a 'Public Statement' on his forum.

Still suffering with advanced verbosity, I see, and isn't it somewhat ironic to only accept posters' real names given that he's using a pseudonyms? Or perhaps it isn't surprising, given his unshakeable belief in his own superiority?

[ngb1066]

Still suffering with advanced verbosity, I see, and isn't it somewhat ironic to only accept posters' real names given that he's using a pseudonyms? Or perhaps it isn't surprising, given his unshakeable belief in his own superiority?

I agree with you on all points.

[ILB]

I haven't nothing against QC, Guest29835, Erik Narramore, but it was obvious he was using a alias. The latter name sounds like an american news anchor.

[ngb1066]

I haven't nothing against QC, Guest29835, Erik Narramore, but it was obvious he was using a alias. The latter name sounds like an american news anchor.

Many people use an alias on public forums and there is nothing wrong with that.  What is wrong in my view is requiring members to use their real names whislt prending that he was setting an example by doing the same.  I know there are people here who fell for it.  Erik Narramore exists in the USA, but has nothing to do with QCC.