Author Topic: DocMaker article on Milbank  (Read 53722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13160
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #195 on: August 12, 2025, 07:40:AM »
Even after getting shot four times Nevill managed to get downstairs which is a testament to his fitness and resistance. Especially for a bloke at 61.
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #196 on: October 16, 2025, 05:15:PM »
The Doc Maker has gone quiet. Nothing for 6 weeks. Used to be a couple of articles a month.

Maybe he has changed stance.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #197 on: October 16, 2025, 05:24:PM »
The Doc Maker has gone quiet. Nothing for 6 weeks. Used to be a couple of articles a month.

Maybe he has changed stance.

He has not. 


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #198 on: October 16, 2025, 05:34:PM »
He has not.

He must have heard the audio of Millbank's mysterious interview you said was being released in early October.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #199 on: October 16, 2025, 06:05:PM »
He must have heard the audio of Millbank's mysterious interview you said was being released in early October.

You do post utter rubbish at times Adam.  I think you do it to goad and get a reaction.


Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #200 on: October 16, 2025, 09:54:PM »
You do post utter rubbish at times Adam.  I think you do it to goad and get a reaction.

The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?

Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #201 on: October 16, 2025, 10:04:PM »
He is not listed, but he is certainly closely associated with the CT.

Funny that he is part of the inner circle, allowed to see documents like the PSOR and the 347,000 documents

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #202 on: October 17, 2025, 09:43:AM »
The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?

It is very unethical for The New Yorker to refuse to release the audio of Millbank's interview to the CCRC. Which the Doc Maker says.

Releasing the audio to the public instead is also very unethical & surely against journalism protocol. If Millbank wanted an audio interview to go online, he would arrange that himself.

It is just supporters who claimed an audio was being released. To justify the refusal to give the audio to the CCRC. It has now been dismissed. 
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #203 on: October 17, 2025, 10:18:AM »
The audio was supposed to be released in September. What could be the hold-up?

I have no idea.  It is in the hands of the New Yorker.


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #204 on: October 17, 2025, 10:18:AM »
Funny that he is part of the inner circle, allowed to see documents like the PSOR and the 347,000 documents

Why is that funny?


Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #205 on: October 17, 2025, 10:21:AM »
It is very unethical for The New Yorker to refuse to release the audio of Millbank's interview to the CCRC. Which the Doc Maker says.

Releasing the audio to the public instead is also very unethical & surely against journalism protocol. If Millbank wanted an audio interview to go online, he would arrange that himself.

It is just supporters who claimed an audio was being released. To justify the refusal to give the audio to the CCRC. It has now been dismissed.

It is not the fault of the CT or Jeremy Bamber's supporters that the audio has not been released.  They have been asking for it since they knew of its existence.


Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #206 on: October 17, 2025, 10:28:AM »
It is not the fault of the CT or Jeremy Bamber's supporters that the audio has not been released.  They have been asking for it since they knew of its existence.

No one is going to hear it. Supporters, guilters, CT, CCRC.

That was always going to be the case.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #207 on: October 17, 2025, 11:46:AM »
No one is going to hear it. Supporters, guilters, CT, CCRC.

That was always going to be the case.

You obviously have inside knowledge Adam. 


Offline BarefootDanC

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #208 on: October 17, 2025, 01:57:PM »
You obviously have inside knowledge Adam.

You have inside knowledge. You have the 2012 Statement of Reasons and the recent Provisional Statement of Reasons. I'm guessing you also have material such as the transcript for Julie Mugford's testimony and cross-examination and the judge's summing up. Is that correct?

Offline ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6671
Re: DocMaker article on Milbank
« Reply #209 on: October 17, 2025, 02:35:PM »
You have inside knowledge. You have the 2012 Statement of Reasons and the recent Provisional Statement of Reasons. I'm guessing you also have material such as the transcript for Julie Mugford's testimony and cross-examination and the judge's summing up. Is that correct?

I have a large amount of material, much of it posted here but other elements I have seen over the past 14 years during which I have had some involvement.  However, I am not and never have been a member of the CT.  Anything I have been given in confidence I will not publish, even where I think there would be no harm in doing so.

I do not know any more about the New Yorker audio files than has already been posted.