DocMaker article on Milbank

[Roch]

Have you read the Guardian article today about Milbank, Dan?

Is it any good? I can no longer read Guardian articles.

[snow66!]

Is it any good? I can no longer read Guardian articles.

I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!

[Bubo bubo]

I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi

[snow66!]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi

Thanks Bubo!

[Hardy Boy]

I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!

I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC?  They couldn’t verify it until they hear it?  Maybe this will change once it’s released?


Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)

[Roch]

I read it over on Twitter, Roch, the JB campaign site posted it there.
Yes its quite good, well if you're a supporter, that is!
The usual mistakes with the CCRC and police interference.
JB and the team requested the CCRC to go and talk to Milbank regarding the 6.09 call, but they sent the police instead who got contradictory evidence from Milbank apparently undermining the New Yorker interview.
Maybe someone can post the whole article!

Thank you Snow.

[Roch]

I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC?  They couldn’t verify it until they hear it?  Maybe this will change once it’s released?


Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)

I suspect that when the audio is finally released, one lot of people will interpret it one way and the other lot of people will interpret another way.. and we'll be no further forward.

[Hardy Boy]

I suspect that when the audio is finally released, one lot of people will interpret it one way and the other lot of people will interpret another way.. and we'll be no further forward.

I don’t know Roch, could it be verified it’s actually him talking?  If so it might carry weight?    Don’t you find it strange though,   that a man has spent nearly 40 years in prison and the New Yorker are said to have this evidence, but chose not to send it to the decision makers, on these grounds…. The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent. 

Yet they are prepared to release it apparently on a podcast?  So the recording could have been sent to the CCRC earlier and maybe it might have been investigated differently?  It probably became of lesser value to the CCRC because it couldn’t be verified?

[snow66!]

I just find it strange Snow why the New Yorker wouldn’t just send the recording to the CCRC?  They couldn’t verify it until they hear it?  Maybe this will change once it’s released?


Most shocking was its response to Milbank’s interview. It stated that because the New Yorker refused to hand over the “source” material to the commission – the audio of Blake’s interview with Milbank – it had no evidence that Milbank had said these words. (The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent.)
[/quoteYes, here's evidence that has allegedly the potential to free a man after forty years in prison, yet its only available on a paid for podcast mean time.
Oh well, we will just have to wait and see, HB!
The thing is, if Milbank was willing to give an interview then Heidi Blake should have made damned sure that it was videod, and also made sure that Milbank ran through the exact details of what took place, eg, 'the phone rang at 6.09 and I picked it up' etc,.

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4994.0.html

At 6.09am this open line was linked up with our own '999' call line and was thereafter constantly monitored by PC Millbank'.


----------

This is the 1985 WS relating to the time of 6.09am.

Appreciate supporters will try to twist it to Sheila ringing 999 & then saying nothing. Although police had been outside with a loud speaker for hours.

[Adam]

Supporters & Bamber claimed Nevill called Chelmsford police, 25 years later. As the WS's of West & Bonnet were different.

The WS's would be different . They are different people receiving information from different people.

Now 40 years later it is claimed Sheila called 999 and said nothing. The officer did not say anything to anyone in 1985.

[Steve_uk]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/nov/02/the-jeremy-bamber-twist-does-britains-most-notorious-murderer-finally-have-an-alibi

Then his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, whom he had just dumped, told the police he had been planning the murders for a year and had contracted a local hitman. When the hired killer turned out to have a cast-iron alibi, Mugford changed her story and said he carried out the murders himself. Bamber was convicted on a 10-2 majority in October 1986.

You would think a national newspaper would get the sequence right.

[Adam]

Then his former girlfriend Julie Mugford, whom he had just dumped, told the police he had been planning the murders for a year and had contracted a local hitman. When the hired killer turned out to have a cast-iron alibi, Mugford changed her story and said he carried out the murders himself. Bamber was convicted on a 10-2 majority in October 1986.

You would think a national newspaper would get the sequence right.

She left him on the 27th August 1985.

Her WS has a lot about MM. No surprise he told his GF he did not pull the trigger.

[Roch]

I don’t know Roch, could it be verified it’s actually him talking?  If so it might carry weight?    Don’t you find it strange though,   that a man has spent nearly 40 years in prison and the New Yorker are said to have this evidence, but chose not to send it to the decision makers, on these grounds…. The New Yorker had refused to hand over the audio because it believes sharing source material with third parties would constitute an ethical violation of journalistic independence and set a dangerous precedent. 

Yet they are prepared to release it apparently on a podcast?  So the recording could have been sent to the CCRC earlier and maybe it might have been investigated differently?  It probably became of lesser value to the CCRC because it couldn’t be verified?

Yes the whole episode seems odd.  This is why I don't want to pin my hopes on it.

[Steve_uk]

Yes, she should have snow66! I also find it incredible that Milbank didn't realize the import of the information he possessed, but sat on it for forty years. It makes no sense unless he was conducting missionary work in West Africa with no access to mass media during the whole of that time.