Duty of care?

[Roch]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/does-the-ccrc-have-a-duty-of-care-towards-witnesses

[Hardy Boy]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/does-the-ccrc-have-a-duty-of-care-towards-witnesses

I do agree, I think the CCRC should not have used Essex Police force to interview Millbank.  I think because the New Yorker refused to provide the CCRC with the video, maybe they treated it with less conviction? I’m not sticking up for the CCRC, but can we also blame the New Yorker, it seems they’re saying they have evidence, but we don’t want to show you till we’ve made a bit of money off it first?  I don’t know Roch, don’t you find this part a little strange yourself, what’s your honest thoughts on that.

[Hardy Boy]

Bamber’s application had raised the alleged new evidence about the 999 call from PC Milbank. However, The Guardian reports the New Yorker REFUSED to disclose the audio to the CCRC at the time of their investigation. The CCRC then rejected this ground after Essex Police reportedly told them Milbank had made a new statement (dated 10 September 2024) where he denied speaking to the New Yorker and accepted he must have written the 2002 statement. Milbank then died shortly after this in 2024.

[Hardy Boy]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/does-the-ccrc-have-a-duty-of-care-towards-witnesses

You've titled it Duty of Care Roch, don’t you think the New Yorker had a duty of care to share the Audio with the CCRC, it’s supposed to be evidence that would free Bamber,  or are you Happy they kept it from the CCRC?

[Hardy Boy]

You've titled it Duty of Care Roch, don’t you think the New Yorker had a duty of care to share the Audio with the CCRC, it’s supposed to be evidence that would free Bamber,  or are you Happy they kept it from the CCRC?

Milbank produced a new statement saying he had not known he was talking to a journalist and did not endorse the New Yorker article.

He also now claimed the 2002 statement was real.

The New Yorker issued a statement saying it stood by its reporting – but the CCRC said any concerns arising from what PC Milbank told the magazine had “fallen away”.

“The CCRC considers the point must be that if officers were aware there were one or more persons alive inside White House Farm… it defies credulity that they would subsequently treat Mr Bamber as a suspect,”

[Roch]

You've titled it Duty of Care Roch, don’t you think the New Yorker had a duty of care to share the Audio with the CCRC, it’s supposed to be evidence that would free Bamber,  or are you Happy they kept it from the CCRC?

Yes with a question mark. But I do believe the CCRC are thick as mince to give the job to EP. Or clever? Yes the NY response to CCRC is strange / frustrating. However, maybe we don't know the full facts? The CT are not great at sharing the full facts. Or maybe they are not aware of Milbank's own wishes?

[Hardy Boy]

Yes with a question mark. But I do believe the CCRC are thick as mince to give the job to EP. Or clever? Yes the NY response to CCRC is strange / frustrating. However, maybe we don't know the full facts? The CT are not great at sharing the full facts. Or maybe they are not aware of Milbank's own wishes?

I agree the CCRC should not have given it to Essex Police to investigate,  but like I said Roch, the New Yorker in my opinion didn’t do Bamber any favours, if there was evidence it opened the door for a Counter……………. Milbank produced a new statement saying he had not known he was talking to a journalist and did not endorse the New Yorker article.

He also now claimed the 2002 statement was real.

[BarefootDanC]

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/does-the-ccrc-have-a-duty-of-care-towards-witnesses

I keep being told that the "establishment" do not want Jeremy released, so the CCRC are controlled to stop it happening. Therefore, any "independent" investigation who they appoint out of their own (scarce) fund would not the "independent" because the CCRC are not independent and they are controlled by the establishment.

[Hardy Boy]

Yes with a question mark. But I do believe the CCRC are thick as mince to give the job to EP. Or clever? Yes the NY response to CCRC is strange / frustrating. However, maybe we don't know the full facts? The CT are not great at sharing the full facts. Or maybe they are not aware of Milbank's own wishes?

CCRC's Stance: The CCRC stated that while the magazine's claims did not prevent their investigation, their verification was made "more difficult" by The New Yorker's REFUSAL to share the audio recording of the interview.

The New Yorker's Policy: The magazine cited a "cast-iron policy against sharing source material with third parties" for ethical and legal reasons, stating material would only be released by publishing it. They intended to use the tapes in a subsequent podcast, which has since been released. The New Yorker has issued a statement standing by its reporting.


So they wasn’t prepared to share the tape with the CCRC to help free an innocent man, but they’re ok to release it on a paid for platform?

I don’t know if NGB could answer this, but what legal reasons would stop the New Yorker releasing the tape to the CCRC,  yet allow them to release them in a paid for platform?  It’s ok to publish it, but not ok to give it as evidence?

[Hardy Boy]

CCRC's Stance: The CCRC stated that while the magazine's claims did not prevent their investigation, their verification was made "more difficult" by The New Yorker's REFUSAL to share the audio recording of the interview.

The New Yorker's Policy: The magazine cited a "cast-iron policy against sharing source material with third parties" for ethical and legal reasons, stating material would only be released by publishing it. They intended to use the tapes in a subsequent podcast, which has since been released. The New Yorker has issued a statement standing by its reporting.


So they wasn’t prepared to share the tape with the CCRC to help free an innocent man, but they’re ok to release it on a paid for platform?

I don’t know if NGB could answer this, but what legal reasons would stop the New Yorker releasing the tape to the CCRC,  yet allow them to release them in a paid for platform?  It’s ok to publish it, but not ok to give it as evidence?

I have listened  to part of the Audio tape, it’s typical journalistic reporting, its done in a way that makes it look worse than what it is, you will see that Millbank is cut off at times so the Narrater builds up the story. 

The New Yorker wanted £10.49 a month to listen to that, I took a free trial for a week and then cancelled after five minutes so they haven’t got a penny out of me 😂😂😂😂

[snow66!]

I have listened  to part of the Audio tape, it’s typical journalistic reporting, its done in a way that makes it look worse than what it is, you will see that Millbank is cut off at times so the Narrater builds up the story. 

The New Yorker wanted £10.49 a month to listen to that, I took a free trial for a week and then cancelled after five minutes so they haven’t got a penny out of me 😂😂😂😂

Do you mean you've heard the whole Milbank interview, HB?

[Hardy Boy]

Do you mean you've heard the whole Milbank interview, HB?

I could do if I wanted, it’s in episode 5, to be honest, I’ve heard it all before Snow.  I can see why they didn’t send it to the CCRC. 

Anyone can get it for free Snow,  don’t pay for it, just go on Podcast and type in blood relatives, it will offer you a free weeks trial and then either £10.49 a month or £110 I think for the year,  just click on which you want then cancel it, after you’ve listened to it,  you still get your weeks free trial.  I wanted to wait till all six episodes were out so I could listen to them all, now I’ve listened to part of the Millbank one I will not bother.

[Hardy Boy]

Do you mean you've heard the whole Milbank interview, HB?

To be honest I lost interest once the New Yorker put this out Snow………….The New Yorker's Policy: The magazine cited a "cast-iron policy against sharing source material with third parties" for ethical and legal reasons, stating material would only be released by publishing it. They intended to use the tapes in a subsequent podcast, which has since been released. The New Yorker has issued a statement standing by its reporting.

[snow66!]

I could do if I wanted, it’s in episode 5, to be honest, I’ve heard it all before Snow.  I can see why they didn’t send it to the CCRC. 

Anyone can get it for free Snow,  don’t pay for it, just go on Podcast and type in blood relatives, it will offer you a free weeks trial and then either £10.49 a month or £110 I think for the year,  just click on which you want then cancel it, after you’ve listened to it,  you still get your weeks free trial.  I wanted to wait till all six episodes were out so I could listen to them all, now I’ve listened to part of the Millbank one I will not bother.

I will just wait until episodes 5 and 6 are published for free, HB, I would probably make a mess of trying to subscribe for free and then cancel.

[snow66!]

CCRC's Stance: The CCRC stated that while the magazine's claims did not prevent their investigation, their verification was made "more difficult" by The New Yorker's REFUSAL to share the audio recording of the interview.

The New Yorker's Policy: The magazine cited a "cast-iron policy against sharing source material with third parties" for ethical and legal reasons, stating material would only be released by publishing it. They intended to use the tapes in a subsequent podcast, which has since been released. The New Yorker has issued a statement standing by its reporting.


So they wasn’t prepared to share the tape with the CCRC to help free an innocent man, but they’re ok to release it on a paid for platform?

I don’t know if NGB could answer this, but what legal reasons would stop the New Yorker releasing the tape to the CCRC,  yet allow them to release them in a paid for platform?  It’s ok to publish it, but not ok to give it as evidence?

I believe the Doc maker has posted extracts from your post, HB, he is also frustrated by the New Yorkers handling of the Milbank interview!