Milbank statement

[BarefootDanC]

According to Doc Maker, this is a statement by Milbank (or part of it):

[Bubo bubo]

According to Doc Maker, this is a statement by Milbank (or part of it):

Thanks for that BD. I am curious about the handwriting. If Milbank was also responsible for the the HQ log started by Bonnett there is a mismatch.

[snow66!]

Thanks for that BD. I am curious about the handwriting. If Milbank was also responsible for the the HQ log started by Bonnett there is a mismatch.

Good point, Bubo! No doubt the CT will be looking into that!

[BarefootDanC]

Thanks for that BD. I am curious about the handwriting. If Milbank was also responsible for the the HQ log started by Bonnett there is a mismatch.

What you have posted is a contemporaneous log. It completely disproves the theory that someone called 999 at 6:09.

[snow66!]

What you have posted is a contemporaneous log. It completely disproves the theory that someone called 999 at 6:09.

So, is the log simply showing the operator calling the police station at 6.09 then, Dan?
Did Milbank actually pick up a phone that was ringing? And if so, why didn't he say 'hello, who's speaking?',and why didn't the operator speak?
In simple terms, what exactly does Milbank mean by 'receiving a call from WHF'?

[Bubo bubo]

So, is the log simply showing the operator calling the police station at 6.09 then, Dan?
Did Milbank actually pick up a phone that was ringing? And if so, why didn't he say 'hello, who's speaking?',and why didn't the operator speak?
In simple terms, what exactly does Milbank mean by 'receiving a call from WHF'?

To me it looks like the operator is telling HQ That the direct link (as requested) has been set up describing the property as the house where the phone had been off the hook.

From other log pages we see that it became engaged at 05.47am suggesting there was someone alive  in the house at that time.

This does not rule out the fact that another 999 call could have been received and a new incident form and number were started.

The operator would have dialled the Chelmsford number which was shared by HQ and CD

[Bubo bubo]

To me it looks like the operator is telling HQ That the direct link (as requested) has been set up describing the property as the house where the phone had been off the hook.

From other log pages we see that it became engaged at 05.47am suggesting there was someone alive  in the house at that time.

This does not rule out the fact that another 999 call could have been received and a new incident form and number were started.

The operator would have dialled the Chelmsford number which was shared by HQ and CD

There is still a discrepancy in the hand writing of both documents which needs exploring.

[snow66!]

To me it looks like the operator is telling HQ That the direct link (as requested) has been set up describing the property as the house where the phone had been off the hook.

From other log pages we see that it became engaged at 05.47am suggesting there was someone alive  in the house at that time.

This does not rule out the fact that another 999 call could have been received and a new incident form and number were started.

The operator would have dialled the Chelmsford number which was shared by HQ and CD

So it is the 5.47 activity which had nothing to do with the operator that we should be interested in then, Bubo?
Has the CT discussed this?

[Bubo bubo]

So it is the 5.47 activity which had nothing to do with the operator that we should be interested in then, Bubo?
Has the CT discussed this?

You will have to ask them.

I believe I have posted before that irrespective of Milbank/HeidiB et al, The logs show someone was alive at 05.47am when the line status changed and the police were informed which triggered the establishing of the link.

[snow66!]

You will have to ask them.

I believe I have posted before that irrespective of Milbank/HeidiB et al, The logs show someone was alive at 05.47am when the line status changed and the police were informed which triggered the establishing of the link.

OK, thanks, Bubo!
I will ask them about it on twitter and see if I get an answer.

[Adam]

Suspect the CCRC are now on grounds 5 or 6. The refusal of grounds 1-4 was in July.

They may return to the dismissed 999 ground if Bamber's lawyers give the audio of Millbank to the CCRC.

A full refusal around 2030 is due unless Bamber is able to delay with constant add ons.

[Adam]

Milbank's hand written statement is not signed or dated.

He's not going to give an audio interview to the NY, then deny doing so straight afterwards!

Once he has given the interview, it is too late for EP to pressurise him into writing down that he didn't. Which the CT are saying.

Suspect Milbank did give an audio interview. The CT are trying to bring in EP & Milbank denying it to enhance the corruption angle. Maybe they think what Milbank said is not enough on it's own.

[Adam]

The other possibility is Milbank did not give an audio interview with the NY.

But if he wanted to deny it via EP or a lawyer, his WS would be signed, dated & actually look like a proper WS.

[Adam]

I can't believe the NY would falsely say they interviewed Milbank & what he said. Then release a false audio with someone else's voice.

The NY had no reason to introduce the unsigned, undated hand written WS. If you can call it a WS. They had enough with the audio. Seems like more of a CT tactic.

[Adam]

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

The NY 2024 article mentions this 1985 WS. Saying it is unsigned.

They are saying Milbank recieved a 999 call instead at 6.09am 

The article also says Milbank was still working for EP. So any WS denying speaking to the NY would be done via EP & there lawyers. Not hand written on a scrap piece of paper.