Nick Milbank confirms that Jeremy Bamber is innocent

[Hardy Boy]

The police headquarters share the same number as CD division Chelmsford so how did she get the right one. She called the 999 line by its title, Direct Emergency Line. So the police were asking her to access the 999 line. So why would the police ask her to take such an action if they did not have a 999 call?  Why is there no mention of the line being engaged in her statement?

Nope they asked her to connect to HQ that’s all.   No mention of her receiving a 999 call by JeanRowe.

Jean Rowe was a telephone operator dealing with Emergency calls and other operative duties for mid Essex, probably took 100 s of calls that night.  Maybe you can jog her memory why she never put the word engaged in her statement, she probably used off the hook or open line and others used the word Engaged?

[Hardy Boy]

You are wrong I think. She is giving a full answer. She is saying that the phone is 'off the hook' item 1. But also that there was no fault on the line it is 'Open' item 2. A fault on the line could cause a false reading but this was not the case.

Im on about West using off the hook, Jean Rowe uses off the hook and Open, so I assume she told West it was off the hook?   Doesn’t matter really.

[ILB]

To put it bluntly all it amounts to is hear say bollocks pub talk.  Milibank is dead so can never be subject to any kind in depth scrutiny.

I personsally would only entertain the subject even in terms of a discussion if Mr Milibank was alive.

Must admit however there is a part of me that wished I had contacted Mr Milibank privately when this first arose. It seems he is suffered with ill health though prior to his demise so more than likely wouldn't have welcomed the instrusion.

[Bubo bubo]

Im on about West using off the hook, Jean Rowe uses off the hook and Open, so I assume she told West it was off the hook?   Doesn’t matter really.

It seems to me that JR was suffering from a selective memory disorder. She remembers 2 calls, what about the first one from West at 03.42. She omits to say anything about a 999 call but remembers that she could not interfere with the Direct Emergency service line (surely this is the 999 system). She did not tell the police that the line status had changed to engaged. She did not say she had been asked to monitor the line and report anything she heard. She left at 08.00am and says that the police were still monitoring the line at that time but forgot that she was told to close the line at 07.48am as stated in the log

For me her statement is a fake. It is inconsistent with other contemporaneous records and smacks of an attempt to disguise the fact there was a 999 call at around 05.47am.

For me her  statement and those of Burrell and Milbank (As he inferred before retraction) were faked.

[Hardy Boy]

It seems to me that JR was suffering from a selective memory disorder. She remembers 2 calls, what about the first one from West at 03.42. She omits to say anything about a 999 call but remembers that she could not interfere with the Direct Emergency service line (surely this is the 999 system). She did not tell the police that the line status had changed to engaged. She did not say she had been asked to monitor the line and report anything she heard. She left at 08.00am and says that the police were still monitoring the line at that time but forgot that she was told to close the line at 07.48am as stated in the log

For me her statement is a fake. It is inconsistent with other contemporaneous records and smacks of an attempt to disguise the fact there was a 999 call at around 05.47am.

For me her  statement and those of Burrell and Milbank (As he inferred before retraction) were faked.

So there you have it Bubo say’s,  Jean Rowe, Burrell and Millbank all had their Statements faked to cover up a 999 call and signed to this cover up 40 years ago.

Incidentally, West tried WHF himself prior to 3.42 am and used the same terminology Engaged,  so maybe it was his wording again at 5.47 am, Engaged?  What was to stop West from ringing WHF again at 5.47 am and recording Engaged, not saying he did, it is a possibility though?  Jean Rowe had no further need to monitor the line once she had coupled the phone lines up to HQ, this was the whole idea of the connection in the first place,  to bypass Rowe and take control of Monitoring by the police themselves, she didn’t need to play any further part like she said.

The closing of the line could be the Police talking to Millbank from inside WHF, MILLBANK………..I think someone picked up the phone and said it’s OK, we’re in now, well we’re here now, whatever. And I said, oh that’s fine and put the phone down. I’m guessing it was a police officer that picked up the phone. And so obviously there was no longer the need to leave the 999 call open”.


Jean Rowe omits to saying there was a 999 call because  there wasn’t one, why should she invent one when there wasn’t one.  Jean Rowe Connected the  open line at WhF to the police HQ as per her signed  statement, Inspector Burrell backs her up on this with his signed statement, now if you suspect they both signed faked statements that’s up to you.


The only person who has Selective issues is you, you seem to have an Agenda against ESSEX Police, you accuse everyone of a cover up and have no boundaries with your endless accusations, your motive at times makes it look like personal Animosity.  You’ve now brought Jean Rowe the  innocent Telephone Operative into your Endless accusations, accusing her of signing a Faked Police statement.

[Hardy Boy]

 

So there you have it Bubo say’s,  Jean Rowe, Burrell and Millbank all had their Statements faked to cover up a 999 call and signed to this cover up 40 years ago.

Incidentally, West tried WHF himself prior to 3.42 am and used the same terminology Engaged,  so maybe it was his wording again at 5.47 am, Engaged?  What was to stop West from ringing WHF again at 5.47 am and recording Engaged, not saying he did, it is a possibility though?  Jean Rowe had no further need to monitor the line once she had coupled the phone lines up to HQ, this was the whole idea of the connection in the first place,  to bypass Rowe and take control of Monitoring by the police themselves, she didn’t need to play any further part like she said.

The closing of the line could be the Police talking to Millbank from inside WHF, MILLBANK………..I think someone picked up the phone and said it’s OK, we’re in now, well we’re here now, whatever. And I said, oh that’s fine and put the phone down. I’m guessing it was a police officer that picked up the phone. And so obviously there was no longer the need to leave the 999 call open”.


Jean Rowe omits to saying there was a 999 call because  there wasn’t one, why should she invent one when there wasn’t one.  Jean Rowe Connected the  open line at WhF to the police HQ as per her signed  statement, Inspector Burrell backs her up on this with his signed statement, now if you suspect they both signed faked statements that’s up to you.


The only person who has Selective issues is you, you seem to have an Agenda against ESSEX Police, you accuse everyone of a cover up and have no boundaries with your endless accusations, your motive at times makes it look like personal Animosity.  You’ve now brought Jean Rowe the  innocent Telephone Operative into your Endless accusations, accusing her of signing a Faked Police statement.

Maybe, this is the reference to the first call from West, there is no other call related to 4.00am that I am aware of, but she says she can’t remember the time but ABOUT 4.00am?   Quite a difference in the exact time but Jean was probably dealing with other calls as well.


Jean Rowe
 I can't be exactly sure of the tine but at about 4.00 a.m. on Wednesdey the 7th August 1985 I was at the switchboard when I received a call  from the Police Headquarters in Chelmsford. I was asked to check the line of a Maldon Telephone Numbered 860209 to see if there was enybody SPEAKING OR IF THE PHONE WAS OFF THE HOOK. . I then checked this 1ine. I could tell that the receiver was off the hook
and the line was therefore open.
There wasn't any speech but I could hear a dog barking, the noise was loud so it appeared the dog was next to the receiver. I couldn't hear any other noise at all I then disconnected myself from the line and informed the caller  that the receiver was off.


She then goes onto say,  THE SAME CALLER (West) phoned again ABOUT 5.40 am ( so West was the previous caller she gave at About 4. 00 am). And 5.50am,  and at 5.50am was the request to ask if it was possible to put this number through to the police headquarters. The 5.47am was just West using the terminology Engaged as he had done previously.

So Jean Rowe is in contact with the same Caller (West) so it must have been the West call at 3.42am she meant when she said about 4.00am?

West

immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 and received an internittent tone showing
the line to be Engaged.  I can only say that I made this call prior to
.3.42 8.0
After dialling Maldon 860209 I telephoned the G.P.O. Operator and asked her to check the Maldon number as we needed to know if the
telephone WAS OFF THE HOOK OR WHETHER SOMEONE WAS SPEAKING ON THE LINE. . I timed her reply to me at 3.42 a.m. when she told me that the phone had
been left off the hook.

You only have to look at the similarities in the Text from Both West and Rowe. 

[Bubo bubo]

???Maybe, this is the reference to the first call from West, there is no other call related to 4.00am that I am aware of, but she says she can’t remember the time but ABOUT 4.00am?   Quite a difference in the exact time but Jean was probably dealing with other calls as well.


Jean Rowe
 I can't be exactly sure of the tine but at about 4.00 a.m. on Wednesdey the 7th August 1985 I was at the switchboard when I received a call  from the Police Headquarters in Chelmsford. I was asked to check the line of a Maldon Telephone Numbered 860209 to see if there was enybody SPEAKING OR IF THE PHONE WAS OFF THE HOOK. . I then checked this 1ine. I could tell that the receiver was off the hook
and the line was therefore open.
There wasn't any speech but I could hear a dog barking, the noise was loud so it appeared the dog was next to the receiver. I couldn't hear any other noise at all I then disconnected myself from the line and informed the caller  that the receiver was off.


She then goes onto say,  THE SAME CALLER (West) phoned again ABOUT 5.40 am ( so West was the previous caller she gave at About 4. 00 am). And 5.50am,  and at 5.50am was the request to ask if it was possible to put this number through to the police headquarters. The 5.47am was just West using the terminology Engaged as he had done previously.

So Jean Rowe is in contact with the same Caller (West) so it must have been the West call at 3.42am she meant when she said about 4.00am?

West

immediately afterwards dialled Maldon 860209 and received an internittent tone showing
the line to be Engaged.  I can only say that I made this call prior to
.3.42 8.0
After dialling Maldon 860209 I telephoned the G.P.O. Operator and asked her to check the Maldon number as we needed to know if the
telephone WAS OFF THE HOOK OR WHETHER SOMEONE WAS SPEAKING ON THE LINE. . I timed her reply to me at 3.42 a.m. when she told me that the phone had
been left off the hook.
You only have to look at the similarities in the Text from Both West and Rowe.

You are now attributing the multiple line checks to West. Why is all this activity not in his statements and testimony? Why does he not say he was told by the operator that the status had changed to engaged?

Why was Burrell asking for line checks if they were also being checked by West who was in another location. Why does West not mention the requests for line checks from Burrell?

[Hardy Boy]

You are now attributing the multiple line checks to West. Why is all this activity not in his statements and testimony? Why does he not say he was told by the operator that the status had changed to engaged?

Why was Burrell asking for line checks if they were also being checked by West who was in another location. Why does West not mention the requests for line checks from Burrell?

I cannot answer for Statements on here or that are missing, again I think that is a word West used himself “Engaged”  he used the same word when he rang WHF earlier.  I think Burrell was asking for line checks and it could have been him who was the same caller I agree.

The main argument from statements,  there was a connected call at 6.09 am to Millbank at HQ, and it’s plain to see that Rowe connected the two lines and Burrell confirms this in his statement.  Me and you arguing about a word that someone used is neither here or there, the operator could have said to West, it’s  still engaged or  off the hook, or this could have come from HQ to west that it was still engaged,  who know’s, or West could have made another call to WHF to check line status himself and simply wrote Engaged like he did before,  again who knows? 

[Hardy Boy]

I cannot answer for Statements on here or that are missing, again I think that is a word West used himself “Engaged”  he used the same word when he rang WHF earlier.  I think Burrell was asking for line checks and it could have been him who was the same caller I agree.

The main argument from statements,  there was a connected call at 6.09 am to Millbank at HQ, and it’s plain to see that Rowe connected the two lines and Burrell confirms this in his statement.  Me and you arguing about a word that someone used is neither here or there, the operator could have said to West, it’s  still engaged or  off the hook, or this could have come from HQ to west that it was still engaged,  who know’s, or West could have made another call to WHF to check line status himself and simply wrote Engaged like he did before,  again who knows?

Ive often wondered why BUBO cuts the Paragraph short regarding the phone logs, you will see a message at I think 6.06 GPO to switch House phone via 9 System on the  third page down.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html


This is further Proof that the a request for the  phone lines to be  connected to HQ via the 999 system.   

[Hardy Boy]

Ive often wondered why BUBO cuts the Paragraph short regarding the phone logs, you will see a message at I think 6.06 GPO to switch House phone via 9 System on the  third page down.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html

If anyone could, could they please make the third page down fully visible to read, thanks.

[Bubo bubo]

Ive often wondered why BUBO cuts the Paragraph short regarding the phone logs, you will see a message at I think 6.06 GPO to switch House phone via 9 System on the  third page down.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,732.0.html


This is further Proof that the a request for the  phone lines to be  connected to HQ via the 999 system.

I do not do this to deceive but to focus attention on the point I am making. You can examine the logs in full from the main menu of the JB  case under archive and library heading. Cheers

[Bubo bubo]

I cannot answer for Statements on here or that are missing, again I think that is a word West used himself “Engaged”  he used the same word when he rang WHF earlier.  I think Burrell was asking for line checks and it could have been him who was the same caller I agree.

The main argument from statements,  there was a connected call at 6.09 am to Millbank at HQ, and it’s plain to see that Rowe connected the two lines and Burrell confirms this in his statement.  Me and you arguing about a word that someone used is neither here or there, the operator could have said to West, it’s  still engaged or  off the hook, or this could have come from HQ to west that it was still engaged,  who know’s, or West could have made another call to WHF to check line status himself and simply wrote Engaged like he did before,  again who knows?

Why would West reinterpret what he was told by the operator. He would record off the hook or engaged as these were the appropriate terms. And it is also clear from the log entries that the engaged  entry was made 2 minutes after he was asked by HQ to get the line rechecked with the operator. He did not check the line himself. It is also clear from the next entry that he also asked them to monitor the line and report what they hear.

You still have not explained why JR says the police were still monitoring the line when she left at 08.00am when the log shows she was informed by the IR to close the line at 07.48am.

As you pointed out this statement was made (according to the date) within 24 hours of the events. Was this a case of Selective Memory disorder?

Of course he would say engaged when he first called. But as has been discussed in this thread. It is what callers hear if it is engaged or off the hook and it is why you have to get the operator to check. There could be a line fault or it could be engaged or off the hook. He asked for the check and was told it was off the hook and later he was told it was engaged.

Also notice that HQIR are referring to the 999 line.' Close down '999' open line'

[Hardy Boy]

So west was in constant contact with HQ and makes notes what HQ tells him to do.

5.45 FROM HQIR continue to try phone at scene + GPO to recheck…..so it looks like West was told to try phone at scene and he does this and writes at 5.47 am

5.47 am Phone engaged at scene.

5.50 am GPO monitoring phone and will contact if anything heard, HQIR informed.   The important next part West say’s

6.06am GPO TO SWITCH HOUSE PHONE TO HQIR VIA 9 SYSTEM


This now backs up Jean Rowe statement who said she made the connection and it backs up Burrell statement who in his witness statement says the connection was made at 6.09 am and then monitored at HQ by Millbank.


With all this proof and the New Yorker refusing to hand over the uncut and in edited Audio, the CCRC was bound to preliminary reject The Millbank theory and any nonsense surrounding a 999 call.

[Roch]

Apparently the document from Burrell is a memo not a statement. Don't know what difference that makes.

[Hardy Boy]

Apparently the document from Burrell is a memo not a statement. Don't know what difference that makes.

. Who told you this,   The written statement by Burrell and signed by him  is no memo. The typed Statement was done on the same day, so who is he actually sending a memo to?  A memo usually has the full list off the recipients and it usually has the word Memo or Memorandum on it to identify the document type.


https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4994.0;attach=35076;image