Nick Milbank confirms that Jeremy Bamber is innocent

[Bubo bubo]

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.

It would not make sense for him to make the call himself he already knew from his earlier call that only the operator would give a conclusive result. I do not think he was that dim that he would dial WHF and then the operator. 

By that time he was also asking them to monitor events and to report what they hear so he must have had confirmation from the operator that the line was engaged whether or not he had called it himself. There would be no point in asking them to keep checking an off the hook line which had been in that state for around 2 hours.

Why did they ask to perform the switch on such a line at this point when they could have done this some time before the line became engaged.

[Hardy Boy]

Confirmation from the Incident room, open line set up at 6.09 am.

Situation unchanged at 5.55am, phone still off the hook telecom can hear the dog barking.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3206;image


That is four pieces of evidence that show that WHF phone was connected up to the incident room at 6.09 via the 999 system,  in truth the CCRC didn’t need Essex Police to interview Millbank, they didn’t need to contact Essex police at all, the information is on here.

[Bubo bubo]

Confirmation from the Incident room, open line set up at 6.09 am.

Situation unchanged at 5.55am, phone still off the hook telecom can hear the dog barking.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=3206;image

I accept this looks like the phone was not engaged. There is however another interpretation. The phone became engaged at 05.47am This would mean  someone had returned the receiver to the cradle and MAYBE tried to make a call which may have been successful (was it a 999 call other references in the logs suggest it was?) but we cannot know.

We cannot know why if the call was successful, there was no conversation. In this situation it would be engaged but someone asked why nothing was progressing, checked and replied that at WHF the phone was still off the hook. CA07  informed the IR but their information may have been out of date as they were at the scene. They were trying to be useful  but telling IR what they already knew.

Alternatively there was a successful call that appeared to have been abandoned and this caused a problem as to the next steps to be taken. As a result of an operator check it was confirmed that although there was no one speaking the line was open and the handset was off the hook. This then triggered the request to link the WHF to HQIR

There appears to have been something happening around this time because there are just three entries by another hand between 05.42am and 6.09am. We do not know why this happened.

[Hardy Boy]

I accept this looks like the phone was not engaged. There is however another interpretation. The phone became engaged at 05.47am This would mean  someone had returned the receiver to the cradle and MAYBE tried to make a call which may have been successful (was it a 999 call other references in the logs suggest it was?) but we cannot know.

We cannot know why if the call was successful, there was no conversation. In this situation it would be engaged but someone asked why nothing was progressing, checked and replied that at WHF the phone was still off the hook. CA07  informed the IR but their information may have been out of date as they were at the scene. They were trying to be useful  but telling IR what they already knew.

Alternatively there was a successful call that appeared to have been abandoned and this caused a problem as to the next steps to be taken. As a result of an operator check it was confirmed that although there was no one speaking the line was open and the handset was off the hook. This then triggered the request to link the WHF to HQIR

There appears to have been something happening around this time because there are just three entries by another hand between 05.42am and 6.09am. We do not know why this happened.

To be honest, the 5.47 am log from West has never bothered me, it’s as I said he wrote that himself,  either when he tried to ring WHF himself as instructed by HQIR or he just picked it up from HQIR,  West had already used this phrase Engaged before when he first tried to ring WHF after talking to Jeremy, it certainly doesn’t look like it came from any operator when he records it.

The main debate or conversation was around the Millbank 999 supposed call, and in my opinion the CCRC have been right by Preliminary rejecting  this part of the Appeal.  I must admit I had hopes about this, but it’s like everything else that has been put forward by the Campaign team over the years and it’s fallen by the wayside.   Shame really, I would like to see an appeal granted, that way we will get to see why everything gets rejected by the Court of Appeal.

[Rob_]

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?

West asked the operator to check the line at 3.42 and was informed the phone was off the hook. As this information was coming from the operator I take this to mean that no call was in progress and a alarm was on at the exchange.

Later at 5.45 West again asks the operator to recheck the line, and now the operator reports the line engaged at 5.47

As this information is coming from the operator then to me this needs explanation? Would West write engaged in the log if told the phone was off the hook?

If West himself tested the line by dialing the number he would not know if the line was off the hook or engaged as he would get the same tone in either case.

[Hardy Boy]

West asked the operator to check the line at 3.42 and was informed the phone was off the hook. As this information was coming from the operator I take this to mean that no call was in progress and a alarm was on at the exchange.

Later at 5.45 West again asks the operator to recheck the line, and now the operator reports the line engaged at 5.47

As this information is coming from the operator then to me this needs explanation? Would West write engaged in the log if told the phone was off the hook?

If West himself tested the line by dialing the number he would not know if the line was off the hook or engaged as he would get the same tone in either case.

West wrote earlier that the Phone was engaged before he asked the operator to try at 3.42am. So it was a phrase he chose to use. He got a message from HQIR at 5.45am to continue to try the phone at the SCENE, so that’s what he did and he simply reports at 5.47 am phone engaged at the SCENE.

When it’s him trying to ring WHF from his phone, he writes Engaged instead of off the hook.  The information is not coming to West via the operator at 5.45am it clearly say’s FROM HQIR.

[Rob_]

West wrote earlier that the Phone was engaged before he asked the operator to try at 3.42am. So it was a phrase he chose to use. He got a message from HQIR at 5.45am to continue to try the phone at the SCENE, so that’s what he did and he simply reports at 5.47 am phone engaged at the SCENE.

When it’s him trying to ring WHF from his phone, he writes Engaged instead of off the hook.  The information is not coming to West via the operator at 5.45am it clearly say’s FROM HQIR.

I read it differently to you HB, I read it that HQIR asked West to keep checking and the operator was checking and supplying the information?

[Hardy Boy]

I read it differently to you HB, I read it that HQIR asked West to keep checking and the operator was checking and supplying the information?

I agree the operator was checking, but West is clearly given instruction by HQIR to continue to try the Phone at the scene and he reports in his log, phone engaged at the scene.   I really cannot understand how you have jumped on the word Engaged when to some people a phone off the hook meant engaged.  We’re talking minutes between a phone off the hook to engaged to phone of the hook, it’s absolute nonsense to think that Sheila picked the phone up, put it down to clear the line, made a  999 call and didn’t say a word and left the phone off the hook again, all because there’s a Synonyms in there.

[Bubo bubo]

West asked the operator to check the line at 3.42 and was informed the phone was off the hook. As this information was coming from the operator I take this to mean that no call was in progress and a alarm was on at the exchange.

Later at 5.45 West again asks the operator to recheck the line, and now the operator reports the line engaged at 5.47

As this information is coming from the operator then to me this needs explanation? Would West write engaged in the log if told the phone was off the hook?

If West himself tested the line by dialing the number he would not know if the line was off the hook or engaged as he would get the same tone in either case.

Exactly. Well said

[Bubo bubo]

I read it differently to you HB, I read it that HQIR asked West to keep checking and the operator was checking and supplying the information?

I agree as I have already posted there would be no point in calling himself before asking the operator. He knew from his first check that only the operator could give a definitive answer

[Bubo bubo]

I agree the operator was checking, but West is clearly given instruction by HQIR to continue to try the Phone at the scene and he reports in his log, phone engaged at the scene.   I really cannot understand how you have jumped on the word Engaged when to some people a phone off the hook meant engaged.  We’re talking minutes between a phone off the hook to engaged to phone of the hook, it’s absolute nonsense to think that Sheila picked the phone up, put it down to clear the line, made a  999 call and didn’t say a word and left the phone off the hook again, all because there’s a Synonyms in there.

As far as SC is concerned she was in a psychotic episode where normal behaviour is replaced by psychotic behaviour.
I have told you before, there are no T'sOD for the victims. It is wrong to exclude the possibility that it could be June or NB who made it. Did either have to abandon the call to escape danger for example. It does not matter who it was, if there was a call JB is innocent

[Bubo bubo]

I agree the operator was checking, but West is clearly given instruction by HQIR to continue to try the Phone at the scene and he reports in his log, phone engaged at the scene.   I really cannot understand how you have jumped on the word Engaged when to some people a phone off the hook meant engaged.  We’re talking minutes between a phone off the hook to engaged to phone of the hook, it’s absolute nonsense to think that Sheila picked the phone up, put it down to clear the line, made a  999 call and didn’t say a word and left the phone off the hook again, all because there’s a Synonyms in there.

Please tell us what you believe are these Synonyms.

[Hardy Boy]

As far as SC is concerned she was in a psychotic episode where normal behaviour is replaced by psychotic behaviour.
I have told you before, there are no T'sOD for the victims. It is wrong to exclude the possibility that it could be June or NB who made it. Did either have to abandon the call to escape danger for example. It does not matter who it was, if there was a call JB is innocent

So could it be, Sheila two calls 5.47 am 6.09am and says nothing, or Neville three abandoned calls one with contact and two saying nothing,  or June two calls and says nothing, or who ever could get to the Phone?

[Hardy Boy]

Please tell us what you believe are these Synonyms.

Well to West Engaged and off the hook meant the same, when he clearly rang WHF before ringing the Operator at 3.42 am and said the line was engaged, and then he rang WHF again at 5.47 am to him Engaged meant the same as off the hook.  Unless you can visibly see the other phone, if you rang you would naturally say it’s engaged that’s why it was defiantly West who rang.

[Bubo bubo]

Well to West Engaged and off the hook meant the same, when he clearly rang WHF before ringing the Operator at 3.42 am and said the line was engaged, and then he rang WHF again at 5.47 am to him Engaged meant the same as off the hook.  Unless you can visibly see the other phone, if you rang you would naturally say it’s engaged that’s why it was defiantly West who rang.

But off the hook and engaged are not synonyms. Small and little are because they roughly mean the same thing. West would have realised that there was a difference after the first call unless he already knew there was a difference. You do him a disservice.