Time breakdown and sources regarding 6.09am.

[Adam]

Obviously it was pre arranged but at the same time he had the option of refusing to speak to journalists if he so wished.

AE & DB was not pre arranged. She just turned up at there houses.

Will have to listen to the audio. If pre arranged thought Milbank would be less vague.

[Hardy Boy]

AE & DB was not pre arranged. She just turned up at there houses.

Will have to listen to the audio. If pre arranged thought Milbank would be less vague.

The New Yorker have been sat on this interview for over a year, the question remains why they didn’t release the full unedited uncut version to the CCRC when requested.  This leaves me to believe there is elements in the Interview that have been edited?

So on conclusion of this, the CCRC had no other alternative but to reject based on……Because the audio could not be compelled for evidence, the New Yorker is a US based publication,   the CCRC had to rely only on UK- material  from Essex Police,

   1   Jean Rowe’s statement
   2   Inspector Burrell’s statement
   3   UK telephone logs
   4   Milbank’s later (2024) police statement
   5   Without the audio, the CCRC ruled the defence’s “999 call” claim did not meet the ‘real possibility’ test for referral.
   6.  to  me the Rowe and Burrell statements already show there was never a 999 call from inside WHF, only a BT-operator patch to police.


Because this has been disproved, we now have believe from Bubo and Rob that  there was another call from Sheila or someone alive in WHF at 5.47am, on both occasions the caller said nothing, this is all  based on the word Engaged and not Off the hook,  The question still remains, who did this caller ring, if it was a 999 call this would show in the Operators statement, the operator would have answered the call and connect to the relevant services, if the caller said nothing the operator would try to ask questions and record such. Also the relevant information would have been relayed to the Police at HQ who would most certainly have relayed this information to Adam’s at the critical point before entry, this was vital information and would require possible adjustments to the raid team Approach,  Bubo now says Jean Rowe’s statement is Faked and so to is Inspector Burrell’s? 

[Bubo bubo]

The New Yorker have been sat on this interview for over a year, the question remains why they didn’t release the full unedited uncut version to the CCRC when requested.  This leaves me to believe there is elements in the Interview that have been edited?

So on conclusion of this, the CCRC had no other alternative but to reject based on……Because the audio could not be compelled for evidence, the New Yorker is a US based publication,   the CCRC had to rely only on UK- material  from Essex Police,

   1   Jean Rowe’s statement
   2   Inspector Burrell’s statement
   3   UK telephone logs
   4   Milbank’s later (2024) police statement
   5   Without the audio, the CCRC ruled the defence’s “999 call” claim did not meet the ‘real possibility’ test for referral.
   6.  to  me the Rowe and Burrell statements already show there was never a 999 call from inside WHF, only a BT-operator patch to police.


Because this has been disproved, we now have believe from Bubo and Rob that  there was another call from Sheila or someone alive in WHF at 5.47am, on both occasions the caller said nothing, this is all  based on the word Engaged and not Off the hook,  The question still remains, who did this caller ring, if it was a 999 call this would show in the Operators statement, the operator would have answered the call and connect to the relevant services, if the caller said nothing the operator would try to ask questions and record such. Also the relevant information would have been relayed to the Police at HQ who would most certainly have relayed this information to Adam’s at the critical point before entry, this was vital information and would require possible adjustments to the raid team Approach,  Bubo now says Jean Rowe’s statement is Faked and so to is Inspector Burrell’s?

A good post. However we do not know what was in the original case file which still remains undisclosed. Anything of an exculpatory nature is likely to be in that file. This leaves those who believe JB innocent have to scrabble around documentation that is in the public domain looking for issues which appear to show inconsistencies in the Crown's case. We only have the left over crumbs.

[Hardy Boy]

A good post. However we do not know what was in the original case file which still remains undisclosed. Anything of an exculpatory nature is likely to be in that file. This leaves those who believe JB innocent have to scrabble around documentation that is in the public domain looking for issues which appear to show inconsistencies in the Crown's case. We only have the left over crumbs.

I personally don’t think that anything can contest a witness statement from Burrell and Rowe that’s backed up with proven log messages?

[Adam]

The New Yorker have been sat on this interview for over a year, the question remains why they didn’t release the full unedited uncut version to the CCRC when requested.  This leaves me to believe there is elements in the Interview that have been edited?

So on conclusion of this, the CCRC had no other alternative but to reject based on……Because the audio could not be compelled for evidence, the New Yorker is a US based publication,   the CCRC had to rely only on UK- material  from Essex Police,

   1   Jean Rowe’s statement
   2   Inspector Burrell’s statement
   3   UK telephone logs
   4   Milbank’s later (2024) police statement
   5   Without the audio, the CCRC ruled the defence’s “999 call” claim did not meet the ‘real possibility’ test for referral.
   6.  to  me the Rowe and Burrell statements already show there was never a 999 call from inside WHF, only a BT-operator patch to police.


Because this has been disproved, we now have believe from Bubo and Rob that  there was another call from Sheila or someone alive in WHF at 5.47am, on both occasions the caller said nothing, this is all  based on the word Engaged and not Off the hook,  The question still remains, who did this caller ring, if it was a 999 call this would show in the Operators statement, the operator would have answered the call and connect to the relevant services, if the caller said nothing the operator would try to ask questions and record such. Also the relevant information would have been relayed to the Police at HQ who would most certainly have relayed this information to Adam’s at the critical point before entry, this was vital information and would require possible adjustments to the raid team Approach,  Bubo now says Jean Rowe’s statement is Faked and so to is Inspector Burrell’s?

Burrell's & Jean Rowe's WS 's fake.

EP really were covering themselves in 1985 when framing Bamber.

[Adam]

DB & Bamber's interviews are genuine. They will speak to anyone.

PE & AE refusing to speak seems real.

BW's interview may be an old one. She had previously spoken about rats.

Not sure why Milbank would agree to be interviewed beforehand. He had kept quiet all this time & still worked for EP. The audio of his intetview he can't remember things. If he was rang up out of the blue, surprised he agreed to speak.

There is a written statement with Milbank saying he did not speak to the NY. That is not very convincing either.

[Adam]

The crime scene photos & WS's of Burrell & Jean Rowe show the phone was off the hook & then the line connected to EP. Milbank listening in from 6.09am.

All sounds like plausible actions in the circumstances. But appreciate supporters will say Sheila called 999 & didn't say anything.

[Bubo bubo]

Burrell's & Jean Rowe's WS 's fake.

EP really were covering themselves in 1985 when framing Bamber.

These documents were not needed at trial. The defence, at that time, did not question the 999 call. It is possible they only saw it when further documents were disclosed or they missed it. As I understand things it was going to be used as part of the 2002 appeal but for reasons unknown to me it was dropped. At that time statements from Burrell and Rowe could have contributed to this aspect of the case. Perhaps NGB can shed some light on this.

[ILB]

AE & DB was not pre arranged. She just turned up at there houses.

Will have to listen to the audio. If pre arranged thought Milbank would be less vague.

Milibank would not just start waffling to a journalist while still employed In the capacity of Essex Police over a high profile case such as this.

If it was a random call out of the blue you would think he would make his excuses and simply cut all contact.

Which suggests it has been pre arranged.

[ILB]

Burrell's & Jean Rowe's WS 's fake.

EP really were covering themselves in 1985 when framing Bamber.

Bamber suggests three officers.

[Hardy Boy]

From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 (yes Jean Rowe making the connection)  and me answering it and then I just was hearing background noises and then police entering the build(sic) or room. I don’t think there was any actual conversation,          (there wouldn’t be any conversation because everyone had been killed by Bamber)

[Hardy Boy]

Burrell's & Jean Rowe's WS 's fake.

EP really were covering themselves in 1985 when framing Bamber.

Bubo does this every time, it always ends with false/faked lied just because he dislikes what it proves.  A witness statement is a legal document, he throws these accusations about like confetti, to either shut down debate or try to take control of a lost cause,   Without evidence, the idea that police altered/ or Jean Rowe gave a false statement  is a conspiracy theory, not a fact that it happened.

Her signed statement matches Burrell’s, it matches the GPO procedures of the time and it matches what the Police logs reported, spotting word inconsistency by different people made 40 years ago is not proof, again the amount of cover up needed you would have to hope everyone kept it secret,  and hide a manufactured claimed about a 9s call 50 years back.

[Rob_]

Bubo does this every time, it always ends with false/faked lied just because he dislikes what it proves.  A witness statement is a legal document, he throws these accusations about like confetti, to either shut down debate or try to take control of a lost cause,   Without evidence, the idea that police altered/ or Jean Rowe gave a false statement  is a conspiracy theory, not a fact that it happened.

Her signed statement matches Burrell’s, it matches the GPO procedures of the time and it matches what the Police logs reported, spotting word inconsistency by different people made 40 years ago is not proof, again the amount of cover up needed you would have to hope everyone kept it secret,  and hide a manufactured claimed about a 9s call 50 years back.

Why do you think West hand copied his log HB? Then produced two statements with a 10 minute difference in time when Bamber called?

At trial he could not remember who instructed him to produce the second one?

[Hardy Boy]

Why do you think West hand copied his log HB? Then produced two statements with a 10 minute difference in time when Bamber called?

At trial he could not remember who instructed him to produce the second one?

He may be telling the truth if he couldn’t remember, not remembering is not uncommon and don’t mean your guilty of something,  all we’re talking about is a minor time difference this doesn’t always  mean any wrongdoing.  Statements were often written down or corrected or something missed off. 

[Bill Robertson]

Was Jean Rowe the only operator on duty in the district? Or at that exchange?
Was it possible that Sheila got through to another operator who put the call through to Milbank?

Jean Rowe was just one of several BT operators. JR possibly had no knowledge of the 999 call at the time it was made. Similarly, Milbank was one of a team in the HQ Information Room. There were probably ten incoming lines and maybe 6-8 staff, some radio dispatchers, some answering telephones. It was just pot luck that Milbank received the 999 call.