Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on November 14, 2025, 10:19:AM
-
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/does-the-ccrc-have-a-duty-of-care-towards-witnesses
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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,”
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 😂😂😂😂
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
There's people like the Doc Maker who work hard on the behalf of Jeremy Bamber Snow, what your seeing is the difference between selfless and selfishness and self serving, the follow through by the New Yorker has let Jeremy down in my opinion.
Bill and Roch have been quick to criticise the CCRC on this, I agree about independent interview of Millbank and not Essex Police, but I cannot fault them on rejecting something they have been refused access to.
-
There's people like the Doc Maker who work hard on the behalf of Jeremy Bamber Snow, what your seeing is the difference between selfishness and self serving, the follow through by the New Yorker has let Jeremy down in my opinion.
Bill and Roch have been quick to criticise the CCRC on this, I agree about independent interview of Millbank and not Essex Police, but I cannot fault them on rejecting something they have been refused access to.
Seems the interview was a phone call between Heidi Blake and Milbank carried out on English soil!
Does Heidi work for the New Yorker? If not, how did the tape recording end up in the USA?
-
Seems the interview was a phone call between Heidi Blake and Milbank carried out on English soil!
Does Heidi work for the New Yorker? If not, how did the tape recording end up in the USA?
I don’t know a lot about her Snow, I just listened to the first 5 mins of episode 5. I listened to the opening episode of 6 for 5 mins, Phil Walker is interviewed, he feels a connection with Bamber because he was adopted about the same time through the Church, he seems a nice bloke and I think he’s genuinely trying his hardest to help Bamber.
You hear Bamber talk to Phil and Bamber seems really excited by the Millbank interview, I did feel sorry for Bamber to be honest, I think he was let down, I could be wrong, but putting it in a Podcast and not giving it as evidence to the CCRC seems a big mistake.
-
Seems the interview was a phone call between Heidi Blake and Milbank carried out on English soil!
Does Heidi work for the New Yorker? If not, how did the tape recording end up in the USA?
Having been fed information from the Campaign Team prior, she would have travelled to England for the interviews.
-
Having been fed information from the Campaign Team prior, she would have travelled to England for the interviews.
I see, so is Heidi an English woman who lives in the USA working for the New Yorker then, Dan?
-
Seems the interview was a phone call between Heidi Blake and Milbank carried out on English soil!
Does Heidi work for the New Yorker? If not, how did the tape recording end up in the USA?
The new Yorker is an American Magazine Snow, it was based on New York City Cultural life, I think it ventured out into investigative Journalism later in the 90s or later in the 2000? I’ve not read too much but they did a piece on Lucy Letby, and I think it got banned in this Country. I think the age of the internet changed a lot of things in the News and Journalistic industry Snow.
There’s been several Miscarriage of justice cases that the Journalistic investigation industry took off with in the USA, namely making a murderer then you had the staircase and the West Memphis three, looks like the New Yorker is tapping into the UK with Letby and Bamber.
I think Heidi lives in London Snow, but works for the New Yorker, she visited Phil Walker at his home on the South Coast somewhere. You don’t have to live in New York to work for the New Yorker Snow, everything is done through the internet now days anyway, a lot of these writers will use AI as well for research
The Trouble with Podcasts, they’re easily edited, your not seeing the person and when listening to the Audio of the phone call you don’t hear it in its entirety, so they cut it off and move it on when ever it suits if that makes sense. That’s why it never went to the CCRC in my opinion.
The BBC are a classic example (I’m not saying the New Yorker did anything like this) the Panarama team spliced two different clips of Trumps Speech together to make it look something else.
Anyway hope this helps Snow 👍
-
I see, so is Heidi an English woman who lives in the USA working for the New Yorker then, Dan?
Yes Snow, she worked for several News Papers in this Country first Snow. I don’t know if she lives in the USA without checking, I thought she lived in London, could be wrong, I’ll check.
-
Yes Snow, she worked for several News Papers in this Country first Snow. I don’t know if she lives in the USA without checking, I thought she lived in London, could be wrong, I’ll check.
Unless she has moved Snow …. About The Author
Heidi Blake is a multi-award-winning investigative journalist. She was assistant editor of The Sunday Times, attached to the Insight team, until spring 2015 when she became BuzzFeed’s UK investigations editor. She lives in south-east London.
-
The new Yorker is an American Magazine Snow, it was based on New York City Cultural life, I think it ventured out into investigative Journalism later in the 90s or later in the 2000? I’ve not read too much but they did a piece on Lucy Letby, and I think it got banned in this Country. I think the age of the internet changed a lot of things in the News and Journalistic industry Snow.
There’s been several Miscarriage of justice cases that the Journalistic investigation industry took off with in the USA, namely making a murderer then you had the staircase and the West Memphis three, looks like the New Yorker is tapping into the UK with Letby and Bamber.
I think Heidi lives in London Snow, but works for the New Yorker, she visited Phil Walker at his home on the South Coast somewhere. You don’t have to live in New York to work for the New Yorker Snow, everything is done through the internet now days anyway, a lot of these writers will use AI as well for research
The Trouble with Podcasts, they’re easily edited, your not seeing the person and when listening to the Audio of the phone call you don’t hear it in its entirety, so they cut it off and move it on when ever it suits if that makes sense. That’s why it never went to the CCRC in my opinion.
The BBC are a classic example (I’m not saying the New Yorker did anything like this) the Panarama team spliced two different clips of Trumps Speech together to make it look something else.
Anyway hope this helps Snow 👍
Yes, that all makes sense, HB.
Never the less, I would still like to hear the Milbank interview, just to see if it holds any weight at all.
-
Unless she has moved Snow …. About The Author
Heidi Blake is a multi-award-winning investigative journalist. She was assistant editor of The Sunday Times, attached to the Insight team, until spring 2015 when she became BuzzFeed’s UK investigations editor. She lives in south-east London.
OK, thanks, HB!
-
The new Yorker is an American Magazine Snow, it was based on New York City Cultural life, I think it ventured out into investigative Journalism later in the 90s or later in the 2000? I’ve not read too much but they did a piece on Lucy Letby, and I think it got banned in this Country. I think the age of the internet changed a lot of things in the News and Journalistic industry Snow.
There’s been several Miscarriage of justice cases that the Journalistic investigation industry took off with in the USA, namely making a murderer then you had the staircase and the West Memphis three, looks like the New Yorker is tapping into the UK with Letby and Bamber.
I think Heidi lives in London Snow, but works for the New Yorker, she visited Phil Walker at his home on the South Coast somewhere. You don’t have to live in New York to work for the New Yorker Snow, everything is done through the internet now days anyway, a lot of these writers will use AI as well for research
The Trouble with Podcasts, they’re easily edited, your not seeing the person and when listening to the Audio of the phone call you don’t hear it in its entirety, so they cut it off and move it on when ever it suits if that makes sense. That’s why it never went to the CCRC in my opinion.
The BBC are a classic example (I’m not saying the New Yorker did anything like this) the Panarama team spliced two different clips of Trumps Speech together to make it look something else.
Anyway hope this helps Snow 👍
Making a murderer is fiction its not investigative Journalism.
-
Making a murderer is fiction its not investigative Journalism.
It was done through John Ferak, The main investigative journalist associated with the Steven Avery case, which is the subject of Making a Murderer, is John Ferak.
Award-winning John Ferak Applies Twenty-Year Investigative Journalism Career To His True Crime Book And Feature Writing
I thought fiction means they were invented by the Author, this is a true story, I agree the actual story did have misleading, but the Characters are real and the event happened.
Making a Murderer is a true-crime documentary, not fiction, which tells the story of Steven Avery, a man convicted of murder after being wrongfully imprisoned for a previous crime. The series is a real-life investigation into his case and that of his nephew, Brendan Dassey. While some viewers may find the narrative compelling enough to feel like fiction, it is based on actual events and legal proceedings.
-
I don’t know a lot about her Snow, I just listened to the first 5 mins of episode 5. I listened to the opening episode of 6 for 5 mins, Phil Walker is interviewed, he feels a connection with Bamber because he was adopted about the same time through the Church, he seems a nice bloke and I think he’s genuinely trying his hardest to help Bamber.
You hear Bamber talk to Phil and Bamber seems really excited by the Millbank interview, I did feel sorry for Bamber to be honest, I think he was let down, I could be wrong, but putting it in a Podcast and not giving it as evidence to the CCRC seems a big mistake.
She seems rather a pushy person to me. She must have walked up the private road Pages Lane to access White House Farm. I would have told her to clear off.