Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bill Robertson on November 20, 2025, 11:47:AM
-
Blood relatives Episode 5
999 call at 0609
Heidi Blake (HB) introduced herself to Nick Milbank NM by saying, "Basically, I'm just wondering whether you might be willing to have a chat with me about it and just make sure I'm not completely barking up the wrong tree with the stuff I'm looking at"
NM "Yeah, to be honest, yes, I was, I was on the telephone but it was back in the 80's, my recollection of it. I mean, I'd taken millions and millions of phone calls since then and to be honest, in those days it was just another, just another phone call.
HB - comment Just another phone call, he said.
Nick Milbank (NM)
“From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 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, but I really don’t remember much about it at all to be honest”
Heidi Blake (HB) “Were you in the Control Room and picked up a 999?”
NM “Yes”
“Yeah, yeah, in the central Control Room in Chelmsford”
“I do dispatching most of the time but on that occasion I was call taking and, but, yeah and obviously it came from the 999 system”
HB “So a call came in, and it was from the farmhouse itself?”
NM “Yeah”
NM “If you get a phone call where it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t – it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t speaking or there’s someone who’s in fear or danger or, whatever, our policy is to stay on the phone with them until the police arrive. And then as the police officers would get there, they’d pick up the phone and say, yeah, we’re here now. And so I could then hang up the phone call and go straight to the next 999 call.
HB “Right, OK, yeah, that makes sense”
NM “And so I say I just sat there with the phone open to see if anyone did say anything or I heard anything”.
HB “And you could hear sort of movement in the background?”
NM” As far as I can remember, there was, yes, a movement or voices in the background. I’m, not sure I actually spoke to anybody”
HB. “So Nick Millbank was saying not only did someone dial 999 from inside the Manor that morning before police entered the property, but when he answered, he heard apparent signs of life inside, movements, maybe even speech.
NM “Who actually made the phone call, I don’t know”
HB "This conversation was becoming more and more surreal because Nick Milbank did not seem to realise the gravity of what he was telling me”
HB “I’m just trying to get my head round some of this new stuff and that it does seem like if it’s true that because, you know, that the way it all went down was apparently, you know, Jeremy claims there was a call from his dad to him at 3.00 in the morning saying come round, your sister’s gone berserk with a gun and he went round to the farmhouse and they got there at about 3:48 in the morning and then from that point on, he was stood outside with the police and the police didn’t enter until 7:30 am. So if there was a call from inside the farmhouse, it sort of doesn’t quite make sense that, you know, that would have happened. And because that would indicate that someone was alive and they’re basically, you know, they’re all dead by the time”.
NM “Well, obviously, yeah, yeah”
HB “Well obviously, Nick Milbank said, someone was alive in there”
The police hadn’t entered the property until 7:30 am, so Milbank had been listening in for an hour and 21 minutes before the bodies were found. And he’d heard noises that might have been crucial clues to what was going on in there”.
HB “And so did it sound like, because I think there was meant to be a bit of a struggle in the kitchen. Did it sound like a commotion or did it just sound like, you know,”
NM” Didn’t sound like no, it was just movement, you know, movement really, I don’t know. I can’t remember but I’ll be guessing sort of either a door opening, closing or a chair being moved or, you know, there was some noise or some sort of movement and, then all of a sudden, you know, there were police, sounds of police. 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”.
HB “Who could have made this call? Nevill, June and the twins had all been shot in the head at close range. If someone was alive inside the house after the police turned up, it could only have been Sheila, who was found dead inside the locked Manor holding the murder weapon.
-
Blood relatives Episode 5
999 call at 0609
Heidi Blake (HB) introduced herself to Nick Milbank NM by saying, "Basically, I'm just wondering whether you might be willing to have a chat with me about it and just make sure I'm not completely barking up the wrong tree with the stuff I'm looking at"
NM "Yeah, to be honest, yes, I was, I was on the telephone but it was back in the 80's, my recollection of it. I mean, I'd taken millions and millions of phone calls since then and to be honest, in those days it was just another, just another phone call.
HB - comment Just another phone call, he said.
Nick Milbank (NM)
“From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 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, but I really don’t remember much about it at all to be honest”
Heidi Blake (HB) “Were you in the Control Room and picked up a 999?”
NM “Yes”
“Yeah, yeah, in the central Control Room in Chelmsford”
“I do dispatching most of the time but on that occasion I was call taking and, but, yeah and obviously it came from the 999 system”
HB “So a call came in, and it was from the farmhouse itself?”
NM “Yeah”
NM “If you get a phone call where it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t – it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t speaking or there’s someone who’s in fear or danger or, whatever, our policy is to stay on the phone with them until the police arrive. And then as the police officers would get there, they’d pick up the phone and say, yeah, we’re here now. And so I could then hang up the phone call and go straight to the next 999 call.
HB “Right, OK, yeah, that makes sense”
NM “And so I say I just sat there with the phone open to see if anyone did say anything or I heard anything”.
HB “And you could hear sort of movement in the background?”
NM” As far as I can remember, there was, yes, a movement or voices in the background. I’m, not sure I actually spoke to anybody”
HB. “So Nick Millbank was saying not only did someone dial 999 from inside the Manor that morning before police entered the property, but when he answered, he heard apparent signs of life inside, movements, maybe even speech.
NM “Who actually made the phone call, I don’t know”
HB "This conversation was becoming more and more surreal because Nick Milbank did not seem to realise the gravity of what he was telling me”
HB “I’m just trying to get my head round some of this new stuff and that it does seem like if it’s true that because, you know, that the way it all went down was apparently, you know, Jeremy claims there was a call from his dad to him at 3.00 in the morning saying come round, your sister’s gone berserk with a gun and he went round to the farmhouse and they got there at about 3:48 in the morning and then from that point on, he was stood outside with the police and the police didn’t enter until 7:30 am. So if there was a call from inside the farmhouse, it sort of doesn’t quite make sense that, you know, that would have happened. And because that would indicate that someone was alive and they’re basically, you know, they’re all dead by the time”.
NM “Well, obviously, yeah, yeah”
HB “Well obviously, Nick Milbank said, someone was alive in there”
The police hadn’t entered the property until 7:30 am, so Milbank had been listening in for an hour and 21 minutes before the bodies were found. And he’d heard noises that might have been crucial clues to what was going on in there”.
HB “And so did it sound like, because I think there was meant to be a bit of a struggle in the kitchen. Did it sound like a commotion or did it just sound like, you know,”
NM” Didn’t sound like no, it was just movement, you know, movement really, I don’t know. I can’t remember but I’ll be guessing sort of either a door opening, closing or a chair being moved or, you know, there was some noise or some sort of movement and, then all of a sudden, you know, there were police, sounds of police. 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”.
HB “Who could have made this call? Nevill, June and the twins had all been shot in the head at close range. If someone was alive inside the house after the police turned up, it could only have been Sheila, who was found dead inside the locked Manor holding the murder weapon.
Thanks Bill.
Can you help clarify a few questions we have been discussing regarding the Milbank call?
Firstly, can you set the scene, was Milbank sitting in the police station when a phone rang at 6.09 and he picked it up? And when he picked up the '999' call, how did he know that it was from WHF?
Indeed, was Milbank briefed about the siege at WHF when he arrived for duty?
I suppose the only thing we need to know is, could the 999 call have been made by the operator linking up WHF with Chelmsford police station? That is, was it possible for the operator to actually make a 999 call directly to the police station?
The log certainly seems to suggest this, - 'operator/ link up / 6.09'- does it not?
Yet, in Jean Rowes statement she says that she couldn't connect to the 'emergency line', is this refering to the 999 emergency line that Milbank answered?
In other words, is there proof that the 999 call could only have been made from inside WHF and not by the operator? No doubt the CCRC will need to know all this too, before they can make a decision!
And what about the log showing the phone inside WHF engaged at 5.47, what does JB and the CT make of that?
Anyway, can you help clarify things at all, Bill?
-
Thanks Bill.
Can you help clarify a few questions we have been discussing regarding the Milbank call?
Firstly, can you set the scene, was Milbank sitting in the police station when a phone rang at 6.09 and he picked it up? And when he picked up the '999' call, how did he know that it was from WHF?
Indeed, was Milbank briefed about the siege at WHF when he arrived for duty?
I suppose the only thing we need to know is, could the 999 call have been made by the operator linking up WHF with Chelmsford police station? That is, was it possible for the operator to actually make a 999 call directly to the police station?
The log certainly seems to suggest this, - 'operator/ link up / 6.09'- does it not?
Yet, in Jean Rowes statement she says that she couldn't connect to the 'emergency line', is this refering to the 999 emergency line that Milbank answered?
In other words, is there proof that the 999 call could only have been made from inside WHF and not by the operator? No doubt the CCRC will need to know all this too, before they can make a decision!
And what about the log showing the phone inside WHF engaged at 5.47, what does JB and the CT make of that?
Anyway, can you help clarify things at all, Bill?
The crux of the matter is, if you strip away the many possibilities, is that the log proves there was someone alive in WHF who was trying to make a call of some kind.
All of the Milbank issue/affair and its and other interpretations of the written evidence does not negate the fact that someone must have been alive at 05.47am
-
Thanks Bill.
Can you help clarify a few questions we have been discussing regarding the Milbank call?
Firstly, can you set the scene, was Milbank sitting in the police station when a phone rang at 6.09 and he picked it up? And when he picked up the '999' call, how did he know that it was from WHF?
Milbank was at Police Headquarters Information Room, not Chelmsford Police Station, where PC West remained. I believe that the BT operator put 999 calls through to the police and I assume that she informed Milbank where the caller was.
Indeed, was Milbank briefed about the siege at WHF when he arrived for duty? I assume so.
I suppose the only thing we need to know is, could the 999 call have been made by the operator linking up WHF with Chelmsford police station? That is, was it possible for the operator to actually make a 999 call directly to the police station?
The log certainly seems to suggest this, - 'operator/ link up / 6.09'- does it not?
Yet, in Jean Rowes statement she says that she couldn't connect to the 'emergency line', is this refering to the 999 emergency line that Milbank answered? I don't know.
In other words, is there proof that the 999 call could only have been made from inside WHF and not by the operator? No doubt the CCRC will need to know all this too, before they can make a decision!
And what about the log showing the phone inside WHF engaged at 5.47, what does JB and the CT make of that? I don't know, I don't have any contact with either.
Anyway, can you help clarify things at all, Bill?
-
OK, thanks, Bill! Maybe Heidi will disclose a few more details too regarding the call in Episode 6.
-
Maybe a combination of Nevill calling Chelmsford Police, the police moving him from the aga & Sheila dialling 999 at 6.09am will make 2026 Jeremy's year.
-
The crux of the matter is, if you strip away the many possibilities, is that the log proves there was someone alive in WHF who was trying to make a call of some kind.
All of the Milbank issue/affair and its and other interpretations of the written evidence does not negate the fact that someone must have been alive at 05.47am
Yes, its hard to see how ' phone engaged' can mean anything other than someone actually using it at 5.47, Bubo?
-
'From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 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, but I really don’t remember much about it at all to be honest'.
---------
Seems his memory is not very good. Which is fine. He was elderly and it was 40 years ago.
He didn't take a call. He started monitoring the open line inside WHF. As Burrel's 1985 WS says.
-
Maybe a combination of Nevill calling Chelmsford Police, the police moving him from the aga & Sheila dialling 999 at 6.09am will make 2026 Jeremy's year.
Well who knows what 2026 will bring to Jeremy, Adam!
Nothing exactly slam dunk by the look of things at the moment!
-
Millbank says 'he can't remember' several times.
He does not say he went to EP with this information in 1985 & they turned him away.
-
'From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 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, but I really don’t remember much about it at all to be honest'.
---------
Seems his memory is not very good. Which is fine. He was elderly and it was 40 years ago.
He didn't take a call. He started monitoring the open line inside WHF. As Burrel's 1985 WS says.
Well, either it was Sheila making a 999 call or it was the operator making the link from the farm to the police at 6.09, how this can be proven one way or the other is beyond me? Not enough details at the moment!
Maybe the CT should investigate the 'phone engaged' at 5.47 log like Bubo says? Like finding out who wrote it and exactly what it means?
-
'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'.
----------
Sounds like the police knew the line was being monitored. As said by Burrel. They told Milbank they were now inside WHF.
-
Well, either it was Sheila making a 999 call or it was the operator making the link from the farm to the police at 6.09, how this can be proven one way or the other is beyond me? Not enough details at the moment!
Maybe the CT should investigate the 'phone engaged' at 5.47 log like Bubo says? Like finding out who wrote it and exactly what it means?
The phone was found off the hook. So engaged before 6.09am. .
The line was then opened and monitored by Millbank from 6.09am.
-
Millbank taking a 999 call at 6.09am.
The caller not saying anything & not hanging up.
Millbank staying on the call until 7.30am. Until the police told him they were inside.
--------
It is not making sense.
-
The phone was found off the hook. So engaged.
The line was then opened and monitored by Millbank from 6.09am.
Please explain the above. There is a difference between 'off the hook' and 'engaged' status which only happens (a) When a call is ended and the hand set is not replaced. There is a howler noise which can be heard and seen (by a light) by the exchange operator and the noise is also played via the handset to the source. It is a time based trigger (b) The system also notifies the operator when the status changes to engaged.
By the time the TFG entered and Milbank had hung up the call the status would be 'off the hook.
-
Millbank taking a 999 call at 6.09am. From inside WHF.
Then not informing anyone & staying on the line until the police entered WHF at 7.30am. Although no one was speaking to him on the phone.
The police knowing Millbank had taken a call from inside WHF. Telling him 'we are inside now'.
----------
There is only one reason why Millbank would stay on the open line between 6.09am - 7.30am. He had been instructed to after the line had been cleared.
-
Millbank taking a 999 call at 6.09am. From inside WHF.
Then not informing anyone & staying on the line until the police entered WHF at 7.30am. Although no one was speaking to him on the phone.
The police knowing Millbank had taken a call from inside WHF. Telling him 'we are inside now'.
----------
There is only one reason why Millbank would stay on the open line between 6.09am - 7.30am. He had been instructed to after the line had been cleared.
Well, we are just guessing at the moment, Adam, but as you say, it is unlikely that Milbank simply answered a 999 call at 6.09 and continued to monitor it for an hour and a half without being told to do so.
-
Millbank taking a 999 call from inside WHF is similar to the claim that West took a call from Nevill. Or was it Bonnett who took Nevill's call.
The chairs moving and doors opening Millbank mentions would be the raid team. They did smash down a door and move upturned chairs.
-
Seems that Sheila dialled 999 although the police were outside. She did not say anything or put the phone down.
The phone was also off the hook before 6.09am. That must have been Nevill.
Everyone inside WHF was leaving the phone off the hook.
-
Blood relatives Episode 5
999 call at 0609
Heidi Blake (HB) introduced herself to Nick Milbank NM by saying, "Basically, I'm just wondering whether you might be willing to have a chat with me about it and just make sure I'm not completely barking up the wrong tree with the stuff I'm looking at"
NM "Yeah, to be honest, yes, I was, I was on the telephone but it was back in the 80's, my recollection of it. I mean, I'd taken millions and millions of phone calls since then and to be honest, in those days it was just another, just another phone call.
HB - comment Just another phone call, he said.
Nick Milbank (NM)
“From what I remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 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, but I really don’t remember much about it at all to be honest”
Heidi Blake (HB) “Were you in the Control Room and picked up a 999?”
NM “Yes”
“Yeah, yeah, in the central Control Room in Chelmsford”
“I do dispatching most of the time but on that occasion I was call taking and, but, yeah and obviously it came from the 999 system”
HB “So a call came in, and it was from the farmhouse itself?”
NM “Yeah”
NM “If you get a phone call where it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t – it’s technically an abandoned call because people either aren’t speaking or there’s someone who’s in fear or danger or, whatever, our policy is to stay on the phone with them until the police arrive. And then as the police officers would get there, they’d pick up the phone and say, yeah, we’re here now. And so I could then hang up the phone call and go straight to the next 999 call.
HB “Right, OK, yeah, that makes sense”
NM “And so I say I just sat there with the phone open to see if anyone did say anything or I heard anything”.
HB “And you could hear sort of movement in the background?”
NM” As far as I can remember, there was, yes, a movement or voices in the background. I’m, not sure I actually spoke to anybody”
HB. “So Nick Millbank was saying not only did someone dial 999 from inside the Manor that morning before police entered the property, but when he answered, he heard apparent signs of life inside, movements, maybe even speech.
NM “Who actually made the phone call, I don’t know”
HB "This conversation was becoming more and more surreal because Nick Milbank did not seem to realise the gravity of what he was telling me”
HB “I’m just trying to get my head round some of this new stuff and that it does seem like if it’s true that because, you know, that the way it all went down was apparently, you know, Jeremy claims there was a call from his dad to him at 3.00 in the morning saying come round, your sister’s gone berserk with a gun and he went round to the farmhouse and they got there at about 3:48 in the morning and then from that point on, he was stood outside with the police and the police didn’t enter until 7:30 am. So if there was a call from inside the farmhouse, it sort of doesn’t quite make sense that, you know, that would have happened. And because that would indicate that someone was alive and they’re basically, you know, they’re all dead by the time”.
NM “Well, obviously, yeah, yeah”
HB “Well obviously, Nick Milbank said, someone was alive in there”
The police hadn’t entered the property until 7:30 am, so Milbank had been listening in for an hour and 21 minutes before the bodies were found. And he’d heard noises that might have been crucial clues to what was going on in there”.
HB “And so did it sound like, because I think there was meant to be a bit of a struggle in the kitchen. Did it sound like a commotion or did it just sound like, you know,”
NM” Didn’t sound like no, it was just movement, you know, movement really, I don’t know. I can’t remember but I’ll be guessing sort of either a door opening, closing or a chair being moved or, you know, there was some noise or some sort of movement and, then all of a sudden, you know, there were police, sounds of police. 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”.
HB “Who could have made this call? Nevill, June and the twins had all been shot in the head at close range. If someone was alive inside the house after the police turned up, it could only have been Sheila, who was found dead inside the locked Manor holding the murder weapon.
He does nothing of the kind.
-
Please explain the above. There is a difference between 'off the hook' and 'engaged' status which only happens (a) When a call is ended and the hand set is not replaced. There is a howler noise which can be heard and seen (by a light) by the exchange operator and the noise is also played via the handset to the source. It is a time based trigger (b) The system also notifies the operator when the status changes to engaged.
By the time the TFG entered and Milbank had hung up the call the status would be 'off the hook.
The most common cause of off the hook Bubo is when the phone is picked up but no number is dialled the line will then time out after a few minutes.
I am not sure about when a call is ended by the receiver but the line held open by the caller? If the line times out it would be much longer but not sure how long this would take?
-
The most common cause of off the hook Bubo is when the phone is picked up but no number is dialled the line will then time out after a few minutes.
I am not sure about when a call is ended by the receiver but the line held open by the caller? If the line times out it would be much longer but not sure how long this would take?
It does not matter who is the caller and who is the receiver. Which ever side ends the call if the other does not return the handset to the cradle the other party will be without a line for a short period. I do not know how long this was for either an automated exchange or the old Stowager system. Chelmsford was automatic and Tolleshunt D'Arcy was Stowager.
It had to be a relatively short time because the compliant side would be without a functioning phone line and in some cases may have needed to make another maybe emergency call as a result of the initial contact or to make further calls of an urgent nature
-
There is only one reason why Millbank would stay on the open line between 6.09am - 7.30am. He had been instructed to after the line had been cleared.
It was standard operating procedure, as he explained in the podcast. It is also inconceivable that the officers at WHF were not informed about the 999 call
-
It was standard operating procedure, as he explained in the podcast. It is also inconceivable that the officers at WHF were not informed about the 999 call
So do you think enough evidence can be/has been provided to prove Sheila made a 999 call, Bill?
-
With Milibank now deceased I doubt anything can be put forward.
-
So do you think enough evidence can be/has been provided to prove Sheila made a 999 call, Bill?
I think that the point is that the CCRC should investigate; get hold of the Stokenchurch files and view the report. It will confirm that the 999 call was made. It is the CCRC’s responsibility to investigate, something they seem to want to avoid.
-
So do you think enough evidence can be/has been provided to prove Sheila made a 999 call, Bill?
Doesn’t look like it Snow, maybe if the New Yorker show the unedited uncut version like they were asked to do by the CCRC but refused, who knows, but they issued this!
Milbank was promptly contacted by Essex Police and shown what the force said was a handwritten version of the 2002 statement.
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,” it wrote, adding that contemporaneous (existing, occurring, or originating during the same time) records did not mention any 999 call.
So who knows, it will be challenged and might have to be decided elsewhere?
-
Doesn’t look like it Snow, maybe if the New Yorker show the unedited uncut version like they were asked to do by the CCRC but refused, who knows, but they issued this!
Milbank was promptly contacted by Essex Police and shown what the force said was a handwritten version of the 2002 statement.
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,” it wrote, adding that contemporaneous (existing, occurring, or originating during the same time) records did not mention any 999 call.
So who knows, it will be challenged and might have to be decided elsewhere?
Well as Bill says, maybe the Stokenchurch files can clarify things, HB?
You see others must surely know if a call from inside WHF happened, I mean something definitely occurred at 6.09 worthy of being noted in the logs didn't it?
Now whatever did happen at 6.09 it must have been Milbank who reported it, but who did he report it to?
And did Milbank make a note of the event himself?
It is widely believed that it was simply the operator making a link between the police and WHF, but Milbank doesn't mention this to Heidi Blake. And again, Milbank must have written down something regarding the 6.09 call or at least informed someone else who then relayed it to [ Bonnet? West?] or whoever's log it is that the 6.09 reference can be seen?
And if it was the link up at 6.09, why wasn't Milbank told what it was when he reported it? 'was' Milbank told it was the link up and forgot? I dont know, its as if he wasn't aware of a 'planned' link up at all and simply thought that a call had been made from inside the farm? Was it?
Jean Rowe doesn't seem to mention what time the link was made? Was she questioned in the Stokenchurch inquiry? Surely she could have cleared things up there and then? Burrell, what about him?
Did he pass the info from Milbank on to West or Bonnet?
Who else was in the room with Milbank when the 6.09 call occurred? What did they see or hear?
Oh well, we will just have to wait and see what JB and the CT endeavour to do regarding the Milbank call, HB!
-
I think that the point is that the CCRC should investigate; get hold of the Stokenchurch files and view the report. It will confirm that the 999 call was made. It is the CCRC’s responsibility to investigate, something they seem to want to avoid.
OK, thanks, Bill, lets see what action JB and the CT take now to prove that Sheila made the 6.09 call!
-
I suppose, when you think about it, the Stokenchurch inquiry should have uncovered what exactly happened at 6.09?
So we have to ask, why doesn't the police and CCRC just produce the evidence that it was the operator making the link up at 6.09? One has to ask, do they actually 'have' any proof?
And if not, why not??
Are they saying that Milbanks Stokenchurch statement is the proof of the link up at 6.09? If so, all they have to do is produce his original 'signed' statement from 2002.
And if the CCRC 'cant' produce a genuine signed copy, does this mean that Milbank was indeed trlling the truth that he gave no statement to Stokenchurch? And if so, did the police cover up a call from inside WHF?
Surely to god there must be undisputed evidence of a 6.09 link up if it happened?? And if not, well, we can only assume that a call was indeed made from inside WHF at 6.09 while JB was outside with the police!
Yes, I am inclined to agree with Bill, the Stokenchurch files 'should' be able to prove things one way or another.
-
I suppose, when you think about it, the Stokenchurch inquiry should have uncovered what exactly happened at 6.09?
So we have to ask, why doesn't the police and CCRC just produce the evidence that it was the operator making the link up at 6.09? One has to ask, do they actually 'have' any proof?
And if not, why not??
Are they saying that Milbanks Stokenchurch statement is the proof of the link up at 6.09? If so, all they have to do is produce his original 'signed' statement from 2002.
And if the CCRC 'cant' produce a genuine signed copy, does this mean that Milbank was indeed trlling the truth that he gave no statement to Stokenchurch? And if so, did the police cover up a call from inside WHF?
Surely to god there must be undisputed evidence of a 6.09 link up if it happened?? And if not, well, we can only assume that a call was indeed made from inside WHF at 6.09 while JB was outside with the police!
Yes, I am inclined to agree with Bill, the Stokenchurch files 'should' be able to prove things one way or another.
The evidence is Burrell's 1985 WS.
The phone was off the hook when checked earlier. As the crime scene photos show.
-
The evidence is Burrell's 1985 WS.
The phone was off the hook when checked earlier. As the crime scene photos show.
Yes, Burrell says that the link was made at 6.09 'and then' Milbank monitored it!
No mention of Milbank answering any call.
So according to Burrell the link was established and then Milbank was instructed to monitor it!
But how on earth could Milbank have forgot this and imagined he answered a call??
Indeed, Milband told Heidi, 'from what I can remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 and me answering it' or words to that effect! No mention of being told to monitor the line!
-
Yes, Burrell says that the link was made at 6.09 'and then' Milbank monitored it!
No mention of Milbank answering any call.
So according to Burrell the link was established and then Milbank was instructed to monitor it!
But how on earth could Milbank have forgot this and imagined he answered a call??
Maybe 999 or the White House Farm number flashed up on a screen. But nobody spoke. Unlike Sheila, according to the Helen Grimster statement, and FA said she was ranting and raving whilst having her second breakdown, so if this was her third the lack of any speech does stretch credibility.
-
Maybe 999 or the White House Farm number flashed up on a screen. But nobody spoke. Unlike Sheila, according to the Helen Grimster statement, and FA said she was ranting and raving whilst having her second breakdown, so if this was her third the lack of any speech does stretch credibility.
Well, there are just too many 'maybes' in the mean time, Steve! No mention of how Milbank knew where the alleged 999 call was coming from at the moment! If it flashed on a screen, why didn't he say so?
-
Well, either it was Sheila making a 999 call or it was the operator making the link from the farm to the police at 6.09, how this can be proven one way or the other is beyond me? Not enough details at the moment!
Maybe the CT should investigate the 'phone engaged' at 5.47 log like Bubo says? Like finding out who wrote it and exactly what it means?
The contemporaneously made log shows that 6:09, "999" was being used to listen in to WHF.
-
It was standard operating procedure, as he explained in the podcast. It is also inconceivable that the officers at WHF were not informed about the 999 call
So why did those officers keep quiet about it?
-
I think that the point is that the CCRC should investigate; get hold of the Stokenchurch files and view the report. It will confirm that the 999 call was made. It is the CCRC’s responsibility to investigate, something they seem to want to avoid.
Why would Stokenchurch make a record of exculpatory information and hide it?
-
The contemporaneously made log shows that 6:09, "999" was being used to listen in to WHF.
Yes, the log certainly seems to indicate the link being made at 6.09, Dan!
What do you make of the line being engaged at 5.47? How can we explain that?
-
Yes, the log certainly seems to indicate the link being made at 6.09, Dan!
What do you make of the line being engaged at 5.47? How can we explain that?
If we take it literally, like the Campaign Team do, we have Sheila making more calls that Alexander Bell.
I am just old enough to remember from the 80s and the 90s that if a phone is "off the hook", you get the same tone as "engaged".
For example, once or twice I rang by boss just after 6pm (I was a paper boy, I can't remember why) and I thought the phone was engaged, so I tried several times. It wasn't. He closed at 6 and took the phone off the hook to get peace and quiet from any customers trying to ring him whilst he had tea.
-
If we take it literally, like the Campaign Team do, we have Sheila making more calls that Alexander Bell.
I am just old enough to remember from the 80s and the 90s that if a phone is "off the hook", you get the same tone as "engaged".
For example, once or twice I rang by boss just after 6pm (I was a paper boy, I can't remember why) and I thought the phone was engaged, so I tried several times. It wasn't. He closed at 6 and took the phone off the hook to get peace and quiet from any customers trying to ring him whilst he had tea.
So, in your opinion, JB left the phone in the kitchen off the hook after he had murdered his family around 2.30 and it stayed that way until after the crime scene photos were taken around 11.00 o'clock the next morning then Dan?
-
So, in your opinion, JB left the phone in the kitchen off the hook after he had murdered his family around 2.30 and it stayed that way until after the crime scene photos were taken around 11.00 o'clock the next morning then Dan?
It's the same day though, Snow66! Strange Jean Rowe heard a dog barking, but Milbank claimed to hear what he thought were voices. I can't help but think he was inventing things, though for what reason I don't know.
-
So, in your opinion, JB left the phone in the kitchen off the hook after he had murdered his family around 2.30 and it stayed that way until after the crime scene photos were taken around 11.00 o'clock the next morning then Dan?
No Snow, engaged means the line is busy.
In those days resources were limited so a off the hook telephone set a alarm on at the exchange to warn the operator.
So to go from off the hook to engaged someone had to replace the handset and dial out. Unless the operator made a mistake and recorded engaged when they meant off the hook.
-
So, in your opinion, JB left the phone in the kitchen off the hook after he had murdered his family around 2.30 and it stayed that way until after the crime scene photos were taken around 11.00 o'clock the next morning then Dan?
Correct. Sheila did not make umpteen phone calls.
-
It's the same day though, Snow66! Strange Jean Rowe heard a dog barking, but Milbank claimed to hear what he thought were voices. I can't help but think he was inventing things, though for what reason I don't know.
The voices would be the challenges to the house, Adam’s makes a note that GPR could hear dog barking and challenges to the house. The challenges carried on so it’s probably what Millbank heard?
-
It's the same day though, Snow66! Strange Jean Rowe heard a dog barking, but Milbank claimed to hear what he thought were voices. I can't help but think he was inventing things, though for what reason I don't know.
Was it Jean Rowe who made the link ay 6.09, Steve? If so, why wasn't she asked to confirm this for the Stokenchurch enquiry? Or was she?
-
The voices would be the challenges to the house, Adam’s makes a note that GPR could hear dog barking and challenges to the house. The challenges carried on so it’s probably what Millbank heard?
Yes, that's possible Hardy Boy. Maybe a boom from the loudhailer.
-
No Snow, engaged means the line is busy.
In those days resources were limited so a off the hook telephone set a alarm on at the exchange to warn the operator.
So to go from off the hook to engaged someone had to replace the handset and dial out. Unless the operator made a mistake and recorded engaged when they meant off the hook.
Thanks, Rob! As I told Bubo, I am hopeless with anything technical, even the workings of a phone!
-
Correct. Sheila did not make umpteen phone calls.
Ha ha! Well she didn't make 'any' calls at all if JB is guilty, Dan!
-
Ha ha! Well she didn't make 'any' calls at all if JB is guilty, Dan!
Exactly. Had any phone call genuinely been made, it would have been Nevill to 999.
-
OK, so I have just listened to the latest Sonia Poulson podcast with Philip Walker and it answers some of our questions about the Milbank call!
In fact it is us who forgot about one very important point, or at least I did anyway.
That is, the fact that when you dial 999 the operator asks you what service you require, ie., police, fire or ambulance! At least thats what it was in those days, remember?
So Sheila must have phoned the operator who then put the 999 call through to Milbank, which makes sense!
In fact I think thats what Bill was suggesting earlier on.
Anyway, that answers why Milbank knew where the call came from!
-
OK, so I have just listened to the latest Sonia Poulson podcast with Philip Walker and it answers some of our questions about the Milbank call!
In fact it is us who forgot about one very important point, or at least I did anyway.
That is, the fact that when you dial 999 the operator asks you what service you require, ie., police, fire or ambulance! At least thats what it was in those days, remember?
So Sheila must have phoned the operator who then put the 999 call through to Milbank, which makes sense!
In fact I think thats what Bill was suggesting earlier on.
Anyway, that answers why Milbank knew where the call came from!
That is a good point. Would a 999 call go straight to Milbank.
If not, good luck in finding the operator.
-
Bamber left the phone off the hook. As the crime scene photos show.
Burrell tried twice and found the line to be engaged.
The line was cleared at 6.09am and monitored by Milbank. Until officers entered WHF.
But appreciate supporters will be fully on board that Sheila dialled 999.
-
OK, so I have just listened to the latest Sonia Poulson podcast with Philip Walker and it answers some of our questions about the Milbank call!
In fact it is us who forgot about one very important point, or at least I did anyway.
That is, the fact that when you dial 999 the operator asks you what service you require, ie., police, fire or ambulance! At least thats what it was in those days, remember?
So Sheila must have phoned the operator who then put the 999 call through to Milbank, which makes sense!
In fact I think thats what Bill was suggesting earlier on.
Anyway, that answers why Milbank knew where the call came from!
On Wednesday 7 August 1985 I was the Duty Sergeant in the Force
Information Roon at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford. At about 03.45 hours I became aware of the an incident in the
Tolleshunt D'Arcy area. At 03.56 I caused the Telecom Operator to check the line on a Maldon number 860209. This was done and I was told that the
telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
and was thereafter constantly monitored by Pc Millbank.
Inspector D Burrell.
Jean Rowe was asked to listen in ABOUT 5.50am, she did so and was asked to connect the two lines which she eventually did, the police could THEN monitor it from police HQ, Jean Rowe the OPERATOR played no further part AFTER SHE CONNECTED THE TWO LINES.
-
OK, so I have just listened to the latest Sonia Poulson podcast with Philip Walker and it answers some of our questions about the Milbank call!
In fact it is us who forgot about one very important point, or at least I did anyway.
That is, the fact that when you dial 999 the operator asks you what service you require, ie., police, fire or ambulance! At least thats what it was in those days, remember?
So Sheila must have phoned the operator who then put the 999 call through to Milbank, which makes sense!
In fact I think thats what Bill was suggesting earlier on.
Anyway, that answers why Milbank knew where the call came from!
The Operator States, she Played no further part once she had connected the two lines which enabled POLICE HQ to monitor it through the 999 system. How does Millbank receive a 999 call when the line he’s listening to is already connected to WHF and the operator played no further part?
You don’t think that this has something to do with Millbank and the supposed 999 call then do you or was Coincidental"…… telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog Barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
-
Yes, Burrell says that the link was made at 6.09 'and then' Milbank monitored it!
No mention of Milbank answering any call.
So according to Burrell the link was established and then Milbank was instructed to monitor it!
But how on earth could Milbank have forgot this and imagined he answered a call??
Indeed, Milband told Heidi, 'from what I can remember it was a case of someone ringing 999 and me answering it' or words to that effect! No mention of being told to monitor the line!
That someone could have been Jean Rowe connecting the two lines up, she might have thought Millbank knew what was going to happen and just rang through and Connected it to Millbank’s 999. All she did was what she was asked to do, Connect the two lines up so Millbank could monitor WHF. That’s why he said NO ONE SPOKE, she didn’t even listen in to WHF this time, she was very busy making other Alarm calls for British Telecom and played no further part. She makes no reference to ever receiving a 999 call from WHF. Don’t forget, this happened 40 years ago for Millbank.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3356.0;attach=23347;image
-
Jean Rowe's 1985 WS says the WHF phone was off the hook at 4.00am and 5.40am. As the crime scene photos show.
She was then asked to connect the line to the police HQ. Once done the line was continually monitored by Milbank from 6.09am. As Burrell's 1985 WS says.
Not sure how that is going to be turned around to 'Sheila dialled 999' to persuade the CCRC.
-
It also needs to be determined if a 999 call from inside WHF would go straight to Milbank.
If it went to an operator first, it needs to be determined if the operator would have passed it to Milbank.
Sheila would have had to speak to the operator. She then didn't speak to Milbank.
The CCRC would have investigated this.
-
The Operator States, she Played no further part once she had connected the two lines which enabled POLICE HQ to monitor it through the 999 system. How does Millbank receive a 999 call when the line he’s listening to is already connected to WHF and the operator played no further part?
You don’t think that this has something to do with Millbank and the supposed 999 call then do you or was Coincidental"…… telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog Barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
I have serious concerns over the Burrell statement which was made after the event and does not agree with the CD log, a contemporaneous document.
Why was he asking for a line check at 05.55am when the log says that the phone was engaged at 05.47am. Eight minutes earlier. There is another entry at 05.50 which says the GPO will monitor the line and let them know if they hear anything and that he (HQ Burrell) had been informed.
There was no good reason to recheck the line at 05.55am according to the log and information which he had been given before 05.55am
This suggests that the Burrell statement may be faked.
-
It also needs to be determined if a 999 call from inside WHF would go straight to Milbank.
If it went to an operator first, it needs to be determined if the operator would have passed it to Milbank.
Sheila would have had to speak to the operator. She then didn't speak to Milbank.
The CCRC would have investigated this.
Because the two lines was connected, if Sheila dialled 999 it would have to go to the Operator I would have thought, Millbank was already connected to WHF, for Sheila to ring out she would have to break the connection between the two lines, was it possible for Sheila to break this connection if it was made via the operator and Police? Also Jean Rowe say’s she had no further involvement once the connection was made.
-
I have serious concerns over the Burrell statement which was made after the event and does not agree with the CD log, a contemporaneous document.
Why was he asking for a line check at 05.55am when the log says that the phone was engaged at 05.47am. Eight minutes earlier. There is another entry at 05.50 which says the GPO will monitor the line and let them know if they hear anything and that he (HQ Burrell) had been informed.
There was no good reason to recheck the line at 05.55am according to the log and information which he had been given before 05.55am
This suggests that the Burrell statement may be faked.
Without Checking, I think it was Adam’s who put in a request for the Lines to be monitored directly by the police? I will try to find this.
-
I have serious concerns over the Burrell statement which was made after the event and does not agree with the CD log, a contemporaneous document.
Why was he asking for a line check at 05.55am when the log says that the phone was engaged at 05.47am. Eight minutes earlier. There is another entry at 05.50 which says the GPO will monitor the line and let them know if they hear anything and that he (HQ Burrell) had been informed.
There was no good reason to recheck the line at 05.55am according to the log and information which he had been given before 05.55am
This suggests that the Burrell statement may be faked.
Maybe Burrell was asked to make a statement once it became a murder investigation instead of a murder suicide?
Burrell’s statement faked ok.
-
What seems clear is the WHF phone was off the hook at 4.00am. When first checked by Jean Rowe.
So was taken off the hook by Bamber before he exited WHF.
Or left off the hook by Nevill when he called Bamber at 3.10am.
Not sure why Nevill would leave the phone off the hook. It would not save him any time. He had time to ring & speak. Bamber also said the line went dead.
-
What seems clear is the WHF phone was off the hook at 4.00am. When first checked by Jean Rowe.
So was taken off the hook by Bamber before he exited WHF.
Or left off the hook by Nevill when he called Bamber at 3.10am.
Not sure why Nevill would leave the phone off the hook. It would not save him any time. He had time to ring & speak. Bamber also said the line went dead.
If Sheila was to make a call from WHF she would have to break the connection, not sure she could have done this from WHF if the connection had been made via the Operator. She would also have had to place the receiver down for a number of minutes before she would be able to call out to clear the lines and connection, If she was able to do all this, she did so and then said Nothing?
-
What seems clear is the WHF phone was off the hook at 4.00am. When first checked by Jean Rowe.
So was taken off the hook by Bamber before he exited WHF.
Or left off the hook by Nevill when he called Bamber at 3.10am.
Not sure why Nevill would leave the phone off the hook. It would not save him any time. He had time to ring & speak. Bamber also said the line went dead.
It was a simple request that’s all, connect WHF to the Police headquarters via the 999 system, that way the Police could monitor the phone line constantly before entry without going through the Operator.
-
If Sheila was to make a call from WHF she would have to break the connection, not sure she could have done this from WHF if the connection had been made via the Operator. She would also have had to place the receiver down for a number of minutes before she would be able to call out to clear the lines and connection, If she was able to do all this, she did so and then said Nothing?
Remember that there is no TOD for the victims. Therefore any call attempted at 05.47 could have been made by SC, June or NB. I think you will find that if the handset was returned to the cradle it would immediately render the line operable. There would be no waiting time because there was no link in place from an earlier call.
-
If we take it literally, like the Campaign Team do, we have Sheila making more calls that Alexander Bell.
I am just old enough to remember from the 80s and the 90s that if a phone is "off the hook", you get the same tone as "engaged".
For example, once or twice I rang by boss just after 6pm (I was a paper boy, I can't remember why) and I thought the phone was engaged, so I tried several times. It wasn't. He closed at 6 and took the phone off the hook to get peace and quiet from any customers trying to ring him whilst he had tea.
You are 100% correct. That is why only the operator can get a true reading of the line status from information presented to them on their switchboard. If West had dialled WHF he would have got an engaged tone and this is why he asked for a line check at 03.42am
-
Remember that there is no TOD for the victims. Therefore any call attempted at 05.47 could have been made by SC, June or NB. I think you will find that if the handset was returned to the cradle it would immediately render the line operable. There would be no waiting time because there was no link in place from an earlier call.
So your saying the call came in at 5.47 am then Bubo and not 6.09am. Incidentally I helped saved an OWL yesterday, it was caught in fishing line on the far side of the Canal, just hanging over the water.
-
If we take it literally, like the Campaign Team do, we have Sheila making more calls that Alexander Bell.
I am just old enough to remember from the 80s and the 90s that if a phone is "off the hook", you get the same tone as "engaged".
For example, once or twice I rang by boss just after 6pm (I was a paper boy, I can't remember why) and I thought the phone was engaged, so I tried several times. It wasn't. He closed at 6 and took the phone off the hook to get peace and quiet from any customers trying to ring him whilst he had tea.
Yes Sheila was making these calls and Saying nothing at all.
-
Remember that there is no TOD for the victims. Therefore any call attempted at 05.47 could have been made by SC, June or NB. I think you will find that if the handset was returned to the cradle it would immediately render the line operable. There would be no waiting time because there was no link in place from an earlier call.
So Neville or June could have been alive at 5.47am when the police were outside trying to communicate via Loudspeaker?
-
So your saying the call came in at 5.47 am then Bubo and not 6.09am. Incidentally I helped saved an OWL yesterday, it was caught in fishing line on the far side of the Canal, just hanging over the water.
We do not know exactly when the call was made. The time was based on the line check by the operator. This development would mean that the police had to make a plan and would have required authority from those at the scene as to what action should be taken. The line checking was re-enforced by a request at 05.45am (see log) A decision was made and the line switched at 06.09. It seems to me that HQ and CD would not make the decision without seeking direction from more senior officers (Maybe Adams) at the scene,
What was the species of the owl.
-
So Neville or June could have been alive at 5.47am when the police were outside trying to communicate via Loudspeaker?
It is a possibility. We do not know their physical state at this time or their precise location in relation to the phone and whether they were able to respond without putting themselves in further danger.
-
We do not know exactly when the call was made. The time was based on the line check by the operator. This development would mean that the police had to make a plan and would have required authority from those at the scene as to what action should be taken. The line checking was re-enforced by a request at 05.45am (see log) A decision was made and the line switched at 06.09. It seems to me that HQ and CD would not make the decision without seeking direction from more senior officers (Maybe Adams) at the scene,
What was the species of the owl.
I don’t know Bubo, it was on the far bank, I tried to contact the rangers and couldn’t get through, I then tried to contact the RSPCA and no answer, so I made a cycle dash of about three miles to look for the Rangers, I managed to get someone in the office who alerted the ground Rangers, who eventually rescued it. It was hanging over the water so I couldn’t get to the far bank. The amount of fishing line hanging from the trees is shocking.
-
We do not know exactly when the call was made. The time was based on the line check by the operator. This development would mean that the police had to make a plan and would have required authority from those at the scene as to what action should be taken. The line checking was re-enforced by a request at 05.45am (see log) A decision was made and the line switched at 06.09. It seems to me that HQ and CD would not make the decision without seeking direction from more senior officers (Maybe Adams) at the scene,
What was the species of the owl.
Im pretty certain it was Adam’s who made the Request for it to be monitored, I can’t find it anywhere but I’m sure I’ve read it.
Incidentally Jean Rowe’s statement is signed on the 8th of August 1985 where she says she connected the two line for the police to listen in?
-
Whatever is or isn't confirmed by Milbank, the recent statement produced by Essex Police is bizarre.
-
Whatever is or isn't confirmed by Milbank, the recent statement produced by Essex Police is bizarre.
What are they saying, Roch?
-
I don’t know Bubo, it was on the far bank, I tried to contact the rangers and couldn’t get through, I then tried to contact the RSPCA and no answer, so I made a cycle dash of about three miles to look for the Rangers, I managed to get someone in the office who alerted the ground Rangers, who eventually rescued it. It was hanging over the water so I couldn’t get to the far bank. The amount of fishing line hanging from the trees is shocking.
Thanks for that. Birds and other animals are regularly trapped by nylon lines. I have no objections to fishing but those who fish owe a duty of care to other wildlife and unfortunately some do not ensure that they have not left their spot clean. Overhead casting near trees often leads to lines being caught up.
-
Whatever is or isn't confirmed by Milbank, the recent statement produced by Essex Police is bizarre.
Do you mean this Roch, don’t forget Essex police will have hold of the original copy signed. Any copies that others have will just have the persons name on them? You seen Jean Rowe’s statement says it’s signed, but technically it’s not got her signature on, I think this might be an area that Millbank was dubious about and caught him out, he said it would have his signatures on if he had made the statement, when in fact Heidi was right it didn’t have his signature it just had his name.
Essex Police's actions focused on using a subsequent statement and newly found original document to counter the article's claims via the official CCRC process, rather than issuing a public dismissal of the article itself.
Essex Police's Response
Essex Police responded by providing the CCRC with the following:
The original handwritten statement from Milbank, seemingly signed by him, from 2002.
A new statement from Milbank, dated September 10, 2024, in which he claimed: "I have never to my knowledge spoken to The New Yorker."
This new information presented a direct contradiction to the claims made in the magazine and was used by the CCRC to state that any concerns arising from what Milbank told the magazine had "fallen away".
-
Thanks for that. Birds and other animals are regularly trapped by nylon lines. I have no objections to fishing but those who fish owe a duty of care to other wildlife and unfortunately some do not ensure that they have not left their spot clean. Overhead casting near trees often leads to lines being caught up.
The day before someone had spotted a Goshawk, I watch Kingfishers regular and Cormorants. The problem with the fishing lines, the far bank is not accessible to retrieve any trapped fishing lines, they have to do it by the Narrow boats.
-
Well, either it was Sheila making a 999 call or it was the operator making the link from the farm to the police at 6.09, how this can be proven one way or the other is beyond me? Not enough details at the moment!
Maybe the CT should investigate the 'phone engaged' at 5.47 log like Bubo says? Like finding out who wrote it and exactly what it means?
There are plenty of details!
Wednesday 7 August 1985 I was the Duty Sergeant in the Force
Information Roon at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford. At about 03.45 hours I became aware of the an incident in the
Tolleshunt D'Arcy area. At 03.56 I caused the Telecom Operator to check the line on a Maldon number 860209. This was done and I was told that the
telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
and was thereafter constantly monitored by Pc Millbank.
Inspector D Burrell.
I am not allowed to engage the Direct Energency Police line so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line. I didn' listen to the line at all this time as I was engaged in making alarm calls end other British Telecon
Services. I went off duty at 8.00 ah. on the 7th August 1965 and at that stage the
Police were still monitoring the line.
I had no further involvement
since I had connected the two, I had no idea what had happened.
(Signed) J Rowe
This signature was on the 8th of August the day after the nurders.
-
There are plenty of details!
Wednesday 7 August 1985 I was the Duty Sergeant in the Force
Information Roon at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford. At about 03.45 hours I became aware of the an incident in the
Tolleshunt D'Arcy area. At 03.56 I caused the Telecom Operator to check the line on a Maldon number 860209. This was done and I was told that the
telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
and was thereafter constantly monitored by Pc Millbank.
Inspector D Burrell.
I am not allowed to engage the Direct Energency Police line so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line. I didn' listen to the line at all this time as I was engaged in making alarm calls end other British Telecon
Services. I went off duty at 8.00 ah. on the 7th August 1965 and at that stage the
Police were still monitoring the line.
I had no further involvement
since I had connected the two, I had no idea what had happened.
(Signed) J Rowe
This signature was on the 8th of August the day after the nurders.
Possibly an explanation about Jean Rowe saying she wasn’t allowed to engage the direct Emergency Police line, I would think Jean Rowe could not tie up the Whole Emergency line to HQ because that would stop her or any Operator being able to direct other 999 calls to HQ, so what she did she connected WHF to HQ via a Specific phone that happened to be where Millbank was. HQ would have had more than one phone to deal with Emergencies.
-
There are plenty of details!
Wednesday 7 August 1985 I was the Duty Sergeant in the Force
Information Roon at Police Headquarters, Chelmsford. At about 03.45 hours I became aware of the an incident in the
Tolleshunt D'Arcy area. At 03.56 I caused the Telecom Operator to check the line on a Maldon number 860209. This was done and I was told that the
telephone receiver was off its rest. At 05.55 I caused a second check to be made with the same result
accompanied by a report of a dog barking. At 06.09 hours this open line was linked up with our "999" call line
and was thereafter constantly monitored by Pc Millbank.
Inspector D Burrell.
I am not allowed to engage the Direct Energency Police line so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line. I didn' listen to the line at all this time as I was engaged in making alarm calls end other British Telecon
Services. I went off duty at 8.00 ah. on the 7th August 1965 and at that stage the
Police were still monitoring the line.
I had no further involvement
since I had connected the two, I had no idea what had happened.
(Signed) J Rowe
This signature was on the 8th of August the day after the nurders.
What do you make of the phone being engaged at 5.47, HB?
-
What do you make of the phone being engaged at 5.47, HB?
Nothing really, the issue is about Millbank and the 6.09 am 999 connection, without exact knowledge all I know is that When you rang a number in the 1980s and the phone was off the hook, you would typically hear a busy signal (or engaged tone). Jean Rowe was constantly being asked to check the line for any updates, and at the same time she was dealing with other Emergency calls or operative duties?
I know for a fact, if I rang my parents house back then and they had left the phone off the hook, it gave an Engaged sound, it doesn’t mean they were using it though.
You could argue all day about different wording snow, I might say engaged and someone else might say busy, and it could also mean off the hook! At the end of the day, a phone left off the hook is also Engaged because it’s prevented an incoming call.
-
Nothing really, the issue is about Millbank and the 6.09 am 999 connection, without exact knowledge all I know is that When you rang a number in the 1980s and the phone was off the hook, you would typically hear a busy signal (or engaged tone). Jean Rowe was constantly being asked to check the line for any updates, and at the same time she was dealing with other Emergency calls or operative duties?
I know for a fact, if I rang my parents house back then and they had left the phone off the hook, it gave an Engaged sound, it doesn’t mean they were using it though.
You could argue all day about different wording snow, I might say engaged and someone else might say busy, and it could also mean off the hook! At the end of the day, a phone left off the hook is also Engaged because it’s prevented an incoming call.
Are you suggesting that professionally trained telephone operators do not have a consistent terminology for the status of telephone lines.
-
Are you suggesting that professionally trained telephone operators do not have a consistent terminology for the status of telephone lines.
Not at all, I never said that, if you look at Jean Rowe’s statement she gave it as Open at 5.40 am and still open at 5.50 am, I merely gave a comparison, an Off the hook Phone can be considered engaged to some people? I gave an example, at my parents house, to me it was engaged but it was off the hook.
-
Nothing really, the issue is about Millbank and the 6.09 am 999 connection, without exact knowledge all I know is that When you rang a number in the 1980s and the phone was off the hook, you would typically hear a busy signal (or engaged tone). Jean Rowe was constantly being asked to check the line for any updates, and at the same time she was dealing with other Emergency calls or operative duties?
I know for a fact, if I rang my parents house back then and they had left the phone off the hook, it gave an Engaged sound, it doesn’t mean they were using it though.
You could argue all day about different wording snow, I might say engaged and someone else might say busy, and it could also mean off the hook! At the end of the day, a phone left off the hook is also Engaged because it’s prevented an incoming call.
OK, thanks, HB.
-
Not at all, I never said that, if you look at Jean Rowe’s statement she gave it as Open at 5.40 am and still open at 5.50 am, I merely gave a comparison, an Off the hook Phone can be considered engaged to some people? I gave an example, at my parents house, to me it was engaged but it was off the hook.
For her off the hook meant the line was open meaning there was no fault with the system. I find it strange that she does not remember telling that the line had become engaged nor is there any mention of West's call at 03.42am. Nor is there any mention of being asked to monitor the line.
Why does she talk about the 999 line and the protocols that were in place regarding rules around access? Why was she reluctant to use it? Why did she use another method to switch the line?
Answer; The police asked her to do it.
Next question; How did the police at IR know they needed to access the 999 system.
Answer; they were told there was a 999 call.
Next question. Who told the police at IR there was a 999 call
.
Answer; It can only have been Jean Rowe when she told them the line was engaged at 05.47 West's log.
-
For her off the hook meant the line was open meaning there was no fault with the system. I find it strange that she does not remember telling that the line had become engaged nor is there any mention of West's call at 03.42am. Nor is there any mention of being asked to monitor the line.
Why does she talk about the 999 line and the protocols that were in place regarding rules around access? Why was she reluctant to use it? Why did she use another method to switch the line?
Answer; The police asked her to do it.
Next question; How did the police at IR know they needed to access the 999 system.
Answer; they were told there was a 999 call.
Next question. Who told the police at IR there was a 999 call
.
Answer; It can only have been Jean Rowe when she told them the line was engaged at 05.47 West's log.
I thought the Police asked her to connect to HQ?
I again informed the caller of this and he hung up. le about 5.50 a.m. the same day the came caller come on the phone again and asked 1f it was possible to put this number through to the Police Headquarters to enable then to monitor it. I a not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line.
So what she did, she just phoned the police headquarters and connected it via a phone that was in there, she didn’t even listen in this time just connected the two lines. She couldn’t tie up the Emergency line itself in case other callers needed an emergency.
No mention about receiving a 999 call from Jean Rowe.
-
Are you suggesting that professionally trained telephone operators do not have a consistent terminology for the status of telephone lines.
Well, West said the GPO operator said off the hook, Jean Rowe uses the same wording off the hook and also uses Open Phone line, so yes it looks like they do use different wording terminology.
-
I thought the Police asked her to connect to HQ?
I again informed the caller of this and he hung up. le about 5.50 a.m. the same day the came caller come on the phone again and asked 1f it was possible to put this number through to the Police Headquarters to enable then to monitor it. I a not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line.
So what she did, she just phoned the police headquarters and connected it via a phone that was in there, she didn’t even listen in this time just connected the two lines. She couldn’t tie up the Emergency line itself in case other callers needed an emergency.
No mention about receiving a 999 call from Jean Rowe.
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?
-
Well, West said the GPO operator said off the hook, Jean Rowe uses the same wording off the hook and also uses Open Phone line, so yes it looks like they do use different wording terminology.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
???
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.
-
???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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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'
-
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.
-
Apparently the document from Burrell is a memo not a statement. Don't know what difference that makes.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
A childish response that is not worthy of you. I prefer your well presented argumentative style.
He must have known there was a difference to call for a line check.
-
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.
Well to me Engaged and off the hook are similar, if it’s of the hook it could be engaged by someone using it.
-
A childish response that is not worthy of you. I prefer your well presented argumentative style.
He must have known there was a difference to call for a line check.
Its not me who is throwing all these different permutations in, it’s you and now Rob. If Sheila rang at 5.47 and said nothing who rang twenty minutes later at 6.09 am and said nothing? The argument is, there was a 999 call at 6.09 am.
-
Its not me who is throwing all these different permutations in, it’s you and now Rob. If Sheila rang at 5.47 and said nothing who rang twenty minutes later at 6.09 am and said nothing? The argument is, there was a 999 call at 6.09 am.
I think the 06.09am record became the starting point because of the Stokenchurch enquiry. They had documentation which mentions a 999 call. It then became named as the focal point rather than the 05.47 engaged reading in the log. Even if they saw the log entry it continued to be talked about as the 999 call. There are documented records that refer to a 999 call. Events are often given names that 'chime' even though they are not the genesis of the event
-
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.
I honestly don’t know how you can say that the statements were faked, when there are logs to prove that these requests were made anyway, you have researched it like the New Yorker and not studied the full facts, or you’ve nit purposely reported the full facts as might be the case with the New Yorker.
If your going to claim something at least give the full facts!
From the Logs WEST
6.06am. GPO to switch house phone to HQIR via 9 system.
IR (information room)
6.09am open 999 line set up (direct) to the house with phone off hook.
Was this faked as well do you think?
-
I honestly don’t know how you can say that the statements were faked, when there are logs to prove that these requests were made anyway, you have researched it like the New Yorker and not studied the full facts, or you’ve nit purposely reported the full facts as might be the case with the New Yorker.
If your going to claim something at least give the full facts!
From the Logs WEST
6.06am. GPO to switch house phone to HQIR via 9 system.
IR (information room)
6.09am open 999 line set up (direct) to the house with phone off hook.
Was this faked as well do you think?
I still say you left out the West log showing that there was record of GPO switching the house phone to HQIR via 9 System.
-
I still say you left out the West log showing that there was record of GPO switching the house phone to HQIR via 9 System.
To my knowledge there is no '9' system. I have taken the view that some of the text was lost when MT copied it. Some people have suggested to mike ( RIP) to get a new scanner because there are many examples of difficult to read documents. It would be good if the CT had a better copy and posted it. In Mike's defence he has copied hundreds of documents for the benefit of board members and some may well be copies of copies and this can mean that bits go missing.
-
To my knowledge there is no '9' system. I have taken the view that some of the text was lost when MT copied it. Some people have suggested to mike ( RIP) to get a new scanner because there are many examples of difficult to read documents. It would be good if the CT had a better copy and posted it. In Mike's defence he has copied hundreds of documents for the benefit of board members and some may well be copies of copies and this can mean that bits go missing.
It is clear that bits are missing or distorted and there are some where the loss is not total and there are remains but you can deduce the words from what is left. This effect is repeated in other parts of this log and other documents. The times are almost missing in some parts.
-
I honestly don’t know how you can say that the statements were faked, when there are logs to prove that these requests were made anyway, you have researched it like the New Yorker and not studied the full facts, or you’ve nit purposely reported the full facts as might be the case with the New Yorker.
If your going to claim something at least give the full facts!
From the Logs WEST
6.06am. GPO to switch house phone to HQIR via 9 system.
IR (information room)
6.09am open 999 line set up (direct) to the house with phone off hook.
Was this faked as well do you think?
I have already given my views on this part of the log earlier. However, I feel I should elaborate my view on the Burrell and Rowe statements being fakes. I think they were doctored to give the impression that there was no 999 call and whilst there are some inconsistencies in their own right in both, in taking this action they have created further inconsistencies with the logs. Once again neither statement is signed.
-
To my knowledge there is no '9' system. I have taken the view that some of the text was lost when MT copied it. Some people have suggested to mike ( RIP) to get a new scanner because there are many examples of difficult to read documents. It would be good if the CT had a better copy and posted it. In Mike's defence he has copied hundreds of documents for the benefit of board members and some may well be copies of copies and this can mean that bits go missing.
I Don’t think there is anything in it, When West said “9 system,” he might simply be using the shorthand that police probably used in the 1980s for the 999 emergency system—both would mean the same thing I would have thought.
It goes without saying that it corresponds with the timing for the request to put WHF telephone through to the 999 system
-
I have already given my views on this part of the log earlier. However, I feel I should elaborate my view on the Burrell and Rowe statements being fakes. I think they were doctored to give the impression that there was no 999 call and whilst there are some inconsistencies in their own right in both, in taking this action they have created further inconsistencies with the logs. Once again neither log is signed.
Do you think the Logs are fake as well?
-
I have already given my views on this part of the log earlier. However, I feel I should elaborate my view on the Burrell and Rowe statements being fakes. I think they were doctored to give the impression that there was no 999 call and whilst there are some inconsistencies in their own right in both, in taking this action they have created further inconsistencies with the logs. Once again neither log is signed.
Here you go again, how many times do you have to be told, the signature page will be stored separately and not given to the Public. Because you claim they are fake, please tell us WHO altered them, does Jean Rowe know and agree and does inspector Burrell know and agree, was it all done with their say so? I’m shifting the Burden off Proof to you now, what part of the WHF statements are not faked? If you’ve already decided any evidence is fake, then we’re not having a real discussion, no point engaging and not wasting my time.
-
It’s a common way that Bubo uses when his arguments are lost, he’s lost because the Jean Rowe and inspector Burrell statements along with back up police logs prove without doubt that there was no 999 call from WHF.
If the documents are fake… and the inconsistencies created by the supposed faking are also fake… and the lack of signatures is definitely fake too. Its amazing how everything is FAKE except the part he happens to believe.”
The Evidence
The phone inside White House Farm never made a 999 call.
Two people who were directly involved at the time—GPO operator Jean Rowe and Inspector Burrell—both said the same thing in their statements: the phone was simply off the hook, and Rowe connected it to the police 999 line herself because the police asked her to.
This means the police were listening to an open phone line, not to a 999 call made by anyone in the house.
-
It’s a common way that Bubo uses when his arguments are lost, he’s lost because the Jean Rowe and inspector Burrell statements along with back up police logs prove without doubt that there was no 999 call from WHF.
If the documents are fake… and the inconsistencies created by the supposed faking are also fake… and the lack of signatures is definitely fake too. Its amazing how everything is FAKE except the part he happens to believe.”
The Evidence
The phone inside White House Farm never made a 999 call.
Two people who were directly involved at the time—GPO operator Jean Rowe and Inspector Burrell—both said the same thing in their statements: the phone was simply off the hook, and Rowe connected it to the police 999 line herself because the police asked her to.
This means the police were listening to an open phone line, not to a 999 call made by anyone in the house.
Jean Rowe says she was not allowed to connect using the emergency line so the way I read her statement is that she rang police HQ on a normal number then made the connection that way?
West says "via 9 system" which following what Bill posted is the emergency line? Milbank obviously thought the call was on the emergency line as well.
-
Jean Rowe says she was not allowed to connect using the emergency line so the way I read her statement is that she rang police HQ on a normal number then made the connection that way?
West says "via 9 system" which following what Bill posted is the emergency line? Milbank obviously thought the call was on the emergency line as well.
All Jean Rowe did, she did what she was asked to do, connect the phone to HQ via the 999 system, she never patched any call through from anyone alive inside WHF and she wasn’t transferring any 999 call as proved by her statement, inspector Burrell’s statement the log written by WEST and the logs from the Incident room, she patched it to one phone in the incident room and didn’t want to tie the whole 9s up in case someone else needed emergency. Sensible thing to do.
I told Bubo the 999 system would be called the 9s for short, that’s not hard to fathom out at all.
-
Strange Jean Rowe heard a dog barking, but Milbank claimed to hear what he thought were voices. I can't help but think he was inventing things, though for what reason I don't know.
In my opinion, he was caught on the hop and disclosing as little as possible. I don't know where he was when Heidi Blake called him - at Essex Police HQ I would imagine.
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-case-has-the-dim-witted-ccrc-been-totally-duped-by-nick-milbank-and-essex-police (https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-case-has-the-dim-witted-ccrc-been-totally-duped-by-nick-milbank-and-essex-police)
-
So can we hear a call from Milbank or not?
-
So can we hear a call from Milbank or not?
Yes, on Spotify - Blood Relatives episode 5
-
In my opinion, he was caught on the hop and disclosing as little as possible. I don't know where he was when Heidi Blake called him - at Essex Police HQ I would imagine.
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-case-has-the-dim-witted-ccrc-been-totally-duped-by-nick-milbank-and-essex-police (https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/jeremy-bamber-case-has-the-dim-witted-ccrc-been-totally-duped-by-nick-milbank-and-essex-police)
So why would be disclose anything at all. If, as you suggest, he didn't want to disclose that Sheila called 999 and he took the call at 6:09, why say anything at all? Why say anything if he was (in effect) on the conspiracy of silence?
-
So why would be disclose anything at all. If, as you suggest, he didn't want to disclose that Sheila called 999 and he took the call at 6:09, why say anything at all? Why say anything if he was (in effect) on the conspiracy of silence?
From my memory of the podcast, I think Milbank said there was a 999 call from WHF he never said it was from Sheila.
-
From my memory of the podcast, I think Milbank said there was a 999 call from WHF he never said it was from Sheila.
Correct
-
Jeremy always contradicted his WS that 'the phone went dead'. As the receiver was off the hook when first checked by Jean Rowe.
At least Sheila knew to dial 999 in an emergency. Rather than look for the number of a Police station over 20 miles away which Bamber & Nevill did. Although a bit late by 6.09am.
Seems that no one told Sheila she is supposed to speak when the phone is answered. Or better still speak to the police who had been outside with a loud speaker for 2 hours.
-
At least Sheila knew to dial 999 in an emergency. Rather than look for the number of a Police station over 20 miles away which Bamber & Nevill did. Although a bit late by 6.09am.
Seems that no one told Sheila she is supposed to speak when the phone is answered. Or better still speak to the police who had been outside with a loud speaker for 2 hours.
In the podcast Jeremy gives a plausible reason why he dialed the local Police Station.
No one will ever know why Sheila didn't speak on the phone, there could be any number of reasons.
-
So why would be disclose anything at all. If, as you suggest, he didn't want to disclose that Sheila called 999 and he took the call at 6:09, why say anything at all? Why say anything if he was (in effect) on the conspiracy of silence?
I suspect that he was discombobulated when something he hoped would never happen was unexpectedly occurring, so he had to suddenly think of something to say.
-
In the podcast Jeremy gives a plausible reason why he dialed the local Police Station.
No one will ever know why Sheila didn't speak on the phone, there could be any number of reasons.
Believe he said he didn't know if it was an emergency. The words 'crazy' & 'gun' at 3.10am suggests it was. He said himself Sheila 'should be locked up'.
Why would Nevill call Chelmsford Police instead of 999?
-
Believe he said he didn't know if it was an emergency. The words 'crazy' & 'gun' at 3.10am suggests it was. He said himself Sheila 'should be locked up'.
Why would Nevill call Chelmsford Police instead of 999?
That is a good point. Reference JBs call descriptions.
-
Jeremy always contradicted his WS that 'the phone went dead'. As the receiver was off the hook when first checked by Jean Rowe.
At least Sheila knew to dial 999 in an emergency. Rather than look for the number of a Police station over 20 miles away which Bamber & Nevill did. Although a bit late by 6.09am.
Seems that no one told Sheila she is supposed to speak when the phone is answered. Or better still speak to the police who had been outside with a loud speaker for 2 hours.
Ha ha, very good, Adam, very good!
-
You can't keep a good " man " down ! Hello All.
A question--------did Milbank know June and Nevill personally ?
-
You can't keep a good " man " down ! Hello All.
A question--------did Milbank know June and Nevill personally ?
More to the point! Very clearly you can't keep a good woman down, either!! Welcome back! Great to see you posting again xx
-
Jeremy in fairness has gone from "my father sounded really frightened I don't think he was kidding " To in the recent podcast " I thought dad would say " For fucks Jeremy why did you phone the police for "
Accept that after 40 years of jail the mind is frazzled.
-
The problem with the phone call is for JB you would expect him to get it bang on though. You can't really use the excuse of " Well it was treated as murder suicide so I kind of forgot how he sounded "
If the phone call happened it's the most probably noteworthy moment of his life.
-
In the podcast Jeremy gives a plausible reason why he dialed the local Police Station.
No one will ever know why Sheila didn't speak on the phone, there could be any number of reasons.
There was some controversy as to whether he telephoned Witham or not. As for his reasons for not dialling 999, the time elapsed from the purported Nevill call to Jeremy and Jeremy speaking to PC West was a convenient interlude for Jeremy to clean himself up after the diablerie he had just committed.
-
I suspect that he was discombobulated when something he hoped would never happen was unexpectedly occurring, so he had to suddenly think of something to say.
So Bill, Milbank has always known Jeremy was innocent and kept quiet about it until Heidi rumbled him - is that what you are saying?
-
So Bill, Milbank has always known Jeremy was innocent and kept quiet about it until Heidi rumbled him - is that what you are saying?
And I thought Woodward & Bernstein were good.
-
Is the podcast only on Spotify?
-
Was there or wasn't there a phone call made at around 6.09am from WHF on that fateful morning?
-
Was there or wasn't there a phone call made at around 6.09am from WHF on that fateful morning?
It seems something happened at 6.09.Handyman, which caused a 999 call to be made to police HQ.
Either Sheila phoned the operator, who then put her 999 call through to police HQ.
or, the operator somehow managed to make a call directly from WHF to police HQ,
Are there any BT operators out there who can explain just how Jean Rowe was able to link the open line in WHF through to police HQ by making a 999 call from inside the farm house?
Is this even possible? Anybody have a clue?
In a nut shell, what exactly did Jean Rowe do at 6.09, technically speaking!
-
It seems something happened at 6.09.Handyman, which caused a 999 call to be made to police HQ.
Either Sheila phoned the operator, who then put her 999 call through to police HQ.
or, the operator somehow managed to make a call directly from WHF to police HQ,
Are there any BT operators out there who can explain just how Jean Rowe was able to link the open line in WHF through to police HQ by making a 999 call from inside the farm house?
Is this even possible? Anybody have a clue?
In a nut shell, what exactly did Jean Rowe do at 6.09, technically speaking!
Or is it even possible that Sheila did not make the call. Neville or June could still be just alive and made the call prior to finally passing.
-
Or is it even possible that Sheila did not make the call. Neville or June could still be just alive and made the call prior to finally passing.
That would be unlikely, Handyman, it would mean that Nevill or June had no head shots at that time!
-
Jeremy in fairness has gone from "my father sounded really frightened I don't think he was kidding " To in the recent podcast " I thought dad would say " For fucks Jeremy why did you phone the police for "
Accept that after 40 years of jail the mind is frazzled.
Was Nevill in the habit of waking his son up in the middle of the night during the busiest time of the year. just kidding, of course?
-
You can't keep a good " man " down ! Hello All.
A question--------did Milbank know June and Nevill personally ?
Welcome back lookout. Milbank was based in Cheltenham, starting work for police in 1974. He'd be around Sheila's age. We're told in the books that Nevill knew the Witham police through his work on the magistrates' bench. I'd be surprised if either of the Bambers knew Milbank personally, but I don't know.
-
Welcome back lookout. Milbank was based in Cheltenham, starting work for police in 1974. He'd be around Sheila's age. We're told in the books that Nevill knew the Witham police through his work on the magistrates' bench. I'd be surprised if either of the Bambers knew Milbank personally, but I don't know.
He would have been too knackered by the commute from Cheltenham to socialize I expect.
-
He would have been too knackered by the commute from Cheltenham to socialize I expect.
Yes, he would, even in the 1980s. Chelmsford might be more doable.
-
I've listened to the New Yorker podcast episodes 5 and 6 - Nick Milbank says "I don't really remember much about it at all to be honest"
Seems to me this is worthless as evidence. Am I missing something?
-
I've listened to the New Yorker podcast episodes 5 and 6 - Nick Milbank says "I don't really remember much about it at all to be honest"
Seems to me this is worthless as evidence. Am I missing something?
Well I suppose it depends if any more documentation is unearthed or other witnesses come forward with information of exactly what happened at 6.09, Jonathan.
-
The Milbank story has been around since 2017 - that's a long time to obtain a sworn affadavit. I haven't heard if Jeremy and his team have got one.
-
The Milbank story has been around since 2017 - that's a long time to obtain a sworn affadavit. I haven't heard if Jeremy and his team have got one.
If the Milibank " Story " Has any merit it's been around since August 1985.
-
You only have to follow the Logs and Statements from West, Inspector Burrell and Jean Rowe and the Incident room made 40 years back, they all show the same thing: WHF wasn’t calling 999, it was being patched into the 9-system so police could monitor an off-the-hook line.” The argument that they were all Fabricated proves nothing and never will?
-
You only have to follow the Logs and Statements from West, Inspector Burrell and Jean Rowe and the Incident room made 40 years back, they all show the same thing: WHF wasn’t calling 999, it was being patched into the 9-system so police could monitor an off-the-hook line.” The argument that they were all Fabricated proves nothing and never will?
This one from the Incident room confirms that the open line was set up at 6.09 am, it says an open 999 Direct line set up, to the house with the phone off the hook. So if something is set up it’s been done intentionally and by a request.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=19546;image
-
This one from the Incident room confirms that the open line was set up at 6.09 am, it says an open 999 Direct line set up, to the house with the phone off the hook. So if something is set up it’s been done intentionally and by a request.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=19546;image
Good find.
The CCRC will have a lot of documents. Some of which are not online.
-
Good find.
The CCRC will have a lot of documents. Some of which are not online.
For the CCRC to refer any Possible MOJ it must believe there’s a real possibility of overturning the conviction, how can they build a case on withheld evidence, it’s not possible, how can they test the evidence if it’s not supplied in its unedited version? Even if the CCRC interviewed Millbank before Essex Police, the logs from 40 years ago would still override a memory from 40 years ago.
If He talked freely and still offered nothing conclusive on the podcast, why expect a CCRC interview to create evidence he didn’t give on the podcast?
-
If the Milibank " Story " Has any merit it's been around since August 1985.
/quote]
I thought that myself ILB.
-
If the Milibank " Story " Has any merit it's been around since August 1985.
/quote]
I thought that myself ILB.
Hi Lookout, I think the Jean Rowe statement proves without doubt there was no 999 call and simply an operator patching through an open line…….she says she didn’t even listen in ( an operators job is to listen to a 999 call, access and try to promote if the caller doesn’t speak and try to decide which emergency service to direct the call to). The only reason she didn’t listen in, was because she was simply performing a request, that was to patch it through to the IR via the 9 System.
There was no 999 call, the Logs and statements prove this, all this together wasn’t coincidence, it was an operation via communication with the raid team (who wanted updates from the open line) and the incident room via and the Operator.
-
More to the point! Very clearly you can't keep a good woman down, either!! Welcome back! Great to see you posting again xx
Aw, sorry for the delay Jane. Thankyou and glad to be posting. I'm afraid my interest has/is in the restoring of chateax in France believe it or not. The marvellous work that's achieved, sometimes single-handedly. However, thought I'd pop in and try and keep up to date. Lovely to still see you xx