Jeremy Bamber case: Has the dim-witted CCRC been totally duped by Nick Milbank and Essex Police?

Jeremy Bamber

It looks like the dim-witted CCRC been totally duped by Nick Milbank and Essex Police. As we know, ex-policeman Nick Milbank, now deceased, admitted to Heidi Blake in July 2024 that he received a 999 call from White House Farm (WHF) at 06:09 on 7^th August 1985. However, Milbank then vacillated unconvincingly, claiming to remember very little about the supposedly routine and seemingly forgettable call.[1] The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) were asked to meet with Milbank urgently to hear from him his version of events, but in the nine months remaining before he died of cancer they failed to see him or speak to him. They preferred to give Essex Police time to seemingly coerce Milbank into a statement in September 2024 that they hoped would negate the podcast audio by The New Yorker.[2] The recently released audio recording of the discussion between Heidi Blake and Milbank proves that the September 2024 statement is also (a) largely irrelevant to the subject; and, (b) full of distortions of the truth. The difficulty for Essex Police is that whatever way we look at the situation, whether Milbank understood he was being interviewed by a journalist or not, he is on record quite happily agreeing that on 7^th August 1985 he received a 999 call from someone who was supposedly dead inside White House Farm (WHF).

However, Milbank was prevaricating from the outset in the podcast. What utter nonsense from Milbank when he said dismissively, it was “Just another phone call” – about the most tragic mass killing in the history of Essex Police! He claimed to have a poor recollection of the incident. Anyone who believes that Milbank cannot recall details of the event is being totally naïve and here is why: When a murder enquiry takes place in the manner of WHF, the HQ Information Room (HQIR) would be swarming the next day and night with detectives wishing to talk to anyone and everyone involved and obtain witness statements from them, even if they had little or nothing to report.[3] The HQIR would have been ‘buzzing’ with rumour, gossip and people recounting their part in events, which was front page news in every national and local newspaper. Participants in such an unusual occurrence don’t just forget and move on. Additionally, there are pocket notebooks to be completed, incident recording message sheets and Milbank certainly had important things to record: such a significant event would have lodged in his memory.

Someone like Milbank, who had participated at length in perhaps the most important aspect of the WHF case that it was possible to experience, would have been quizzed intently about what happened. Not least because he was probably the last person to speak to Sheila Caffell before she ended her life. Detectives would also have probed why, within 15 minutes of the 999 call, at 06:26 am police arranged for two ambulances to attend the scene, given that it was reported that nobody was responding to loud-hailer challenges from the police outside the farmhouse.^[4] Detectives would have asked Milbank what Sheila said that caused ambulances to be requested. Indeed, if the CCRC had even a modicum of interest in finding out the truth, surely it would find out why ambulances were requested at 06:26 – seemingly for no reason.[5]

Thus, the CCRC had good reason to doubt Milbank’s explanation if they employed anyone with an understanding of how murder cases are investigated (and they employ numerous ex-police officers who could have pointed out that Milbank was probably misleading Heidi Blake deliberately). In my experience, police officers rarely, if ever, forget murder cases that they are involved in. As an ex-policeman, I still remember quite clearly a murder that occurred 45 years ago and my role in picking up the edge of a mattress and finding a large bag full of medicines that a suicidal Doctor had used to poison and kill his two boys. You tend not to forget such things. I also recall the cool manner of a murderer who expressed his surprise at how easily he slid a large knife into his victim “like a knife through butter” as he put it.

Consider Milbank’s position. On 7^th August 1985 Jeremy Bamber was not suspected of any involvement in the killings. Five violent deaths had occurred. Milbank had definitely received the 999 call from the scene of the killings (as he now admits) and, therefore, he almost certainly dutifully disclosed to the initial detectives who saw him that he received the 999 call plus the gist of his conversations with the BT Operator who put the call through as well as other sounds that he heard. This was part of the first investigation led by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas Jones. A few weeks later the investigation had been taken over by Detective Chief Superintendent Michael Ainsley, and the mood had changed dramatically: The mission became one of finding or constructing evidence that could convict Jeremy Bamber of five murders.

So, it appears that Milbank and his initial witness statement was erased from accounts of the morning when the bodies were discovered in order to prosecute Jeremy Bamber for murdering his family. Milbank’s dilemma must have started then, in late 1985. He was seemingly a religious person and regular churchgoer all of his adult life, so how could he have assuaged any concerns that he had that Jeremy Bamber was to be falsely convicted?

Initially, he could perhaps convince himself that a greater force than he (Ainsley) had decided that Bamber was going to be prosecuted. No doubt he understood that if he objected he would lose his job. I am not exaggerating and illustrate this through personal experience.

One night just before Christmas following an aborted armed burglary at a supermarket, I was travelling back to Chelmsford at about 2 a.m. when I saw a man hitching a lift on the A12. I assumed immediately that he could have been one of the robbers. I asked the driver of our car to slow down so that I could talk to the man. The driver was wearing police uniform; I was in plain-clothes.

We stopped our car about 200 yards past him, and he jogged towards us but as he approached he bent down, and he must have seen that the driver was wearing police uniform. As he bent down I saw a sawn-off shotgun under his jacket; he was clutching it to his side. He ran off up a steep embankment and a few moments later I followed him. Luckily for me it was pitch-black at the top of the embankment; I could see nothing at all. He may have been nearby, or he may have been running away across the fields, I had no way of knowing. I decided not to pursue him as I had no idea which way he had gone, and he was armed. I returned to the car where the uniformed officer had not budged from his seat.

Very early morning the same day a man was apprehended at a railway station; he had been found hiding in the toilets. He confessed to having been involved in the robbery. My problems started when I was asked to identify him as the same man that I had seen. He was not the same man, and I told Detective Superintendent Michael Ainsley that I could not confirm that he was the man with the shotgun.

Weeks of harassment followed; I was pressurised every day (virtually ordered) to make a statement that the man arrested was the same man that I had seen. I was told that I was no use to the CID if I could not comply with the request/instruction. As I continued to refuse I experienced a growing feeling that I had reached a tipping-point. My continued refusal was going to be held against me. When I transferred to Basildon police station a few months later I was made to go back into uniform. Nothing was said but I had a strong feeling that I was deemed not suitable for CID work due to my refusal to comply with the ‘order’ to make a false statement. The order was given by Michael Ainsley, who headed the case against Jeremy Bamber.

Thus, in October 1986 Jeremy Bamber was convicted of five murders, which Nick Milbank must have known he had not committed. Milbank stayed silent, but in 2002 Jeremy Bamber had been granted an appeal and someone was aware of the 999 call and the serious problem it could cause.

Operation Stokenchurch was overseen by the Metropolitan Police, and its purpose seems to be to ensure that the 2002 appeal did not produce any unwelcome revelations. Thus, during Operation Stokenchurch, the Metropolitan Police^[6] (MP) discovered items of evidence that indicated that Jeremy Bamber was innocent. One indication arose when DS Stan Jones of Essex Police revealed in conversation that Sheila Caffell^[7] left a suicide note^[8] that indicated that she had killed her family before taking her own life. When DS Stan Jones disclosed that Sheila Caffell left a suicide note that admitted she had killed her family, his revelation was ignored by the two Metropolitan Police officers.

A witness statement attributed to Nick Milbank was seemingly forged by Essex Police during Operation Stokenchurch. Milbank told Heidi Blake that he did not make the statement reproduced below.

"18.07.2002

I am a serving officer with Essex Police. I have been asked to recall the events at White House Farm, Tolleshunt D’Arcy in August 1985. I recall I was working in the force information room. I came on duty for early turn at about 05.45 am. There was already a phone line open into the farmhouse, and I took over the monitoring of the open line.

As far as I can recall I heard nothing for a while until I heard movement and voices which indicated that police officers had entered. I would also most likely be aware from the force radios in the control room that police had entered the farmhouse. I cannot recall whether anybody spoke to me on the line or whether I was contacted on the radio which led to me breaking that open line. If contact had been via the telephone it would have been into an open line and not another dialled call. I wouldn’t have thought there would be any records to confirm these events. This is the first time I have been asked about this incident.

Signed: Nicholas Milbank"

Based upon Milbank’s conversation with Heidi Blake we can see that there are a number of falsehoods in the statement above, as if someone other than Milbank had created it. He makes no mention of the 999 call at 06:09, of course, and specifically rules out the possibility of a “dialled call” having been received – which we now know is incorrect as he received a 999 call. He also states, almost certainly untruthfully, that 2002 was the first time he was asked about the incident.

Operation Stokenchurch documentation revealed that a 999-phone call was made from inside the farm at 6.09am while Jeremy Bamber was outside with the police. The only conceivable caller is Sheila Caffell who was described in a police log as being “in conversation” with the Firearms officers. ^[9]

The evidence of the 999 call’s existence is found on a High Priority Action Record Print 343 from the 2002 Stokenchurch Enquiry. The use of the telephone was investigated in relation to Appeal Ground 12 which was that police officers had used the telephone inside White House Farm at some point that morning to call out: The Action record states^[10]:

“Research Stokenchurch for any documents by MILLBANK (sic) N347 re 999 call.” 

And then:

“Research Stokenchurch for all documentation, including statements, notes, messages and documents that refer to PC MILLBANK N347 monitoring the 999 call made from White House Farm at 06:09 on 07/08/85, and supply copies of the same into the system.”

The incident log created at the Essex Police HQ Information Room contains an entry made at 06:09 and states^[11]:

“Open ‘999’ line set up (direct link to house with phone off hook).”  The entry at 07:47 states: “Close down ‘999’ open line.”

Therefore, contrary to what Milbank said to Heidi Blake, he had a more recent, 2002, reminder about events at WHF. I imagine that he had a lengthy interview with Operation Stokenchurch officers during which the 999 call was discussed. Action Record Print 343 required the recipient to undertake extensive enquiries and documentation compilation.

What the CCRC should have been asking themselves is, surely:

• If PC Milbank had monitored the telephone line for nearly an hour and a half and heard nothing of any significance, surely the police would not have hidden his existence, but, instead, asked him to produce a witness statement to that effect.

Milbank’s evidence that he heard nothing during that long period would have supported the police case that all occupants of the farm were dead. If the CCRC were serious investigators they would have picked up on this point and seen it as suspicious.

The CCRC should also have noted that PC Milbank monitored the line for a total of one hour and twenty-five minutes. In his statement he does not say how he knew the movement and voices he heard were those of police officers and does not give us the time he heard it. He also does not mention hearing a dog barking, something that the BT operators mentioned and perhaps he should also have heard the loudhailer challenges from the police outside the farmhouse?

All of the information outlined above could and should have been discovered by CCRC staff and had they investigated there would be firm grounds for referring Jeremy Bambers’ case to the Court of Appeal.

As far as we know, the CCRC have never sought to access either the Operation Stokenchurch files or the original WHF investigation by DCI Thomas Jones.

Nicholas Milbank had 40 years to reflect upon what happened at WHF and his receipt of the 999 call. Perhaps, he rehearsed what he would say to someone like Heidi Blake if he was ever asked about the 999 call. When it eventually happened in 2024, he seemed fairly relaxed about disclosing what happened, even though he did not tell the whole truth. While acknowledging that he received a call, he suggested that nothing was said to him. I do not and cannot believe this: You do not dial a 999 call directly to the police. The 999 call would have been put through to him by a BT operator and at the very least the BT operator would have told him the address and phone number of the caller and most likely her name. I also consider that Milbank was the most likely source of the request for ambulances if the police at the farmhouse were truly receiving no response from the occupant(s).

As an illustration of how easily the CCRC are seemingly duped by the police, following Heidi Blake’s discussion with Milbank, Essex Police obtained a statement from him on 10^th September 2024. It twice gives his name incorrectly as Nick Millbank, with one of the ‘L’’s crossed out on both pages. If Milbank wrote the statement it seems unlikely that he spelt his own name incorrectly twice (but this seems to have raised no suspicions at the CCRC). It says:

“I am making this statement in relation to a recent article in The New Yorker. I was not aware of the existence of the article until today when Investigating officer Phil Moulsher showed it to me. I have never to my knowledge spoken to The New Yorker and have not endorsed the article.

A couple of months ago I received a number of text messages from a woman who said she had a couple of statements made by me about the Jeremy Bamber case. She said one statement was signed and the other wasn’t. She said there are conflicting parts in the statement (sic) and she wanted me to confirm which one was true. I explained that if she had a statement signed by me it must be correct. She wanted to meet me, but I refused. I have also been shown a copy of a statement recorded on Holmes. I do not recall providing this statement and I don’t understand the last line, so it is unlikely I wrote the statement.

The woman who texted me did not identify herself as a journalist although she may have mentioned being a researcher. I do not remember making a statement for the Bamber enquiry but given the role I had it is likely I did provide one for continuity. It would have been a handwritten statement signed by me”.

On 11^th October 2024 Milbank made a further statement:

“I have now been shown a handwritten statement dated 18^th July 2002 in the name of Nicholas Milbank. I can confirm that the signature on the statement is mine and therefore the statement must have been written by me”

Neither statement made by Milbank in September or October 2024 has a witness signature to confirm his own signature on the document. It would, perhaps, prove interesting if the CCRC employed a handwriting/document expert to establish who wrote the two statements and, indeed, who wrote the handwritten witness statement from 2002. It should also be of interest to the CCRC that none of Milbank’s witness statements, handwritten or typed, contain his ‘collar number’, e.g. PC1234 which is a standard requirement – it is almost as if whoever wrote the statements didn’t know Milbank’s collar number.

The fact is that none of the three handwritten witness statements now attributed to Nick Milbank refute the audio evidence of The New Yorker podcast. Most of the content of the handwritten witness statements is irrelevant, yet the CCRC seem to have accepted it as grounds to dismiss the revelations made by Milbank.

Milbank could not have stated any more clearly that he received a 999 call and heard sounds coming from inside the farmhouse prior to police entering at 07:30. He has agreed that what he heard indicates that someone was alive. What more does the CCRC want before they refer the case to the Court of Appeal?

By Bill Robertson

Bill Robertson has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years and advised on several cases, including the most recent application to the CCRC by Jeremy Bamber.

Please let us know if you think that there is a mistake in this article, explaining what you think is wrong and why. We will correct any errors as soon as possible.

References

[1] “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”.

[2] “Blood Relatives” – free on Spotify

[3] Civilian radio operator Malcolm Bonnett made seven brief witness statements to five different detectives!

[4] Full Radio Log. Page 6 entry timed at 06:26.

[5] The police officers at WHF and Nick Milbank cannot both be telling the truth. There must have been some reason why two, not one or three, ambulances were requested and why one was on ‘standby’.

[6] DCI Jeanette McDiarmid and DI Paul Brown.

[7] Adoptive daughter of victims June and Nevill Bamber and mother of the twins also killed, Nicholas and Daniel Caffell

[8] When the mayhem ended inside WHF Sheila Caffell wrote a suicide note explaining that she had killed her family and she intended to kill herself. This fact is acknowledged by both Essex Police and the Metropolitan Police and is recorded in writing and on cassette tape. During the Metropolitan Police Stokenchurch enquiry, on 6^th August 2002, retired DS21 Stan Jones was interviewed by DCI Jeanette McDiarmid and DI Paul Brown. This was in relation to the kitchen telephone at White House Farm. During the discussion, he said: Jones: “What you've got to remember is, it wasn't five murders it was four murders and a suicide, which throws a completely different picture on it. Because things wouldn’t be treated the same as a murder scene. McDiarmid: Yes. Jones: “You don't go hunting for things if you've got four murders and a suicide if you've got someone saying I’ve just killed myself you don't start searching cupboards upstairs, you don't start searching cupboards in the other rooms, because you've got a note saying I've killed myself, so it was treated as four murders and a suicide, completely different. 

[9] Full Radio Log. Page 6 entry timed at 06:26.

[10] Stokenchurch Action Record Prints re Millbank and Disclosure. Action 343

[11]Full Radio Log. Page 4 entry timed at 06:09.