UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #2

[Bohobird]

Agree

 

[Crusader21]

Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh case to launch bid for freedom this year

Perhaps unsurprizingly, there are a few inaccuracies in this 'newspaper' report from a few days ago ....

 

[Terryb808]

Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh case to launch bid for freedom this year

Perhaps unsurprizingly, there are a few inaccuracies in this 'newspaper' report from a few days ago ....

It’s interesting just how inaccurate this article actually is, and shows how you just can’t take newspaper reports as serious accounts.
JC’s bid for freedom is likely to be a never ending story of appeal and rejection by the parole board.

 

[WestLondoner]

There's a certain delicious irony in what seems likely to happen to JC. Because he's a psychopath and needs to be the centre of attention, he's spent 34 years hinting to the police that he might know something about SJL. While he was on a whole-life tariff anyway, he had nothing to lose by this, and to him this was probably all good clean psychopath fun.

Then his whole of life tariff got reduced to 35 years, and then the law changed so that Parole Boards could consider other things in their release decision, including other crimes he's likely to have done on the balance of probabilities.

This has completely mullered the fool, because his little game of dropping hints about SJL stands a very good chance of constructively restoring the whole-of- life tariff that was previously set aside! Costly bit of banter that was!

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh!

 

[Terryb808]

There's a certain delicious irony in what seems likely to happen to JC. Because he's a psychopath and needs to be the centre of attention, he's spent 34 years hinting to the police that he might know something about SJL. While he was on a whole-life tariff anyway, he had nothing to lose by this, and to him this was probably all good clean psychopath fun.

Then his whole of life tariff got reduced to 35 years, and then the law changed so that Parole Boards could consider other things in their release decision, including other crimes he's likely to have done on the balance of probabilities.

This has completely mullered the fool, because his little game of dropping hints about SJL stands a very good chance of constructively restoring the whole-of- life tariff that was previously set aside! Costly bit of banter that was!

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh!

Thing is with this banter of his is if he didn’t do it, he’s going to pay dearly. After all he can’t reveal what he doesn’t know and the real perpetrator can sit back and have a good laugh at his expense.
IMO the police had more evidence to link him to Sandra Court, unless I’m wrong the partial DNA in the Ford Sierra was hers and not SJL. Plus the letter (written left handed) explaining it was an accident was also linked to him.
So the parole board have a backup if SJL is eventually found and A.N.Other is responsible.

 

[WestLondoner]

Well yes. In 2000 he was on a whole-of-life tariff anyway, so to relieve the tedium of sewing mailbags and dodging Spike in the showers, he drops a few hints to the old Bill that there are a few other cases out there he might know a thing or two about. He gets some time away from his cell, then gets to feel special, right up until the law changes....oh dear!

AIUI the Sandra Court case fits his MO very well - body dumped near water, presumably to obliterate forensic traces - but didn't she disappear at a time of day he was supposed to be back at the Scrubs? Unless they were criminally lax about how they enforced day release, the staff of the prison would be his alibi. What was the left-handed letter, BTW?

For my money, if he's responsible for SMcC then this heightens the likelihood that he's also responsible for SJL. When jailed in 1981 he had not yet killed anyone (that we know of), so the classic escalation of violence that many psychopath criminals follow was not yet fully in evidence. The first JC killing we know of was SB in 1988, but if he also killed SMcC in early 1986, then this says that by July 1986 he was in a homicidal frame of mind.

 

[Terryb808]

Well yes. In 2000 he was on a whole-of-life tariff anyway, so to relieve the tedium of sewing mailbags and dodging Spike in the showers, he drops a few hints to the old Bill that there are a few other cases out there he might know a thing or two about. He gets some time away from his cell, then gets to feel special, right up until the law changes....oh dear!

AIUI the Sandra Court case fits his MO very well - body dumped near water, presumably to obliterate forensic traces - but didn't she disappear at a time of day he was supposed to be back at the Scrubs? Unless they were criminally lax about how they enforced day release, the staff of the prison would be his alibi. What was the left-handed letter, BTW?

For my money, if he's responsible for SMcC then this heightens the likelihood that he's also responsible for SJL. When jailed in 1981 he had not yet killed anyone (that we know of), so the classic escalation of violence that many psychopath criminals follow was not yet fully in evidence. The first JC killing we know of was SB in 1988, but if he also killed SMcC in early 1986, then this says that by July 1986 he was in a homicidal frame of mind.

This is what makes JC a prime suspect, within the general media I’ve read that:

• JC was allowed out at weekends for home visits (this seems a bit wrong to me).
• Police said he went to a car auction in the Bournemouth area the weekend Sandra Court disappeared.
  
• Again when the police examined the Ford Sierra they found a car park ticket for that weekend.
• The same Ford Sierra had a partial DNA sample that matched Sandra Court (this has been mis-reported many time to say it matched SJL).
• I think the left handed letter was sent to a newspaper, but could have been send directly to the police. It claimed she died as a result of an accident.
• The police used a hand writing expert that concluded that although disguised it’s construction and elements matched JC.

As you’ve pointed out this would have been his first murder and the one that kicked off his killing spree.
Anyone who worked on either case (police detective) would be aware of this and would have reached the same conclusions as you.
This is why IMO people like criminologist David Wilson reached this conclusion in the last SJL documentary. He’s a very smart cookie and one I personally respect.

 

[WestLondoner]

This is what makes JC a prime suspect, within the general media I’ve read that:

• JC was allowed out at weekends for home visits (this seems a bit wrong to me).
• Police said he went to a car auction in the Bournemouth area the weekend Sandra Court disappeared.
  
• Again when the police examined the Ford Sierra they found a car park ticket for that weekend.
• The same Ford Sierra had a partial DNA sample that matched Sandra Court (this has been mis-reported many time to say it matched SJL).
• I think the left handed letter was sent to a newspaper, but could have been send directly to the police. It claimed she died as a result of an accident.
• The police used a hand writing expert that concluded that although disguised it’s construction and elements matched JC.

As you’ve pointed out this would have been his first murder and the one that kicked off his killing spree.
Anyone who worked on either case (police detective) would be aware of this and would have reached the same conclusions as you.
This is why IMO people like criminologist David Wilson reached this conclusion in the last SJL documentary. He’s a very smart cookie and one I personally respect.

Although, of course, there's still a very big gap between "it's the sort of thing he'd do" and "there's evidence he did it".

In effect, for DV's hypothesis to be wrong, so that CV and all those who might have been at the PoW are innocent of any wrongdoing, the Kipper thing has to be right.

I didn't realise JC was allowed home visits. The main reason to doubt that he was ever anywhere near SJL or SMcC is that he was on day release and had to be back by 7pm or return to prison. This would leave him little scope to hang round wine bars in Fulham of an evening hoping to cop off with women, because he'd have to be leaving as they were arriving. If he was allowed to carry on as though he was not in a day release prison hostel then it means his lounge lizard MO might after all have been possible.

 

[Terryb808]

Although, of course, there's still a very big gap between "it's the sort of thing he'd do" and "there's evidence he did it".

In effect, for DV's hypothesis to be wrong, so that CV and all those who might have been at the PoW are innocent of any wrongdoing, the Kipper thing has to be right.

I didn't realise JC was allowed home visits. The main reason to doubt that he was ever anywhere near SJL or SMcC is that he was on day release and had to be back by 7pm or return to prison. This would leave him little scope to hang round wine bars in Fulham of an evening hoping to cop off with women, because he'd have to be leaving as they were arriving. If he was allowed to carry on as though he was not in a day release prison hostel then it means his lounge lizard MO might after all have been possible.

We’re missing some hard facts which I’d hope the police have and that’s why they’re sticking to the JC did it narrative.
They should know for a fact that JC was allowed home visits (or not). However, today it seems the police involved now don’t know the details of the case. They’re only interested in proving JC did it, they have no interest in anything else because they’ve already committed to this.
The Mets retired JD is very critical of armchair detectives, however, there are some very knowledgeable armchair detectives on this forum that if allowed would help crack this case.

 

[WestLondoner]

JD in DV's book is "Albert Clyne", which I have been told is an anagram of "clearly bent"....! Go figure!

The case against that we know of is based entirely on armchair detectives claiming to remember the events of years ago with perfect recall!

 

[Terryb808]

JD in DV's book is "Albert Clyne", which I have been told is an anagram of "clearly bent"....! Go figure!

The case against that we know of is based entirely on armchair detectives claiming to remember the events of years ago with perfect recall!

Don’t doubt DV’s cloaked view of JD, take a look at “Murder in the Car Park” to see why DV might have this view.
There are some armchair detectives on this forum with a vast knowledge of the SJL case, have spent years researching factual detail and IMO put the Met to shame.
Those I respect have one agenda and that’s to provide closure for the Lamplugh family. Sadly, unless CV did it closure for Lamplugh family looks unlikely in the near future.

 

[WestLondoner]

Was JD / "Albert Clyne" involved with the Daniel Morgan investigation case? Interesting if so.

The detectives who framed the Birmingham Six and didn't catch the real bombers were later part of the team that didn't catch the Yorkshire Ripper either. They were focused on framing a minicab driver for the murders, when a different force altogether arrested Sutcliffe. Both cases suggest the detectives involved had no skills in crime detection at all. Their MO was to identify, among criminals they already knew, someone who they thought would probably do this sort of thing, and fit them up.

If any of the team on the Daniel Morgan inquiry were part of the SJL team, then it's no surprise that nobody was ever caught, nor that they subsequently decided it fitted JC and announced his guilt even though they hadn't persuaded the CPS. It's much the same approach. Rather than start with a clean sheet and work out who did it, they tried to make it fit a known offender.

If you're a well-organised and level-headed person, the chances of getting away with murder are probably very good. Luckily, people like that don't tend to commit murder.

 

[Crusader21]

Letter could bring justice 22 years later

I don't believe JC was responsible for the SC murder. The circumstances doesn't seem to fit how he operated ....

 

[Terryb808]

Was JD / "Albert Clyne" involved with the Daniel Morgan investigation case? Interesting if so.

The detectives who framed the Birmingham Six and didn't catch the real bombers were later part of the team that didn't catch the Yorkshire Ripper either. They were focused on framing a minicab driver for the murders, when a different force altogether arrested Sutcliffe. Both cases suggest the detectives involved had no skills in crime detection at all. Their MO was to identify, among criminals they already knew, someone who they thought would probably do this sort of thing, and fit them up.

If any of the team on the Daniel Morgan inquiry were part of the SJL team, then it's no surprise that nobody was ever caught, nor that they subsequently decided it fitted JC and announced his guilt even though they hadn't persuaded the CPS. It's much the same approach. Rather than start with a clean sheet and work out who did it, they tried to make it fit a known offender.

If you're a well-organised and level-headed person, the chances of getting away with murder are probably very good. Luckily, people like that don't tend to commit murder.

Some great points above, I’m not saying members of the SJL team were part of the Daniel Morgan investigation, just that at the time it would have been a cultural thing running through the Met.
It’s interesting that some of the SJL team did follow good detective practices, but were told to ignore their concerns and get on with following their supervisors directions.
IMO Barley was a good detective and after interviewing JC has remained convinced it was him.
We don’t have access to the level of information the police have, I’m sure the right team with enough time would be able to determine what happened to SJL.
Everything centres on the Friday to Monday, however, you to look back further. Maybe the perpetrator featured in the months before she disappeared and is hiding in plain sight.
As you say anyone level headed and organised would be able to get away with murder.
This tends to go against JC as he is not of these things.
So are we looking for a well organised individual, she had a few friends that fit this perfectly.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's quite hard IMO to attach the SC murder to JC, because she was found on Saturday May 3rd having last been seen at about 2.45AM. Unless it is correct that JC was allowed "home" at weekends, or the curfew on him was negligently enforced, he could not have been out and about at that time.

If I wanted to get away with murder, I would probably try to contrive both an alibi and a false trail, since the police seem to fall for the latter quite readily. Not only was I not where the crime was supposed to have happened, but the criminal was elsewhere. My false trail might well consist of a something like a letter purporting to come from the killer. It would have some interesting fingerprints on, eg those of the shop assistant where I bought the envelopes, it would say something probably only the criminal would know, and it would be posted from nowhere near myself. The police would have no idea whose these fingerprints were, and if the shop assistant later came to their attention - five years later, or something - they'd have a tough job explaining - or even remembering - how their prints got on an envelope.

In the SJL case, JC apparently had an alibi that was never checked; CV has both a false trail (it was Mr Kipper) and an alibi ("I was at the pub all day, guv"). Of course his alibi relies on the Mr Kipper story holding up, which arguably it doesn't. It also relies on the idea that SJL was not expected at the pub until 6. We know - as he didn't - that she would never have made such an arrangement, so his "alibi" actually places him at the only likely crime scene that's left, if we discard the 37SR sightings.

If it didn't happen at 37SR, and it didn't happen at the pub, and given that nobody credibly witnessed her in any kind of altercation anywhere else, then by elimination, SJL must have been abducted in the street by someone she knew, wasn't alarmed by and therefore did not raise any commotion when it happened. I don't see any other possibilities than those three. Supporting the 37SR sighting there is really only the HR report of a man but not of SJL, and he appears to be an unreliable witness; all other 37SR sightings came in after the HR sighting was announced as accurate. Supporting the PoW case is the evidence that she lost personal items there and intended to go there. Supporting the abduction-off-the-street case is, well, no evidence at all.

 

[Terryb808]

One thing that would be interesting to establish is how SJL handled work & personal diaries.
As this is well and truly in the paper domain you wouldn’t want to carry two separate diaries.
So was her work appointments briefly entered in her personal diary? We’ve seen her work desk diary, and I’d have thought SJL would have work appointments in another more portable diary.
If that’s the case was the Mr Kipper appointment in her personal diary? If it was then the whole idea that she made it up on Monday to get out of the office doesn’t hold water because she entered the appointment on Saturday.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's a good question. I assume she'd have kept work appointments in her larger-format work diary, that stayed in the office, and personal appointments in the pocket diary. If so, CV would have known about the 7pm tennis, but not the 6pm viewing, which would explain why he said she was expected at 6; it would appear to be after work, but before tennis.

But I don't know if this is so. You'd know only by looking at the actual diary, which the police have and nobody else has seen.

 

[Henry B]

Yes these two pop up frequently in this story and yet remain under the radar.
It’s entirely possible that they made the calls to the PoW because they were at Shorrolds Road and SJL didn’t turn up.
That would mean they knew she was supposed to be going there, maybe after calling her office.
So on the basis that CV is telling the truth then SJL was abducted early on and never made the PoW.
I know DV says JC had an alibi, however, his sister thinks he’s guilty and JC has a track record of making up alibis when under pressure.
While there’s no actual evidence against him, but then again without a body there’s no evidence against CV.

I've finally read the DV book - and while it struck me as a 'dramatic novelisation' of the investigation and I didn't like the style, nor some of his rather woke/chivalrous views, I think he may be on to something. The couple do interest me. I wonder why they remain so 'under the radar'? Threatened legal action?

 

[Crusader21]

The couple do interest me. I wonder why they remain so 'under the radar'? Threatened legal action?

If the couple had nothing to do with SLs disappearance then you can still understand the male of the couple wishing to dissociate himself from the notoriety of the case. Akin to AL, and others no longer giving interviews etc.

But for the female of the two, it does beggar belief. According to the AS book, the female turned up on the Weds 'blaming herself' for SLs disapperance as she was orginally due to meet SL that Monday lunchtime herself. Why has none of the countless tv docs mentioned this?

Plus being one of the founder fundraisers of the SL Trust she has never again spoken publically about SL, this despite her going on to become a (minor) uk tv celeb! Has she just point blankly refused to talk about SL? Or has she been told not to?

The female did publically mention Diana Lamplugh's death in one of her blog enteries. You will need to google that as that link is blocked on these pages?!

Maybe there is 'threatened legal action', which IMO is odd as names are already in the public domain, alongside the likes of 'Clive Vole', published in the 1988 book 'The Suzy Lamplugh Story'.

 

[Henry B]

If the couple had nothing to do with SLs disappearance then you can still understand the male of the couple wishing to dissociate himself from the notoriety of the case. Akin to AL, and others no longer giving interviews etc.

But for the female of the two, it does beggar belief. According to the AS book, the female turned up on the Weds 'blaming herself' for SLs disapperance as she was orginally due to meet SL that Monday lunchtime herself. Why has none of the countless tv docs mentioned this?

Plus being one of the founder fundraisers of the SL Trust she has never again spoken publically about SL, this despite her going on to become a (minor) uk tv celeb! Has she just point blankly refused to talk about SL? Or has she been told not to?

The female did publically mention Diana Lamplugh's death in one of her blog enteries. You will need to google that as that link is blocked on these pages?!

Maybe there is 'threatened legal action', which IMO is odd as names are already in the public domain, alongside the likes of 'Clive Vole', published in the 1988 book 'The Suzy Lamplugh Story'.

Yes, it all seems odd. I still find the AS 1988 book useful. And I have wondered if a meeting between SL and the couple was required by the couple (or at least one of them) more than we know, for reasons we are unaware of. But that is pure conjecture on my part.