This literally makes no sense to me sorry. Why would MG not know the time he went by that afternoon?
If he had been to the property that afternoon and evening that would of been in his witness statement. Why would he omit in a murder enquiry that he had gone to check on the property that afternoon , he wasn’t doing anything wrong?
Of course it doesn't make any sense. The investigating officer's will have been quite pedantic about establishing as comprehensive and accurate a timeline as possible.
The timeline will show:
1. Who was where and when
2. Who saw what, where and when
As the timeline fleshes out so the relationship between individual events will become clearer and help to build a picture of what happened. This is considerably easier with modern investigation methods and tools.
It is important to note that when taking witness statements police officers generally, and in particular experienced detectives, ensure they include certain information, borne out of the Court of Appeal case of R v Turnbull 1976, in relation to eye-witness testimony. This is summed up in the mnemonic ADVOKATE:
A - Amount of time under observation (whole event and any specific act)
D - Distance from suspect/person/situation being observed
V - Visibility (night/day/weather/lighting)
O - Obstructions to the view of the witness
K - Known or seen before? When and where? (suspect/person under observation)
A - Any special reason for remembering the suspect/person/situation being observed
T - Time-lapse (how long has it been since witness observed suspect/person/situation
E - Error or material discrepancy between the first description given and any subsequent accounts by the witness
It should also be noted that when a witness provides the time (often given as 'approximately HH:MM') that they first saw a suspect/person/situation, they will be asked "what reason do you have for recalling the time you have given"? It could be "I checked my watch" or "The BBC lunchtime national news had just finished" etc. This clarification is essential to produce the most accurate timeline possible.
SJL noted in her diary that she was meeting a Mr Kipper O/S 37 Shorrolds Road at 12:45. Witness testimony from at least three independent witness in Shorrolds Road, provides us with not only sightings to support SJL's diary entry but both a sketch and a photofit of the male seen with the female, who it is entirely reasonable to assert was SJL.
MG and SF will have been interviewed, separately. They will have provided witness statements and asked if they have discussed what happened with other staff, to establish if one is leading the other, or if they have created a composite.
Their statements will have included their movements that day and the relevant/approximate times. These would have been added to the timeline and the possibility that they could have been mistaken for SJL and male, will have jumped out a mile.
@WestLondoner would have us dismiss the only evidence we do have (the diary entry) and as a result of it, witness statements, artists impression and a photofit from Shorrolds Road, in favour of an entirely suppositional tale which is the very antithesis of Occam's Razor.
<modsnip - addressing a poster rather than the post>
This consistent need for vindication, is pursued relentlessly in spite of the police having reviewed the whole case, having significantly more evidence than we a privy to, the CPS acknowledging that the police had left 'no stone unturned' in finding all the available evidence in the review from 2000
AND the police review under JD being a gold standard investigation team.
It is also important to note that whilst the original investigation made errors, they were by no means incompetent criminal investigators.
I am not an intransigent 'JC did it' theorist. I am a reasoned investigator, who follows all 'reasonable' lines of enquiry with a unbiased intent to either rule them out or to develop them further. If there were any other legitimate,
NOT fanciful, lines of investigation, based on tangible evidence, then I would not rule them out, without good reason.
The reality here is that direct evidence in the diary led to a location, witness statements, an artists impression and a photofit. The significant circumstantial evidence supports that SJL met JC at Shorrolds Road and that they were likely already acquainted. We know of JC's very disturbing MO and his victim type.
I wholly agree with the conclusion of the Met under JD, because no other credible evidence for an alternative has been advanced. Additionally, JD is a superb investigator, who even though now retired from the police is still fully committed to finding SJL.