Hmm...i remember now. He blocked me on twitter after I enquired about the PoW
Which is ironic as that’s his theory.
Hmm...i remember now. He blocked me on twitter after I enquired about the PoW
No. He backdates his tweets - SJL died in July 1986 and I want to reveal this ...Was this sarcasm as it was in July?
Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.I'll refer back to the Red Sierra, DNA evidence suggest's that both JC and SL were in that car, CPS say it cannot be established that they were both in it at the same time, meaning IMO that both had access to the car, JC's DNA was not found in the Estates Fiesta, suggestive that he was not in it, yet the very one which they were both in , is not sufficient along with other evidence supposedly linking JC , whats missing here ? What threshold was not met to charge JC ?
I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.
I’d like to know more detail on the DNA match from the Sierra, tbh. The MSM articles all rely entirely on Berry-Dee’s say-so that it is actually “a match to Suzy” or proof that she was ever in the car.Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.
The authors of Prime Suspect refer to AS's book as their source in their story of the mysterious policeman who called the pub (hardback 2007, epilogue). However, their version has added detail in that they report the caller was specifically enquiring of SL's missing diary and chequebook. AS's book doesn't carry that detail. If that additional information is true (is it?) then this may have been part of a ruse by SL's abductor to help himself to SL's money. JC had form as a petty thief. The earlier call by the woman enquiring of SL may have been part of the same ruse. If the abductor was after money, he overlooked the opportunity of stealing £15 that was found in SL's purse in her abandoned car, suggesting a less than casual getaway.
Must be a sore point with DV then.
"The new measures mean that the Met will be placed under increased scrutiny. In a statement, the Inspectorate said: “We can confirm that we are now monitoring the Met Police Service through our engagement process which provides additional scrutiny and support to help it make improvements.” Standard Aug 2022I guess the Met told him his fortune then!
"The new measures mean that the Met will be placed under increased scrutiny. In a statement, the Inspectorate said: “We can confirm that we are now monitoring the Met Police Service through our engagement process which provides additional scrutiny and support to help it make improvements.” Standard Aug 2022
I'll refer back to the Red Sierra, DNA evidence suggest's that both JC and SL were in that car, CPS say it cannot be established that they were both in it at the same time, meaning IMO that both had access to the car, JC's DNA was not found in the Estates Fiesta, suggestive that he was not in it, yet the very one which they were both in , is not sufficient along with other evidence supposedly linking JC , whats missing here ? What threshold was not met to charge JC ?
I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.
I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.
Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.
I’d like to know more detail on the DNA match from the Sierra, tbh. The MSM articles all rely entirely on Berry-Dee’s say-so that it is actually “a match to Suzy” or proof that she was ever in the car.
@WestLondoner posted in the previous thread (#3, post #273) that the match was something like 60%, which I assume wouldn’t meet the evidential threshold. I’m not sure how close to the threshold it is, though - ie the likelihood of it being SJL/a relative/a random.
The thing that irritated me most about his Cannan book is the way he calls him "John" all the way through, like he's our mate or something as opposed to being a killer and serial rapist. There are inaccuracies too, such as JC's time at Superhire, which make you wonder about other stuff.I realise CBD was in touch with JC through a series of letters, however I find CBDs books a bit muddled with timings and dates.
As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.The red Ford Sierra has therefore, no connection with Suzy Lamplugh's disappearance. The Berry-Dee book information is simply inaccurate and misleading in this regard. There is the possibility that JC may have used the Sierra when visiting the Fulham area but no direct evidence links this car to the SL case.
The Sierra does have a connection, however, to the Sandra Court case. JC has confirmed to Berry-Dee in correspondence that he had use of the car. He acknowledges visits to Bournemouth/Poole on two occasions but denies ever being there on the May bank holiday weekend when Sandra Court was killed. A pay and display ticket for a Poole car park found later in his possession, disproves this claim. He was there that weekend. The later DNA hair evidence is indicative that Sandra Court herself may have been in the red Sierra but the evidence isn't sufficiently robust to establish that as fact. It is significant to note, perhaps, that of all presumed parking tickets he must have had over the course of time, he has hung onto this particular one. A memento of murder possibly?
I think the evidence all round points to the possibility of JC being a serial killer. The evidence around Sandra Court's murder strengthens the case against him as the likely killer of Suzy Lamplugh given everything else that is known.
As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.
That aside, the case against JC re Sandra Court is actually stronger than that against him for SJL. The police can't show he'd ever met SJL, he is too short to have driven her car with its seat in that position, and they don't know where he was the day she disappeared. They do know he was in Southampton the day SC was killed, that she'd been in that car and that her personal effects were dumped out of it along the route you'd take to drive back to London. Cannan is quite dim enough to leave a trail like that pointing to himself.
As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.
That aside, the case against JC re Sandra Court is actually stronger than that against him for SJL. The police can't show he'd ever met SJL, he is too short to have driven her car with its seat in that position, and they don't know where he was the day she disappeared. They do know he was in Southampton the day SC was killed, that she'd been in that car and that her personal effects were dumped out of it along the route you'd take to drive back to London. Cannan is quite dim enough to leave a trail like that pointing to himself.
When the CPS received all the evidence they assessed it based on what is called the Full Code Test. It has two stages:
1. Does the evidence presented provide a realistic prospect of conviction (it's a high bar)?
ONLY IF YES, GO TO 2
2. Is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?
N.B. You mention 'reasonable doubt'. The burden of proof for a criminal trial is that 'on the evidence presented to the court is the defendants guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt', i.e. satisfied so that you are sure of the defendants guilt.
These definitions, their relevance and meaning are important and need to be understood to avoid confusion.
The earlier investigations inexplicably didn't consider recently released sex offenders, even though there must have been about 30 such released from the Scrubs so far that year. You can roughly work out the number by taking 1.2% of the annual convictions - the Scrubs holding that percentage of the UK jail population. The annual number of rape convictions has varied between 2500 and 4000 over the last few decades but the release rate and conviction rates must roughly match for obvious reasons. Ergo, the Scrubs released between 30 and 48 rapists a year. July 28th is week 30 of 52, so assuming these releases are more or less rateable, they would probably have let out between 17 and 28 rapists. It could be more or fewer but it isn't likely to have been one.So to quote the CPS in 2002
"[The police] found a considerable amount of evidence which hadn't been found in the earlier investigations ....
.... The problem still was there was no direct evidence linking the suspect [Cannan] with the victim."
- Stuart Sampson, Special Casework Lawyer, Crown Prosecution Service