UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

[Whitehall 1212]

I sincerely doubt the police go around searching places on the request of private premises just checking there's no dead bodies lying around. Do they?

Certainly not.

I am skeptical as to what police activity, if any took place. However, if DV had become a pain in the proverbial for the Met and/or the PoW owners wanted the speculation to go away then they may have created an event/narrative in an attempt to make it disappear!

Without some solid information I don't believe it.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Certainly not.

I am skeptical as to what police activity, if any took place. However, if DV had become a pain in the proverbial for the Met and/or the PoW owners wanted the speculation to go away then they may have created an event/narrative in an attempt to make it disappear!

Without some solid information I don't believe it.

Well in that case, I'm still in favour of it being searched, properly, and officially. Just in case.

 

[Cherwell]

I think the pub is a red herring as there's no reason to think she went there that day. It was literally round the corner from her home, so she would have called in after work rather than go on a 3 mile round trip at lunchtime.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well in that case, I'm still in favour of it being searched, properly, and officially. Just in case.

If the valid grounds for a search application don't exist then the police will be unable to obtain a search warrant from a Magistrate.

I question whether valid grounds have ever existed. I have not read anything to indicate otherwise.

This is why I believe that if there has been even a cursory/exploratory 'search' by police then it will have been with the express permission of the PoW's owners negating the requirement for a warrant.

I still question the reliability of the info regarding a 'search' of any kind by police.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think the pub is a red herring as there's no reason to think she went there that day. It was literally round the corner from her home, so she would have called in after work rather than go on a 3 mile round trip at lunchtime.

Over time, I have personally included other theories into my suspicions of what happened but would never rule out the idea that she may have gone to the PoW as there are many reasons why she may have done so that lunch time and logically, nothing's ruled out because we don't know what she *did* do. I think we've all discussed the permutations of that in good depth here before though plus there's the outstanding issues of all the other things she and people she could have met. For me, none of them involve anything to do with JC. JMO.

Will SJL remain an unsolved case forever I wonder?

 

[WestLondoner]

I sincerely doubt the police go around searching places on the request of private premises just checking there's no dead bodies lying around. Do they?

Also, have you noticed how it's always assumed that the police have more information than they have publicly disclosed, and that DV does not?

 

[WestLondoner]

I think the pub is a red herring as there's no reason to think she went there that day. It was literally round the corner from her home, so she would have called in after work rather than go on a 3 mile round trip at lunchtime.

I'm not so sure. In the 1980s I had a thing called a Time Manager, handed out to sales reps by the office, which was a similar, less successful (but arguably better) product than a Filofax. It had my entire life in it, including hundreds of customer contact numbers. If I mislaid it I was instantly mullered. SJL quite likely kept all her important work contacts in her diary so that she could take them all with her if ever she quit Sturgis. She might have been in a major hurry to get that back.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm not so sure. In the 1980s I had a thing called a Time Manager, handed out to sales reps by the office, which was a similar, less successful (but arguably better) product than a Filofax. It had my entire life in it, including hundreds of customer contact numbers. If I mislaid it I was instantly mullered. SJL quite likely kept all her important work contacts in her diary so that she could take them all with her if ever she quit Sturgis. She might have been in a major hurry to get that back.

This is what I think - there's all manner of motivations and explanations as to why SJL may have secretly and very urgently wanted her diary back and there's plenty of variables open as to whether she either secretly intended to pass by the pub at lunch time or grabbed an opportunity to do so or changed her mind / plan.

In the 80s as we had no other way of storing our data, everything was indeed written down. Plus there was a fashion, especially amongst young women, to 'write a diary' - what would nowadays be called 'journalling' maybe but had a far more confessional edge to it and was meant to be completely private, never to be shared with anyone.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I'm not so sure. In the 1980s I had a thing called a Time Manager, handed out to sales reps by the office, which was a similar, less successful (but arguably better) product than a Filofax. It had my entire life in it, including hundreds of customer contact numbers. If I mislaid it I was instantly mullered. SJL quite likely kept all her important work contacts in her diary so that she could take them all with her if ever she quit Sturgis. She might have been in a major hurry to get that back.

While the focus has been on the cheque book and diary my interest extends to the 'other items' that were also missing/lost but never mentioned.
Could a filofax be one of those items?

The popularity of the Filofax personal organiser grew enormously during the early 1980s due to its association with Yuppie culture, where it was regarded as a "must-have" accessory, in the days before electronic organisers.

Filofax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Were the chq book and diary discarded because they werent important, what was important lay in the pages of a personal business Filofax?
Was this the reason she was in no hurry to collect the chq book and diary until later that day?

JMO

 

[WestLondoner]

The frustrating thing is we have four places SJL may have meant to go: home (if, big if, it is true she planned tennis), the pub (for the diary), Shorrolds (if viewing was real), and apparently 123 Stevenage (if she really did drive straight there).

There are issues with all of them. DL is the source for the tennis thing and she's not reliable; no evidence was sought to establish if she ever turned up at the pub; nobody ID'd her at 37SR until after the police said that was her, and there's no evidence she went inside; and it doesn't look like she was at the wheel of her car when it was abandoned outside 123 SR, even though at the time sighted, she must have been.

The BW sighting is the tough one. The timing undermines all the others. As described, BW does indeed make it look like SJL was driving around at the behest of the unidentified passenger. But if this was under duress, why couldn't she just have just abandoned the car and bolted for it at the first red traffic light?

The evidence that there even was a crime is her friends' and family's conviction that she would never just disappear. That aside, she just vanished unwitnessed; there's no known crime scene except maybe her car, which has not been properly preserved as such.

We really are no further forward than at 10pm on 28/7/86.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Also, have you noticed how it's always assumed that the police have more information than they have publicly disclosed, and that DV does not?

Hardly an assumption....reality is the word you are seeking!

 

[Cluesleuth]

The frustrating thing is we have four places SJL may have meant to go: home (if, big if, it is true she planned tennis), the pub (for the diary), Shorrolds (if viewing was real), and apparently 123 Stevenage (if she really did drive straight there).

There are issues with all of them. DL is the source for the tennis thing and she's not reliable; no evidence was sought to establish if she ever turned up at the pub; nobody ID'd her at 37SR until after the police said that was her, and there's no evidence she went inside; and it doesn't look like she was at the wheel of her car when it was abandoned outside 123 SR, even though at the time sighted, she must have been.

The BW sighting is the tough one. The timing undermines all the others. As described, BW does indeed make it look like SJL was driving around at the behest of the unidentified passenger. But if this was under duress, why couldn't she just have just abandoned the car and bolted for it at the first red traffic light?

The evidence that there even was a crime is her friends' and family's conviction that she would never just disappear. That aside, she just vanished unwitnessed; there's no known crime scene except maybe her car, which has not been properly preserved as such.

We really are no further forward than at 10pm on 28/7/86.

What might narrow it down a little is finding out where and what time the two independent witnesses said they heard screams that day. Where did those witnesses live in relation to the properties named and SJL's car.

JMO

 

[RichardKimble]

Alleged offences have no bearing on the Parole Boards decision. They are only concerned with sentence imposed for the offences for which he was found guilty.

The decision will be based around his:

1. Conduct whilst in prison
2. Acceptance of guilt/remorse
3. Addressing his offending behaviour through attendance at sexual/violent offender workshops
4. Risk of re-offending with support from psychiatric/psychological reporting

I would be extremely concerned and very surprised if JC's application for transfer to an open prison is granted. No doubt Cruella Braverman and Dominic 'karate kid' Raab will have made their feelings clear!

This says different.

However, rule changes in the wake of the John Worboys scandal mean the Parole Board must consider allegations that have not resulted in prosecution for the inmate if they find a factual basis for them. In 2002, police named Cannan as Suzy's killer, even though the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

Killer John Cannan to face parole board this week in freedom bid

John Cannan has served the minimum 35 years behind bars and is currently in an East Yorkshire prison

www.hulldailymail.co.uk

 

[shadwell]

This says different.

However, rule changes in the wake of the John Worboys scandal mean the Parole Board must consider allegations that have not resulted in prosecution for the inmate if they find a factual basis for them. In 2002, police named Cannan as Suzy's killer, even though the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

Killer John Cannan to face parole board this week in freedom bid

John Cannan has served the minimum 35 years behind bars and is currently in an East Yorkshire prison

www.hulldailymail.co.uk

Hmm. This does sound familiar, but… On the one hand you have the parole board decision making framework document (section 3.4.1 - ‘Allegations of harmful or risky behaviour’) which follows on from the review of the Worboys parole decision:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843522/Decision_Making_Framework_Public_Document.pdf

But when you go to the guidance on this, you discover that:

“The Parole Board has removed their guidance on wider allegations following the judgement in Pearce [2022] EWCA Civ 4 where parts of the guidance were found to be unlawful.”

Guidance on the consideration of allegations which have been made against a prisoner

The Parole Board has temporarily removed its guidance following the judgement in the case of Pearce [2022] EWCA Civ 4.

www.gov.uk

 

[WestLondoner]

If you look up the case referred to, it is quite an interesting read. It is specifically about "the use of unproven allegations in the assessment of risk" in parole hearings. In paragraph 14 the judge quotes what the guidance used to say:

when producing risk assessments and reports for offenders where the criminal convictions may not present a comprehensive understanding of an offenders risk, consider carefully whether relevant evidence from untried allegations is available to provide that comprehensive understanding

which, he says,

defines a relevant allegation as one of harmful or risky behaviour which has not been adjudicated upon by a criminal or civil court or prison adjudication and which, if true, could affect the panel's risk analysis.

He concludes (para 48) that "An assessment of risk can only be made upon undisputed or established facts" and that the guidance is unlawful.

That said, while they've removed the guidance on how to do it, considering allegations is still an admissible element in analysing risky behaviour (p20):

- Allegations of harmful or risky behaviour - See ‘Allegations’ Guidance [LINK]

so it doesn't sound like this one is about to go away. They're just going to have to issue new guidance.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Hardly an assumption....reality is the word you are seeking!

We don't know that, we have no proof of that.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This says different.

However, rule changes in the wake of the John Worboys scandal mean the Parole Board must consider allegations that have not resulted in prosecution for the inmate if they find a factual basis for them. In 2002, police named Cannan as Suzy's killer, even though the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him.

Killer John Cannan to face parole board this week in freedom bid

John Cannan has served the minimum 35 years behind bars and is currently in an East Yorkshire prison

www.hulldailymail.co.uk

Unfortunately the rag that published this, I believe originally the Daily Mirror, is not fit to use as toilet paper.

The quote is fundamentally incorrect and does not accurately reflect the changes that arose as a consequence of the judicial review, following the original Parole Board decision concerning Worboys.

The relevant change to the Parole Board procedures, which included greater transparency, was a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances of the offending behaviour NOT consideration of factors relating to offences for which the prisoner has not been prosecuted and where their involvement could be in dispute.

Decent chip paper (below) gives a comprehensive reviews of the issues.

Parole Board reform unveiled after John Worboys controversy

Victims will be able to challenge decisions under measures announced by justice secretary

www.theguardian.com

As an extra, neither do the CPS assess the evidence to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.....this is the burden on proof in the criminal court. The CPS apply for the Full Code Test in two stages:

1. Is there a realistic prospect of conviction?

If 'Yes' then

2. Is prosecution in the public interest?

That the gutter press can't even get this right shows how lazy and inept their journalism is!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We don't know that, we have no proof of that.

You don't need proof to know that the police always have a great deal more information than they ever reveal.

The art is listening to what they say and understanding why they phrase comments in a particular way.

Very little is ever presented on a plate.

 

[Terryb808]

The frustrating thing is we have four places SJL may have meant to go: home (if, big if, it is true she planned tennis), the pub (for the diary), Shorrolds (if viewing was real), and apparently 123 Stevenage (if she really did drive straight there).

There are issues with all of them. DL is the source for the tennis thing and she's not reliable; no evidence was sought to establish if she ever turned up at the pub; nobody ID'd her at 37SR until after the police said that was her, and there's no evidence she went inside; and it doesn't look like she was at the wheel of her car when it was abandoned outside 123 SR, even though at the time sighted, she must have been.

The BW sighting is the tough one. The timing undermines all the others. As described, BW does indeed make it look like SJL was driving around at the behest of the unidentified passenger. But if this was under duress, why couldn't she just have just abandoned the car and bolted for it at the first red traffic light?

The evidence that there even was a crime is her friends' and family's conviction that she would never just disappear. That aside, she just vanished unwitnessed; there's no known crime scene except maybe her car, which has not been properly preserved as such.

We really are no further forward than at 10pm on 28/7/86.

Based on your analysis above the only real explanation is that she was abducted when she reached her car in Whittingstall Road.
As I’ve said before, if WJ is right about the time SJL’s car appears in Stevenage Road, there has to be a least two perpetrators.

In this scenario it accounts for SJL not being seen in any of the locations she may have been going.

 

[Terryb808]

Also, have you noticed how it's always assumed that the police have more information than they have publicly disclosed, and that DV does not?

I’m sure DV has more information than he put in his book, and has very good reasons for not being able to disclose it.