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

[Cluesleuth]

You should write a book about this theory

If someone does remember you heard it here first

 

[Pinkizzy]

He may have taken a train from North End Rd to North End Station

 

[Cluesleuth]

He may have taken a train from North End Rd to North End Station

Yes thats possible .. he could have made the journey on his own.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Oh I think they worked together and and they were sex attackers and murders.

John Duffy and David Mulcahy

Its very unusual but in my opinion that SJL was one of their victims. They were very active 27 attacks from Jan 1984 -1985 and 3 murders primarly in Hampstead but they travelled 2 attacks in Richmond Park and 1 on Barnes Common
Jan 1984 32 yr old attacked on Barnes Common
Jun 1984 23 yr old attacked West Hampstead Train Stration
July 1984 22 yr old highgate west Hill
July 1984 2 danish au pairs Hampstead Heath
Jan 1985 25 yr old German au pair Brent Cross
Jan 1985 2 more attacks on or near the Heath

Murder
Dec 1985 Alison day
April 1986 Maartje Tamboezer
May 1986 Ann Lock

2000 John Duffy confessed that here are many more.

Mulcahy was jailed 10+ after Duffy so when you look at his photo bear in mind the younger one would resemble him more

Their MO was rape and then rape/strangulation in the vicinity of railways stations which were near to remote footpaths, parkland, farmland and other quiet and concealed areas.

Their victim would invariably be followed after disembarking their train at their destination, often when it was dark.

Their MO was not abducting victims and then transporting them elsewhere. Victims were left at or near the offence location.

I am sure their offences were considered for similarities either at the time and/or during the review.

 

[Terryb808]

If someone does remember you heard it here first

This is what makes this thread interesting and helpful. We’re not restrained in our thought process and everyday something new comes up.
It’s a valid observation that doesn’t need someone asking where’s the evidence. You must have these possibilities put forward so they can be looked at.
36 years on the police are just saying the same thing, JC did it, as WestLondoner pointed out they’ve not solved this.
If they had the CPS would have backed them.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Their MO was rape and then rape/strangulation in the vicinity of railways stations which were near to remote footpaths, parkland, farmland and other quiet and concealed areas.

Their victim would invariably be followed after disembarking their train at their destination, often when it was dark.

Their MO was not abducting victims and then transporting them elsewhere. Victims were left at or near the offence location.

I am sure their offences were considered for similarities either at the time and/or during the review.

I guess she's buried in the railway embankment between the tracks and the pub

 

[Terryb808]

No.....the problem here is that you are recklessly making statements that are fundamentally incorrect and I suggest deliberately so. It displays your complete lack of awareness when it comes to police investigation, police powers and procedures and the role of the CPS in applying the full code test before authorising the charging of suspects.

You also introduce 'statistics' to support your argument but you do not provide any links to the source document, so that we may confirm their veracity. Additionally, you proceed to make your own interpretation of those 'statistics' in a crass effort to bolster your claims.

Whilst there were unforgiveable errors made during the original investigation, I have complete confidence that the review that Ch Supt Jim Dickie and his team conducted, between 2000-2006, left no stone unturned to identify possible scenarios, suspects and either progress or eliminate them. Jim Dickie's own words make this clear:

Police tried to charge Cannan anyway, but the Crown Prosecution Service and Senior Treasury Counsel said there were two big hurdles.

“The first was that Cannan would never get a fair trial,” explains Jim. “The CPS and Treasury Counsel said there was no jury in the country that wouldn’t be tainted by media coverage of the case and Cannan’s background.

"The second concerned the original handling of the case. They said information at the time was passed over, and this would weaken a current prosecution. Police had sat on their hands when they could have done something. It was extremely frustrating.”

And yet there was one consolation. “They said we’d tracked down all the evidence it was possible to find and followed up every opportunity that we knew about at that time,” says Jim.

“We could at least then give the Lamplugh family some closure. We’d made sense of the facts as we knew them, and told them that in our view Cannan was the suspect, there were no other suspects and it was all down to him. I still maintain that view today.”

In fact, police were so sure it was Cannan that in 2002 they named him as the prime suspect. “This was highly unusual – it’s almost unprecedented,” says Jim.

“We made the announcement at a press conference because we were confident it was true from the circumstantial evidence, the similarity between victims and the similarity to Cannan’s other offences.”

What happened to Suzy Lamplugh, the girl with everything to live for

ONE Monday morning 33 years ago, Suzy Lamplugh walked out of the Fulham estate agency where she worked. She told her colleagues that she was going to show a house on nearby Shorrolds Road to a clie…

www.thesun.co.uk

It is clear that your antipathy towards the police means that whatever confirmation your are given, regarding the extent of the review, you will continue to harp on that the police have not investigated fully.

The CPS and the Treasury Counsel, who are entirely independent of the police, stated that the police had:

"tracked down all the evidence it was possible to find and followed up every opportunity that we knew about at that time".

Are you now going to allege that the CPS and Treasury Counsel are also flawed in their assessment of the robustness of the review or that they failed to identify and report on other reasonable lines of enquiry? Yes, the CPS identify any weaknesses in the evidence submitted, including other possibilities that have been left unresolved, and report these back to the police for action. The very existence of this process totally undermines your argument that there are unresolved lines of investigation.

Ultimately, it comes down to the question of whether or not you trust that the police carried out a thorough and complete review or not. Ch Supt Jim Dickey, the CPS and the Treasury Counsel are entirely confident that they did and that ALL reasonable lines of enquiry were followed.

What DV and others are obsessing about is a desire for another narrative, whether it is because they have personal axes to grind towards the police, a financial motive, personal ego or desperately seek an answer to the SJL abduction. As I've said before, we and they do not have access to all the police evidence, the very evidence that will demonstrate that all other lines of enquiry were explored and eliminated.

I have watched DV and my assessment is that he brings nothing to the party. He dismisses the police findings but fails to explain why. He constructs hypotheses but cannot provide any credible evidence to support them.....we can all do that it doesn't make one a detective.....or even an investigative journalist.

DV has offered an alternative possibility that has not been looked at. He’s not being obsessive, just objective.
You’ve said that there’s no way JC can be charged because the evidence (that you say you’ve not seen) is circumstantial and the coverage, plus the police naming him as the only suspect would result in him not receiving a fair trial.
Who’s fault is this, naming JC in that way leaves the police with no option but to ignore everything else.
There are a lot of well versed SJL contributors on this thread, they have diligently researched the subject and have a vast knowledge of the case. This knowledge has not come from watching poorly researched and inaccurate TV documentaries.
It might be an educational experience for the current police team to sit down and get the facts of this case from one such contributor.
It’s not acceptable to knock contributors because they have different views and don’t conform to JD’s opinions.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Their MO was rape and then rape/strangulation in the vicinity of railways stations which were near to remote footpaths, parkland, farmland and other quiet and concealed areas.

Their victim would invariably be followed after disembarking their train at their destination, often when it was dark.

Their MO was not abducting victims and then transporting them elsewhere. Victims were left at or near the offence location.

I am sure their offences were considered for similarities either at the time and/or during the review.

I pointed out that Duffy worked for British Rail and he used his knowledge of the rail system to travel. Sometimes commuting to commit the crimes. They also used a vehicle.

Duffy said in 2000 there are many more victims, so how can you possibly know the circumstances of how they became the victim when you dont know who the victims are and where there bodies are.

In Duffy and Mulcahy you have both a Marauder and Commuter offenders . 2 People working together the more they offend and get away with it the more accomplished and bolder they get they admitted it was like a game it was fun!!

If you think oh no they wouldn't do that because they havent done it in the past then Im sorry but thats why criminals like this get away with murder.
MOO

 

[Terryb808]

I pointed out that Duffy worked for British Rail and he used his knowledge of the rail system to travel. Sometimes commuting to commit the crimes. They also used a vehicle.

Duffy said in 2000 there are many more victims, so how can you possibly know the circumstances of how they became the victim when you dont know who the victims are and where there bodies are.

In Duffy and Mulcahy you have both a Marauder and Commuter offenders . 2 People working together the more they offend and get away with it the more accomplished and bolder they get they admitted it was like a game it was fun!!

If you think oh no they wouldn't do that because they havent done it in the past then Im sorry but thats why criminals like this get away with murder.
MOO

You’ve identified a possibility and someone who looks like the James Galway man who didn’t come forward.
It would have involved some planning or a wait & see approach. Luring SJL to SR posing as Mr Kipper, pity we don’t have a good description of the two men in the large dark coloured saloon seen in SR.
Do you know what type of vehicle they had in 1986?

 

[WestLondoner]

Whitehall 1212 said:
I don't for one moment think that the statement by the police about JC being the only suspect and their conviction that he was responsible for SJL's abduction, likely rape and murder would prejudice any subsequent trial.
(Tuesday at 5.20)

Whitehall 1212 said:
Police tried to charge Cannan anyway, but the Crown Prosecution Service and Senior Treasury Counsel said there were two big hurdles.

“The first was that Cannan would never get a fair trial,” explains Jim. “The CPS and Treasury Counsel said there was no jury in the country that wouldn’t be tainted by media coverage of the case and Cannan’s background.
(Today)

 

[WestLondoner]

I pointed out that Duffy worked for British Rail and he used his knowledge of the rail system to travel. Sometimes commuting to commit the crimes. They also used a vehicle.

Duffy said in 2000 there are many more victims, so how can you possibly know the circumstances of how they became the victim when you dont know who the victims are and where there bodies are.

In Duffy and Mulcahy you have both a Marauder and Commuter offenders . 2 People working together the more they offend and get away with it the more accomplished and bolder they get they admitted it was like a game it was fun!!

If you think oh no they wouldn't do that because they havent done it in the past then Im sorry but thats why criminals like this get away with murder.
MOO

Wow, that's really interesting.

One drawback about a disused Tube station is that they are quite popular with Tube nerds. There are walks organised along routes that were never built, such as a branch line from Highgate to Muswell, so can be, if not busy, not unfrequented. However, that's now, not then.

A two-person abduction would probably invalidate a key assumption I've made and I think many others have. This is that in order for an abduction to go down unremarked-on, it would have to be by an acquaintance, willingly allowed into her car. If there are two people involved this changes, because two people would be much more easily able to overpower her.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV has offered an alternative possibility that has not been looked at. He’s not being obsessive, just objective.
You’ve said that there’s no way JC can be charged because the evidence (that you say you’ve not seen) is circumstantial and the coverage, plus the police naming him as the only suspect would result in him not receiving a fair trial.
Who’s fault is this, naming JC in that way leaves the police with no option but to ignore everything else.
There are a lot of well versed SJL contributors on this thread, they have diligently researched the subject and have a vast knowledge of the case. This knowledge has not come from watching poorly researched and inaccurate TV documentaries.
It might be an educational experience for the current police team to sit down and get the facts of this case from one such contributor.
It’s not acceptable to knock contributors because they have different views and don’t conform to JD’s opinions.

How do you know it has not been "looked at" by the police, if not during the original investigation then during the detailed review from 2000?

The CPS and Treasury Counsel acknowledged that the review team had "tracked down all the evidence it was possible to find and followed up every opportunity that we (the police) knew about at that time". From this I am confident that this line of enquiry was explored and eliminated.

JC was named by the police after the CPS had reached their decision not to authorise charge. The CPS felt that the publicity given to JC regarding the SB abduction and murder, and comparison with the disappearance of SJL would prevent him receiving a fair trial.

If there was primary (e.g. clothing, weapon, tape, rope etc) or forensic evidence (e.g. crime scene/body/vehicle) linking JC directly to SLP then the likelihood of conviction may have overcome the very high threshold test for charge. Irrespective of how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence is, such evidence alone is unlikely ever to meet the threshold test, without either primary, forensic or exceptional eye-witness testimony of an offenders actions and identification.

Naming JC does not leave the police with no option but to ignore any new evidence. I don't believe this is new evidence. as the review was thorough as confirmed by the CPS. This matter of the stolen/lost/mislaid/found items and the PoW was known about and eliminated at the time of the review, if not the original investigation.

What seems to be forgotten is that the only 'evidence' available to the likes of DV, and others, is from tracking down those who were associated with, or on the periphery of the lead up to SJL's disappearance, nearly thirty-six years ago. It is from peoples recall and interpretation of events at the time. Witness recall is notoriously unreliable, for many reasons and only carries any real weight when it is corroborated by other independent witnesses. To think for one moment it could be considered in any way reliable, so long after the event, is patently ridiculous. If you have never investigated a crime and taken numerous witness statements then the reality of this will be unfamiliar to you.

Does DV has any evidence other than this? Does he have and primary or forensic evidence with which to support his case for a hypothesis?

Just because the police do not disclose the detail of their investigation, for our gratification, does it give others licence to announce that there are unexplored reasonable lines of enquiry.

If you have information which you believe may be of use to the investigation then report it to the Met Police and they will assess it based on what they are aware of and action it accordingly. After all the Met Police know a whole lot more than DV or any of us.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand or accept!

 

[Cluesleuth]

You’ve identified a possibility and someone who looks like the James Galway man who didn’t come forward.
It would have involved some planning or a wait & see approach. Luring SJL to SR posing as Mr Kipper, pity we don’t have a good description of the two men in the large dark coloured saloon seen in SR.
Do you know what type of vehicle they had in 1986?

Yes they did admit going to great lengths to plan things out . I would like to know which properties the 2 individual women lived who heard screams.

Knowing that the abandoned BMW was about eight miles from Kilburn where Duffy lived does bring it back into the frame.

But I dont know what cars they used. I need to buy a book on the Railway murders thats as detailed as the AS book does anyone have any recommendations?

Do you think they used a taxi?

 

[WestLondoner]

How do you know it has not been "looked at" by the police, if not during the original investigation then during the detailed review from 2000?

The CPS and Treasury Counsel acknowledged that the review team had "tracked down all the evidence it was possible to find and followed up every opportunity that we (the police) knew about at that time". From this I am confident that this line of enquiry was explored and eliminated.

JC was named by the police after the CPS had reached their decision not to authorise charge. The CPS felt that the publicity given to JC regarding the SB abduction and murder, and comparison with the disappearance of SJL would prevent him receiving a fair trial.

If there was primary (e.g. clothing, weapon, tape, rope etc) or forensic evidence (e.g. crime scene/body/vehicle) linking JC directly to SLP then the likelihood of conviction may have overcome the very high threshold test for charge. Irrespective of how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence is, such evidence alone is unlikely ever to meet the threshold test, without either primary, forensic or exceptional eye-witness testimony of an offenders actions and identification.

Naming JC does not leave the police with no option but to ignore any new evidence. I don't believe this is new evidence. as the review was thorough as confirmed by the CPS. This matter of the stolen/lost/mislaid/found items and the PoW was known about and eliminated at the time of the review, if not the original investigation.

What seems to be forgotten is that the only 'evidence' available to the likes of DV, and others, is from tracking down those who were associated with, or on the periphery of the lead up to SJL's disappearance, nearly thirty-six years ago. It is from peoples recall and interpretation of events at the time. Witness recall is notoriously unreliable, for many reasons and only carries any real weight when it is corroborated by other independent witnesses. To think for one moment it could be considered in any way reliable, so long after the event, is patently ridiculous. If you have never investigated a crime and taken numerous witness statements then the reality of this will be unfamiliar to you.

Does DV has any evidence other than this? Does he have and primary or forensic evidence with which to support his case for a hypothesis?

Just because the police do not disclose the detail of their investigation, for our gratification, does it give others licence to announce that there are unexplored reasonable lines of enquiry.

If you have information which you believe may be of use to the investigation then report it to the Met Police and they will assess it based on what they are aware of and action it accordingly. After all the Met Police know a whole lot more than DV or any of us.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand or accept!

Maybe read DV's book?

 

[JediJim]

I don’t know if the Railway killers ( Duffy and Malcahy) were involved in the Suzy Lamplugh case. However, it doesn’t really fit in with their other offences.
They generally targeted women travelling alone. They went out looking for a lone woman and then selected them randomly.
In Lamplughs case, this was possibly planned to lure her to the viewing, maybe not initially for murder, but maybe something else. We may never know what happen to Suzy Lamplugh, we can only assume. May have been a robbery gone wrong, maybe a kidnap gone wrong. Who knows?
But quite different from the Railways killers style.
Wouldn’t Duffy have admitted it by now?
Also couldn’t they check the whereabouts of Duffy and Mulchahy on that day to rule them out?

 

[Cluesleuth]

Wow, that's really interesting.

One drawback about a disused Tube station is that they are quite popular with Tube nerds. There are walks organised along routes that were never built, such as a branch line from Highgate to Muswell, so can be, if not busy, not unfrequented. However, that's now, not then.

A two-person abduction would probably invalidate a key assumption I've made and I think many others have. This is that in order for an abduction to go down unremarked-on, it would have to be by an acquaintance, willingly allowed into her car. If there are two people involved this changes, because two people would be much more easily able to overpower her.

Good point about the nerds using it, the homeless and substance abusers too maybe. They spent a huge amount of time on Hampstead Heath I would think they know every inch of it they had to to carry out the attacks they did.

Mulcahy being a cabbie would have known all the backstreets secluded locations and empty properties.

The planning was a big part of what they did they practised army style kidnap techniques, it would be good to find out in detail from one of the victims how they did this. They cut the victims clothes into tornequets adding a knot for maximum effect.

Duffys wife said he grabbed her dressing gown belt and tied hers hands together, she said he did it so quickly and only using one hand.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I don’t know if the Railway killers ( Duffy and Malcahy) were involved in the Suzy Lamplugh case. However, it doesn’t really fit in with their other offences.
They generally targeted women travelling alone. They went out looking for a lone woman and then selected them randomly.
In Lamplughs case, this was possibly planned to lure her to the viewing, maybe not initially for murder, but maybe something else. We may never know what happen to Suzy Lamplugh, we can only assume. May have been a robbery gone wrong, maybe a kidnap gone wrong. Who knows?
But quite different from the Railways killers style.
Wouldn’t Duffy have admitted it by now?
Also couldn’t they check the whereabouts of Duffy and Mulchahy on that day to rule them out?

Her purse containing money and credit cards were left in the car.

I think it depends how uncomfortable jail time gets for JD as to when and what he admits. It was something like 10 years before he revealed DM was involved.

To say in 2000 that there were many more certainly begs the question how many and who?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I pointed out that Duffy worked for British Rail and he used his knowledge of the rail system to travel. Sometimes commuting to commit the crimes. They also used a vehicle.

Duffy said in 2000 there are many more victims, so how can you possibly know the circumstances of how they became the victim when you dont know who the victims are and where there bodies are.

In Duffy and Mulcahy you have both a Marauder and Commuter offenders . 2 People working together the more they offend and get away with it the more accomplished and bolder they get they admitted it was like a game it was fun!!

If you think oh no they wouldn't do that because they havent done it in the past then Im sorry but thats why criminals like this get away with murder.
MOO

The 2000 review, when the data was computerised, would have no doubt resulted in searches to identify matches or similarities with similar offences/offenders/victims/locations/MO

Duffy or Mulcahy's offence MO did not include abduction, vehicle hijack or attacking women in broad daylight in London streets. I accept that a rapists/murderers MO can change depending on the circumstances, but my view is that D and M attacked in quite specific locations, away from public streets, in secluded locations, often at night. I feel that this would rule them out.

At the time of SJL's disappearance their identity was not known (Duffy arrested Nov 1986), but their murders were uppermost in the public consciousness as the Met, Surrey and Hertfordshire Police launched a joint murder enquiry (Operation Trinity), having linked the three recent murders. I would be exceptionally surprised if the SJL investigation did not liaise with Operation Trinity at the time.

It is essential that an investigation goes where the evidence leads. In the case of SJL there was only some variable eye-witness evidence and the SJL's abandoned car. The police took at face value the diary entry, which of itself was not wrong, at least not if they were also identifying other reasonable hypotheses, following up other reasonable lines of enquiry and either developing them or ruling them out.

 

[Terryb808]

How do you know it has not been "looked at" by the police, if not during the original investigation then during the detailed review from 2000?

The CPS and Treasury Counsel acknowledged that the review team had "tracked down all the evidence it was possible to find and followed up every opportunity that we (the police) knew about at that time". From this I am confident that this line of enquiry was explored and eliminated.

JC was named by the police after the CPS had reached their decision not to authorise charge. The CPS felt that the publicity given to JC regarding the SB abduction and murder, and comparison with the disappearance of SJL would prevent him receiving a fair trial.

If there was primary (e.g. clothing, weapon, tape, rope etc) or forensic evidence (e.g. crime scene/body/vehicle) linking JC directly to SLP then the likelihood of conviction may have overcome the very high threshold test for charge. Irrespective of how overwhelming the circumstantial evidence is, such evidence alone is unlikely ever to meet the threshold test, without either primary, forensic or exceptional eye-witness testimony of an offenders actions and identification.

Naming JC does not leave the police with no option but to ignore any new evidence. I don't believe this is new evidence. as the review was thorough as confirmed by the CPS. This matter of the stolen/lost/mislaid/found items and the PoW was known about and eliminated at the time of the review, if not the original investigation.

What seems to be forgotten is that the only 'evidence' available to the likes of DV, and others, is from tracking down those who were associated with, or on the periphery of the lead up to SJL's disappearance, nearly thirty-six years ago. It is from peoples recall and interpretation of events at the time. Witness recall is notoriously unreliable, for many reasons and only carries any real weight when it is corroborated by other independent witnesses. To think for one moment it could be considered in any way reliable, so long after the event, is patently ridiculous. If you have never investigated a crime and taken numerous witness statements then the reality of this will be unfamiliar to you.

Does DV has any evidence other than this? Does he have and primary or forensic evidence with which to support his case for a hypothesis?

Just because the police do not disclose the detail of their investigation, for our gratification, does it give others licence to announce that there are unexplored reasonable lines of enquiry.

If you have information which you believe may be of use to the investigation then report it to the Met Police and they will assess it based on what they are aware of and action it accordingly. After all the Met Police know a whole lot more than DV or any of us.

I fail to see why this is so difficult to understand or accept!

Interesting as usual, but the content is always the same. Completely missing the point of this thread, which is to provide people with a platform to exchange ideas.
It’s not a platform to fly a flag for the Met Police Force.
You say you’ve not had access to the police evidence, therefore, how can you say that every line of enquiry has been investigated and the only conclusion left is that JC is guilty.
I’d suggest as others have that you read AS, DV & CBD’s books, then watch the documentary programs in which JD has appeared. If you are truly objective you’ll see just how inaccurate the program is and how much he gets wrong.
I know only to well how witness statements can be inaccurate and just how much they can lie or fill in the gaps in memory via the media they have consumed.
The Met does not have an untarnished reputation either now or back in the 80’s.
Try contributing instead of being confined by police procedures, the purpose here is to explore and exploration doe not comply with police procedures.

 

[Cluesleuth]

The 2000 review, when the data was computerised, would have no doubt resulted in searches to identify matches or similarities with similar offences/offenders/victims/locations/MO

In my opinion by 2000 the police already had JC down for the murder, they dont appear to have put much effort into pursuing anyone else

MOO