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

[WestLondoner]

I'd be digging down with HR to find out exact reason for changing such detail. I suspect he was just a bit daft and wanted to see a lot more than he had.

IIRC the source for HR saying she was bundled into a van and then retracting it is AS, but it is ambiguous in that it is not clear whether it was MG or HR who was exaggerating this, i.e. it may have been MG exaggerating what HR told MG he had seen.

An issue for me with the reliability of these witnesses - HR, ND the unemployed cellarman, the unemployed jeweller (shop assistant basically) who provided the sighting of the shabby bloke with a broken nose - is exactly that they were all unemployed. London in 1986 was booming. If you weren't working it was because you didn't want to, or because you were unemployable.

Being observant can be taught I guess, but it has always struck me as otherwise being a function of intelligence. If the sightings came from a doctor, a civil engineer and an airline pilot I've have more confidence in them than I do. As it is, they appear to come from people who were all a bit bored. ND's is particularly weird because he took three months to come forward with a "sighting" that agreed in every way with the Crimewatch reconstruction. Where had he been since July?

Incidentally in DV's book MG says he had an XR3i at the time. In the reconstruction, the car he's seen in is an XR2 (souped up Fiesta). You don't forget what cars you've owned, so I wonder whose mistake this is. For the reconstruction they could well have used MG's actual car presuming he still had it. If he did not and they found an XR2 as 'good enough' that would be quite misleading. From certain angles you could mistake an XR3i for a 3-series BMW, but you couldn't mistake an XR2 for one.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What was his alibi was he PH?

Could I ask you a straight yes or no question? On the whole do you think the police did a good job.

I think the police were left wanting by using the established incident room methods and a dyed in the wool SIO, which collectively were unsuited to an investigation with significant media and public interest and the huge amount of information into the incident room.

I look back at the card systems I was using at NSY as the same time.....totally archaic, although we had one computer to run searches in an effort to identify matches.

This catalyst for change in major incident investigation came as a result of the doomed Yorkshire Ripper investigation in the early 1980's.

This led to the HOLMES database going live in 1985, although it was not used in the initial Lamplugh enquiry. If it had been then it would have assisted greatly in the police managing all the information they generated.

This case was complex, because SJL had many associates and relationships but appeared to keep it very compartmentalised.

Also working within a business that is a link in a chain which attracts Organised Crime Groups for money laundering and fraudulent activity adds a possible further dimension.

So I think the police did the best with what they had, it just wasn't up to the job though, hence opportunities were missed.

 

[RichardKimble]

CBD’s book “Prime Suspects” is with a read, it profiles JC using the letter written from prison. The police were given these and kept them.
It’s not expensive as a Kindle book.

Who is CBD ? please .

 

[Whitehall 1212]

it may have been MG exaggerating what HR told MG he had seen.

Witness evidence needs to be first hand, personal experience. It can't be what someone else told a witness

It is the job of a good investigator to confirm that what the witness says has not been tainted by external influence or embellished by the witness for whatever reason.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Who is CBD ? please .

Christopher Berry-Dee (Criminologist/Author)

 

[shadwell]

Did HR withdraw his statement that he had seen SJL being bundled into a van because he was threatened??
MOO

I’m not sure HR ever claimed this in the first place. My view was that MG invented this when called back at 6.55pm because he didn’t think police were taking SJL’s disappearance seriously.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

An issue for me with the reliability of these witnesses - HR, ND the unemployed cellarman, the unemployed jeweller (shop assistant basically) who provided the sighting of the shabby bloke with a broken nose - is exactly that they were all unemployed. London in 1986 was booming. If you weren't working it was because you didn't want to, or because you were unemployable.

Being observant can be taught I guess, but it has always struck me as otherwise being a function of intelligence. If the sightings came from a doctor, a civil engineer and an airline pilot I've have more confidence in them than I do. As it is, they appear to come from people who were all a bit bored.

Are you really making the case that the veracity of a witness is directly attributable to their demographic?

Furthermore, insinuating that professional folk with a university education are somehow superior in this respect!

The folk that make the best witnesses are the ones who are in touch with their surroundings, with what is going on around them and who notice subtle differences from one day to the next.

I can assure you that those who are homeless, who may not have a Masters or a PhD, make excellent witnesses, because they see everything but others rarely see them.

Maybe it's time to have an away day from the ivory tower.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Too many coincidences not to be worthy of further investigation.

I understand that JH had a bullet proof alibi though. I would hope that with such coincidences the police double and triple checked before ruling out this connection.

Although if SJL chose Kipper based on what was already written in the diary, i.e. Wardo and choosing Shorrolds, realised the association with JH, who she also knew was called Kip or Kipper, then she put him in the picture inadvertently. Lots of the well heeled Yuppies drove BMW's then....hence why JC was obviously drawn to them.

I often wonder how HR first came to be providing a witness statement and when.

Was he responding to an appeal or house-to-house enquiries? How was he interviewed? Were questions put in a way to lead him? What was his motivation in coming forward?.......e.g. lived next door and desperately wanted to have seen something significant to find suzy....always concerning.

Witnesses changing statements raises likelihood that police did a bad job in providing appropriate explanation/support to bring out all the witness saw/heard/smelt/felt/tasted in their own words and without being directed.

I'd be digging down with HR to find out exact reason for changing such detail. I suspect he was just a bit daft and wanted to see a lot more than he had.

Didn't DL speak with HR before he was interviewed by the police?

 

[RichardKimble]

Christopher Berry-Dee (Criminologist/Author)

Many thanks.

 

[Cluesleuth]

.

The folk that make the best witnesses are the ones who are in touch with their surroundings, with what is going on around them and who notice subtle differences from one day to the next.

Wouldnt HR be one of those folk?

 

[WestLondoner]

The folk that make the best witnesses are the ones who are in touch with their surroundings, with what is going on around them and who notice subtle differences from one day to the next.

Wouldnt HR be one of those folk?

I wonder. And what of, for example, ND the unemployed cellarman who took 3 months to remember having seen SJL outside 37SR, and then provided an account indistinguishable from that acted out in the Crimewatch episode which had prompted him to come forward?

Or, indeed, the people coming forward 14 years later to say they'd seen JC looking in a shop window in 1986, or had witnessed an argument in a BMW in 1986. The latter "sighting" was clearly based on press reports that JC had a BMW, which in 1986 he did not. Then, he had a half-share of a red Sierra, but there was never an appeal for sightings of anyone driving one of those.

In all cases, these witnesses would need the odd combination of remarkable powers of observation and recall, so that they'd notice and react to stuff in no way out of the ordinary, coupled with a total failure to notice or react to the enormous press coverage seeking such evidence at the time.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I wonder. And what of, for example, ND the unemployed cellarman who took 3 months to remember having seen SJL outside 37SR, and then provided an account indistinguishable from that acted out in the Crimewatch episode which had prompted him to come forward?

Or, indeed, the people coming forward 14 years later to say they'd seen JC looking in a shop window in 1986, or had witnessed an argument in a BMW in 1986. The latter "sighting" was clearly based on press reports that JC had a BMW, which in 1986 he did not. Then, he had a half-share of a red Sierra, but there was never an appeal for sightings of anyone driving one of those.

In all cases, these witnesses would need the odd combination of remarkable powers of observation and recall, so that they'd notice and react to stuff in no way out of the ordinary, coupled with a total failure to notice or react to the enormous press coverage seeking such evidence at the time.

The unemployed men may have been plants to support a particular narrative

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I wonder. And what of, for example, ND the unemployed cellarman who took 3 months to remember having seen SJL outside 37SR, and then provided an account indistinguishable from that acted out in the Crimewatch episode which had prompted him to come forward?

Or, indeed, the people coming forward 14 years later to say they'd seen JC looking in a shop window in 1986, or had witnessed an argument in a BMW in 1986. The latter "sighting" was clearly based on press reports that JC had a BMW, which in 1986 he did not. Then, he had a half-share of a red Sierra, but there was never an appeal for sightings of anyone driving one of those.

In all cases, these witnesses would need the odd combination of remarkable powers of observation and recall, so that they'd notice and react to stuff in no way out of the ordinary, coupled with a total failure to notice or react to the enormous press coverage seeking such evidence at the time.

Your response doesn't address the point I was making in consequence of your original post! I was commenting on your conscious bias, which was clearly apparent and only serves to cloud judgement of what we can and cannot rely on and to what degree.

However, we should all know by now that witness evidence that had been tainted by outside sources or appears so long after the event will most likely lack any credibility.

Not surprisingly the police also know this and treat it with the extreme caution that it demands. They keep all the juicy stuff to themselves and warn witnesses not to talk as it may be needed in court.

JC had access to a red Ford Sierra, via the cook at the Scrubs.

Even though JC did not buy the black BMW in which SB's tax disc was found until 1987, it does not exclude the possibility that he had access to a dark coloured BMW at the time of SJL's disappearance. In fact JD clearly states that he did and If JD says it, then I believe it, because he is an A1 investigator.

Just because you acknowledge that JC had access to one car doesn't mean that was the only one. In 1986 cars were easy to nick and JC, having worked in the car trade and having been in prison, was probably exceptionally well versed in obtaining one for his use and switching the plates.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The unemployed men may have been plants to support a particular narrative

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Do you not think it highly probable that there were a significant percentage of people who had seen the press coverage and police appeals/reconstructions and wanted desperately to be able to help?

It has been shown that the need to want to help can cause the mind to believe it saw something of significance.

This means than unless significant aspects of witness statements are corroborated by others independently or there is significant detail given that was known to, yet not revealed by the police then witness evidence should be treated with significant skepticism.

The Psychology of the Witness

Witnesses are a fundamental part of a trial. What they have to say may support the different physical evidence presented before the judge. However, a witness’ testimony can’t be taken...

exploringyourmind.com

 

[Konstantin]

RE HR and how he came to be a witness. Yes as noted above AS sets this out although it is frustrating that he is not clearer about some points.

Basically according to AS who got his info from the investigation, what happened was when Suzy did not return people in the office got concerned as she was not given to taking long lunches, especially because she was conscientious and also keen to take phone calls that earned her money from commissions on sales. Her colleagues looked at her diary to figure out where she was, saw the Shorrolds appointment and MG and another female staff member went round there--it was very close to the office. It is not clear if they gained access to the house and if they did then I cannot believe that MG realised she hadnt taken the key at that stage and saved himself checking if she was trapped in teh house.

AS is fuzzy here on what happened but what is known is that MG and his female colleague spoke to HR at this point. HR told them he had seen a male who he later woudl describe and a female who he could not, outside the property. It's not clear if MG knocked on his door to ask, if he saw them and came out to see what was up, if MG led him by saying did you see a man and a woman outside here at this time etc

Later that day when Suzy did not return MG went back to the house and talked to HR again and at this stage HR said he thought the woman was bundled into a car. He later retracted that.

I doubt that MG made that up to get the police to take it seriously as that would pretty soon come out.

HR was later unsure about some points he had made previously including whether a door he heard slam was in 37 or the other house to the other side of him.

So HR was a witness from early on but some of what he initially said was exaggerated. HOwever he stuck to his story about seeing the man and the woman.

Regarding the unemployed people it seems that they had to go to collect benefits around lunchtime hence why unemployed people were around that residentual area at that time. The police made an appeal and people came forward, whether they were reliable or not I don't think we can assess.

 

[Terryb808]

I wonder. And what of, for example, ND the unemployed cellarman who took 3 months to remember having seen SJL outside 37SR, and then provided an account indistinguishable from that acted out in the Crimewatch episode which had prompted him to come forward?

Or, indeed, the people coming forward 14 years later to say they'd seen JC looking in a shop window in 1986, or had witnessed an argument in a BMW in 1986. The latter "sighting" was clearly based on press reports that JC had a BMW, which in 1986 he did not. Then, he had a half-share of a red Sierra, but there was never an appeal for sightings of anyone driving one of those.

In all cases, these witnesses would need the odd combination of remarkable powers of observation and recall, so that they'd notice and react to stuff in no way out of the ordinary, coupled with a total failure to notice or react to the enormous press coverage seeking such evidence at the time.

I’ve often wondered if the unemployment cellar man was incentivised by someone to come forward (and I don’t mean the police).

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I’ve often wondered if the unemployment cellar man was incentivised by someone to come forward (and I don’t mean the police).

Can I just say that if anyone is being incentivised to lay a false trail, then invariably it helps to lead back to whomever had the bright idea in the first place. Entirely the opposite of the original intention.

Police will always consider someone's motives for wanting to give information, not everyone is altruistic. Police know this, which is how they ''encourage' those involved in criminal behaviour or on its periphery to become a CHIS.

 

[Terryb808]

Your response doesn't address the point I was making in consequence of your original post! I was commenting on your conscious bias, which was clearly apparent and only serves to cloud judgement of what we can and cannot rely on and to what degree.

However, we should all know by now that witness evidence that had been tainted by outside sources or appears so long after the event will most likely lack any credibility.

Not surprisingly the police also know this and treat it with the extreme caution that it demands. They keep all the juicy stuff to themselves and warn witnesses not to talk as it may be needed in court.

JC had access to a red Ford Sierra, via the cook at the Scrubs.

Even though JC did not buy the black BMW in which SB's tax disc was found until 1987, it does not exclude the possibility that he had access to a dark coloured BMW at the time of SJL's disappearance. In fact JD clearly states that he did and If JD says it, then I believe it, because he is an A1 investigator.

Just because you acknowledge that JC had access to one car doesn't mean that was the only one. In 1986 cars were easy to nick and JC, having worked in the car trade and having been in prison, was probably exceptionally well versed in obtaining one for his use and switching the plates.

There’s no evidence to support the theory that JC had enough knowledge to allow him to steal cars.
Generally salesman (which JC was) looked down on workshop staff, as a result unless a special relationship developed workshop staff kept themselves to themselves.
Ford Sierra locks were a new development at the time, it didn’t take long for thieves to work out they could be unlocked with a matchstick and a tennis ball. Other makes could be unlocked with just a 12” steel ruler.
The BMW referenced all those years later was thought to be left hand drive, what about the Belgium diamond dealers BMW?
The whole story around this looks very dodgy.

 

[Terryb808]

Can I just say that if anyone is being incentivised to lay a false trail, then invariably it helps to lead back to whomever had the bright idea in the first place. Entirely the opposite of the original intention.

Police will always consider someone's motives for wanting to give information, not everyone is altruistic. Police know this, which is how they ''encourage' those involved in criminal behaviour or on its periphery to become a CHIS.

Agree, however, if that person was already a witness and not a suspect then it’s unlikely they would be flagged as the source.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Agree, however, if that person was already a witness and not a suspect then it’s unlikely they would be flagged as the source.

Are you returning us to the PoW 'theory'?

Give the police a little credit, they may have missed info because of the wealth coming in, but when they speak to either witnesses or suspects they are weighing up what is said, how its said and the body language being displayed. The investigators were detectives, not rookie probationers just out of training school. They knew the score.