I am not sure I buy this. It assumes a degree of police diligence and effectiveness that we have not seen.
Chapter 66 of DV's book gives a good account of how JC came to be associated with this case. The SJL case was closed at the end of 1987 as having reached a dead end; the police had proved, unsurprisingly, unable to find a non-existent person. When JC was arrested in 88 or 89 for the murder of Shirley Banks, the News of the World got hold of his criminal history and published it, along with their speculation that he was Mr Kipper. DL and Pl then co-opted this speculation to demand that the SJL case be reopened. Both the Met and Somerset and Avon police dismissed JC as a suspect, as there was no evidence against him.
DL and PL spent the next ten years insisting that JC was SJL's killer. They eventually got the investigation reopened against a background climate - the Macpherson report etc - in which the police looked bad for not being sufficiently sensitive to bereaved families. The aim of the reopened inquiry wasn't to start from scratch but to find evidence against JC, and as there wasn't any the police went on a mission to manufacture some, by telling the public at every turn that JC was a suspect and soliciting sightings of him fourteen years after the event. They still ended up with nothing but at DL's behest they announced that JC did it.
That assertion alone tells you the police have no evidence. If they did, such a public statement would be grossly prejudicial to any trial of JC. The police made the statement because they'd failed to present the CPS with any evidence and because they knew there would never be any such trial to prejudice. But there are other ways in which the way they have pursued JC is revealing. The "lead" actually came from the Lamplughs, not from following evidence. Instead of gathering evidence and looking at what suspects it leads them to, they are doing it exactly backwards - they've decided JC did it and they're trying to find evidence against him, ignoring everything else. Where necessary they are manufacturing that evidence - by launching appeals for more 14 years later, for example, and treating obviously fabricated nonsense as having value. They're still on a fishing trip for a body, digging up random places suggested to them by wags. Some of these places - JC's mother's kitchen for example - effectively concede that JC was in fact in Sutton Coldfield at the time. At the end of all this, if they had any better case than the News of the World did 33 years ago, we'd know by now.
So I don't really buy that the police have anything we don't know about that they can't share. It looks likelier that they've got nothing.
I think it is important to maintain objectivity and understand the task faced by the police....they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. I find the best way to do that is to reflect how we would have gone about managing the very early stages of such an investigation:
The only information is that a young, attractive, white, middle class, estate agent has gone out to conduct a viewing on her own with a 'Mr Kipper', and not returned. Her car has gone from where it was parked but is not or near the address she noted in the diary. Friends, family and local hospitals have been spoken to with no trace. There is no sign that she has been home and she has not kept her 18:00 appointment. Time is of the essence as this is totally out of character. SJL may be at risk of harm by persons unknown. You have to go public but how much do you say, too little and you'll be swamped with responses and that it will be impossible to process at the required speed. Too much and you will get fewer responses but you know there will be a proportion of detailed statements from those who have convinced themselves they saw something they didn't, promoting lines of enquiry based on nothing ....how do you tell? The clock is still ticking and the longer it ticks the less chance you have of finding JSL alive.....quick do something! You have a limit on resources for house-to-house enquiries, taking statements, investigating SJL's background and ruling out people she knows who could have motive to harm her....quick, effective, informed, justifiable, decisions are required. You have the press, your bosses, and SJL's family and friends leaning on you.....they want action and information fast.
OK so mistakes were made and as with the Yorkshire Ripper Enquiry, card indexing systems for cross-referencing all the information coming into a high profile investigation, in a world with more television to reach the masses, were totally unsuited to managing such an investigation. SJL is still so strong in our psyche and we all have 'what if's', particularly as DL and PL were denied the opportunity to lay their Suzy to rest. This is made all the more raw as JC is now reportedly at the end of his life and many believe he knows, me included....although his personality means he would be highly unlikely to give up his secrets. Everyone now wants the same thing....to find Suzy and bring her home. I was working at NSY at the time and my journey to work took me through Fulham. So like those of you who have a connection to the area or the estate agency business we often feel more connected to these events.
The Met investigation team went to Bristol, as you say. They were given full access to the Avon and Somerset investigation into the SB's abduction. No conclusive link was found connecting JC with SJL's disappearance, I acknowledge that. However, nor did the assessment of the intelligence/evidence rule JC out of SJL's disappearance. It is important to understand that if crimes in separate areas of forces or between forces can be linked it provides a situation in which collective resources can be managed more effectively and it can often provide additional weight to the evidence. To link investigations without conclusive evidence could undermine the whole investigation. This is not the same as having no evidence against JC for the SJL's disappearance, which is what you incorrectly allude to.
The dead end was reached because in spite of all the media publicity, the police could not confirm SJL's movements or identify the male who was seen with a person we believe to be SJL, at the material times. From my understanding the key statements at the time were uncorroborated and some were contradicted by other independent witnesses, yet the sightings they conveyed were unable to establish a reliable timeline of SJL's and the movement of possible vehicles. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable and open to misbelief, suggestion (conscious and otherwise). Yes other witnesses came forwards years later with valuable information, but why years later? I'll never understand that!
Interviewing witness and statement taking is a skill and maybe this was viewed as more of a laborious task in 1986. Witness statements need to comply with R v Turnbull and the ADVOKATE mnemonic, relating to identification evidence. An officer understanding the principles of cognitive memory and being patient will draw out out all that a witness can genuinely recall in their own words.....no suggestion or letting slip any details in the police domain or from what other witnesses have suggested.
The review by Ch Supt Jim Dickie from 2000 took place as a result of the seriousness of the case, the passage of time and the high profile nature. The original evidence was looked at with fresh pairs of eyes, modern detective training (then) and updated investigation procedures and tools. Many of the existing investigation team will have retired by 2000, particularly the senior investigators. The review included all the index card data being uploaded to the HOLMES 2 investigative database, a significant task. That the original HOLMES wasn't used in 1986, although in its infancy, is likely another key error. Although DL and PL no doubt wanted a continued/reopened investigation and said so, that would not have influenced the police decision. It was commenced because it was operationally appropriate.
The McPherson Report was concerned with the discriminatory response/investigation by the Met Police Service to crimes when the victims, families, friends and witnesses are from ethnic minorities and was a consequence of the the investigation arising from the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. I consider your point to be moot in this situation.
What is more likely is that DL's pro-active approach and dynamic personality rubbed some of the police up the wrong way.....their problem, not hers. She would do anything to find her daughter and rightly so. Any half decent parent would. Some coppers lose the human touch and the empathy needed to police effectively, when they have been around crime and criminals for too long and start to get an 'us and them' psyche.....they don't like having their cages rattled by outsiders, particularly those who are eloquent, composed, intelligent and knowledgeable....as DL was in every way.
No reviews start from scratch. A review looks at the original investigation, identifies evidential gaps that need to be addressed and corrects any errors, where possible, with a view to progressing the investigation towards arrest, charge and conviction. Of course in this case finding SJL is overarching, both for the family and friends but also to progress the investigation.
Jim Dickey approached the review with an entirely open mind. All the possible identified suspects were eliminated during the original enquiry, except 'Mr Kipper' or a unknown person with which it is believed that SJL arranged to meet. The process of elimination should have been reviewed as part of the review. So known partners, ex-partners, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, admirers, landlords, temporary landlords, known persons of concern at the time will all have been reviewed in respect of both the original and any new evidence and either featured as being worthy of further investigation or eliminated.
The only identified suspect, based on a wealth of circumstantial evidence that could not be ruled out was JC. In fact new circumstantial evidence was obtained which further supported JC as a subject of significant interest. The issue is that without being able to place JC with SJL or in the immediate vicinity at the material times and without evidence directly linking him to SJL or her car then the circumstantial evidence is just not enough for the CPS to authorise a charge. If anyone else had popped up who had an MO which fitted, was a serious violent offender towards women and was known to have frequented the area recently, then they would have been subject to investigation also. No such person came across the police radar that couldn't be eliminated. The views of JD and other investigators involved in the 2000 review can be seen at the below link (watch from 2:57).
What has to be said is that whenever JC was in an area, terrible things happened, things of a gravity that normally happen very infrequently.....if he or someone matching his description is known to be in that area and someone with his MO of trying to charm women from a certain demographic (SJL's demographic) with champagne, flowers etc, whilst frequenting wine bars in the Hammersmith/Fulham area allegedly including the PoW PH, approaching houses for sale speculatively and departing quickly when the husband shows himself, and with access to a car then he is quite rightly the key suspect, if there is nothing to eliminate him and no one else is on the radar.
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. The evidence the police require will most likely require SJL's body to be found and excellent forensic evidence to be obtained from it and the scene. This is not impossible after so many years. JC will always have claimed that he couldn't possibly get a fair trial anyway, after all the publicity and knowledge of his previous offending behaviour. The strict instructions to any jury from the judge to only try the defendant on the evidence in court would counter this. It's highly likely another moot point though as JC is likely to depart this mortal coil soon and may he burn in hell for all eternity for all the lives he has destroyed with his pure evil.
You make many unevidenced claims, are you repeating DV chapter and verse or on commission? Irrespective of DV's investigative credentials he is not privy to all the evidence/intelligence obtained by the police, of which only a small part is in the public domain. DV is like a dog with a bone, quite possibly with a personal agenda other than wanting to find Suzy. He knows how it works and to be honest I'm very surprised that he doesn't realise that he is not working with anywhere near the complete picture. He also make sweeping statements in dismissing what the police have said, but doesn't counter with a factual argument. Hell, we can all do that, I'm even guilty of it myself and it's very lazy if not a little crass.
Think of all the things the state can do to gather intelligence, providing it is necessary, proportionate and can't be achieved less intrusively. Do you think these feature in the police investigation? Why do you think the police are so convinced of JC's involvement? Maybe consider the impact of PII applications by defence counsel and how any Crown Court judge would most likely refuse on the grounds of preventing a fair trial. The Crown would walk away from the case as they would have to reveal something they do not wish to and which could impact a whole range of other investigations and even the national security.
Why do you allege that the Lamplugh's provided JC as the lead? Not so! After the rape in Reading in October 1986, for which JC was ultimately convicted, Thames Valley Police put forward JC's name to the SJL investigation team. So JC was now known to the SJL investigation, albeit not profiled sufficiently then. After JC was arrested for SB's abduction he became of far greater interest and his profile was developed. I have already explained why the two investigations were not linked.
The police have a key suspect in JC. In JC they did all they could to disprove that he could be involved. They couldn't but their investigation strengthened his suspect status. Certainly in 2000 the Major Investigation Teams followed the evidence and spent much time trying to disprove a suspects involvement. The role of the police is to obtain all evidence that either proves or disproves a suspects involvement in an alleged offence! I can guarantee you that the gold standard teams, who investigate serious crimes do this to the letter. Investigations costing into seven figures can be lost at Court otherwise.
I'm done with this post. My departing request is consider that the police have a great deal more trump cards than anyone else can see. In the UK they sure aren't going to declare them readily and then only sparingly. The original investigation was compromised because of incompetency and no doubt evidence was lost. Lessons were learnt in the intervening years, people were sent out to pasture, police investigation skills and technology improved significantly and new, keen, open-minded, experienced detectives moved in. We should trust in their professionalism, judgement, and integrity certainly in Major Crime Investigation....they are the cream of the crop but they play their cards very close.
