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

[Cluesleuth]

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.

When officers visited CV initially, they should have taken a statement, including the detail of any phone call CV had with SJL, together with his movements, his access to vehicles, and who was with with at the relevant times....particularly if they were uncomfortable with him for any reason.

Background checks should have been done although as a licensee he should have subject to some checks to be licenced.

If CV wasn't properly eliminated at the time then the review of 2000 should have picked up on this and actioned it.

Correct me if Im wrong but they didnt take his statement until over a year later he was deiscribed in the AS book as a patentently honest and straightford person.

I did think that DV was somewhat unfair in how he described him in his book.
The guy now elderly and quite clearly having a hearing problem wearing not one but two hearing aids agreed to speak with not once but twice with him. The first time having been approached with no prior notice at all.

Whitehall 1212 can I politely point out that you are advising us of how things should have been done by police its not necessarily how they were done. Mistakes were made not everything was done by the book.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If what we are led to believe is true and a female and male in the Sturgis office were in a relationship and usually spent their lunchtimes together this would have proved difficult on Monday unless they combined viewings they had agreed to cover with their lunch breaks.
We know the male had recently celebrated a birthday had which may account for a male carrying a bottle of champagne outside Shorrolds and a couple seen later drinking champagne in the park.

Are you alleging that staff covered up irregular practices and that police failed to validate the witness sightings in Shorrold's Road by making it clear that to knowingly lie on a statement is a criminal offence?

I know the original investigation made errors but these are basics.

Police know that people manipulate, fail to disclose and falsify things when being questioned, because their job, relationship, liberty etc is more important to them on a personal level. If statements are too identical then it's generally too good to be true. It's relatively easy to catch out one of the parties when they are being interviewed/providing statements 'independently'!

One may as well denounce absolutely everything, about all investigations, as being flawed. I can understand this if there is limited experience of the criminal investigation process. Investigation is about not taking things at face value.....trust nothing, question everything.

 

[Cluesleuth]

MG was the estate agent for 123 Stevenage Rd, it makes sense to send a junior to organise the viewing for an interested client

MS told DV that office juniors and secretary did not do face to face viewings they were expected to man the phones in the office which never stopped ringing.

apologises for not quoted he page number but Dv book is not as reader friendly as the AS book who has an index at the back for quick reference

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Whitehall 1212 can I politely point out that you are advising us of how things should have been done by police its not necessarily how they were done. Mistakes were made not everything was done by the book.

Respectfully.... I can't comment on the failings of the original investigation as I wasn't party to it, nor was I the subsequent ones. Some errors are clear and obvious and I have mentioned these previously.

What I can do though is comment on what would have been good investigative practice at the time and more recently, with the advance of investigative methodology and techniques.

 

[Terryb808]

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.

When officers visited CV initially, they should have taken a statement, including the detail of any phone call CV had with SJL, together with his movements, his access to vehicles, and who was with with at the relevant times....particularly if they were uncomfortable with him for any reason.

Background checks should have been done although as a licensee he should have subject to some checks to be licenced.

If CV wasn't properly eliminated at the time then the review of 2000 should have picked up on this and actioned it.

I’m saying AS had unprecedented access to the police at the time he was writing his book, he outlines that the officer was uncomfortable with CV. And that one year later CV changed his story.
Now correct this if it’s wrong, but it’s also outlined that the purpose of the interviews one year later is to see who changed their original story, as this sometimes indicated guilt (again from AS).
I believe the officer that conducted the original interview with CV and that CV didn’t hand over a phone number.
The change in his story one year later (with the benefit of all the press coverage) now places him in the PoW when (at 2.00pm) SJL’s car was abandoned and a cabbie collected the James Galway man. Despite appeals this James Galway man never came forward.
I find this odd given the high profile nature of the case.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Are you alleging that staff covered up irregular practices and that police failed to validate the witness sightings in Shorrold's Road by making it clear that to knowingly lie on a statement is a criminal offence?

I know the original investigation made errors but these are basics.

Police know that people manipulate, fail to disclose and falsify things when being questioned, because their job, relationship, liberty etc is more important to them on a personal level. If statements are too identical then it's generally too good to be true. It's relatively easy to catch out one of the parties when they are being interviewed/providing statements 'independently'!

One may as well denounce absolutely everything, about all investigations, as being flawed. I can understand this if there is limited experience of the criminal investigation process. Investigation is about not taking things at face value.....trust nothing, question everything.

Absolutely not!... You left out my comment that I dont believe anyone did anything wrong!
This was an unsual day in the office and it appears from the AS book that some help was required to cover some viewings.

AS book page 28 JC told detectives around 9.45 he borrowed SJL's car to take a client to a house in Foskett rd returning 20 mins later.

AS page 28 SJL shared a cigarette with NG and SF . SF then left to show a house to a client.

You or I do not know what the police hold on file and how much they choose to disclose to the public.
I am open to discussing all possible senarios.

MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Now correct this if it’s wrong, but it’s also outlined that the purpose of the interviews one year later is to see who changed their original story, as this sometimes indicated guilt (again from AS).

Your assertion is incorrect. As the investigation had come to a dead end it would be good practice to revisit the witness statements to:

1. Ensure any specific detail had been incorporated into the card index, e.g. vehicles, people, places, times, descriptions.

2. To identify if witness statements needed could have included greater detail, e.g. "I met a friend in Shorrolds Road" originally. SIO "go and find out who the friend was, the times you were with them, a description of them any car they were driving"....I would hope this would not be included originally!

3. Identify if witnesses can provide anything further to their original statements. Further recollection does sometimes happen later on, possibly triggered by a random event. Of course this should be reported as soon as there is further recall. Amendments should promote some scepticism and further questioning regarding external influence, reason for omitting previously.

N.B. If there is reasonable suspicion of involvement in some way (guilt, as you say), then that individual should no longer be treated as a witness but as suspect and arrested if necessary, but definitely cautioned before being interviewed in any way....this would generally be done at a police station, maybe by appointment and voluntarily. Refusal may lead to arrest and interview.

 

[Crusader21]

Regardless if you believe 'JC is our man' or are in the 'DV fan club', I think most will accept that DV deserves enormus credit for researching this case in such detail, length and cost. Also in doing that has uncovering new and significant information on this case.

In a nutshell, my personal opinion is that DV has provided a plausable alternative to where SL was going that day and where she may still be today.

Yes, of course that must be balanced to what the police are claiming, backed by what they know and have not in the public domain.

But surely it is best to keep an open mind?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Absolutely not! You coveniently left out my comment that I dont believe anyone did anything wrong!
This was an unsual day in the office and it appears from the AS book that some help was required to cover some viewings.

AS book page 28 JC told detectives around 9.45 he borrowed SJL's car to take a client to a house in Foskett rd returning 20 mins later.

AS page 28 SJL shared a cigarette with NG and SF . SF then left to show a house to a client.

You or I do not know what the police hold on file and how much they choose to disclose to the public.
I am open to discussing all possible senarios.

MOO

I apologise for being so direct and not acknowledging your assertion that you don't believe anyone did anything wrong.

My thrust is that witnesses placing SJK with unknown male in Shorrolds Road at the relevant time should not have been taken at face value.

In spite of opportunities lost I would very much have expected the police to rule out that other members of staff and other estate agents with properties in the same road could not have compromised the witness accounts, i.e. Female in business attire seen with smartly dressed male.

This combined with a subsequent police update for any individuals/couples similarly described as witnesses (male carrying a bottle) to contact police to eliminate incorrect sightings, is something I hope was done....I'll try and find out.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Regardless if you believe 'JC is our man' or are in the 'DV fan club', I think most will accept that DV deserves enormus credit for researching this case in such detail, length and cost. Also in doing that has uncovering new and significant information on this case.

In a nutshell, my personal opinion is that DV has provided a plausable alternative to where SL was going that day and where she may still be today.

Yes, of course that must be balanced to what the police are claiming, backed by what they know and have not in the public domain.

But surely it is best to keep an open mind?

In recent history some police investigations, particuarly high profile ones, have become fixated on a particular suspect.

Certainly the Ripper Enquiry and Rachel Nickell's murder to the exclusion of objective investigation and maintaining an open mind to go where the evidence leads.

I feel confident that the review of 2000 would have explored new hypotheses based on gaps in the evidence and/or timeline.

As CV was a witness and presumably not considered a suspect or eliminated as such, whilst having care and control over the PoW, then it would be entirely reasonable to declare a hypothesis that SJL met her fate at the PoW or is deposited there, as being entirely incorrect.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I apologise for being so direct and not acknowledging your assertion that you don't believe anyone did anything wrong.

My thrust is that witnesses placing SJK with unknown male in Shorrolds Road at the relevant time should not have been taken at face value.

In spite of opportunities lost I would very much have expected the police to rule out that other members of staff and other estate agents with properties in the same road could not have compromised the witness accounts, i.e. Female in business attire seen with smartly dressed male.

This combined with a subsequent police update for any individuals/couples similarly described as witnesses (male carrying a bottle) to contact police to eliminate incorrect sightings, is something I hope was done....I'll try and find out.

Apology accepted. I know we are all seeking the same end here.

Can I ask would you know if the original index cards have be kept and stored or would they been discarded after being entered onto the computer system?

 

[Crusader21]

Please forgive my digression, but a possible alternative explanation for the witnessed couple was discussed here previously, perhaps in the deleted or 1st thread.

It goes along the lines of SL had been down to meet her friend and possible business partner, 'she who cannot be named' that Monday lunchtime.

Did that friend and her husband, turn up and actually visit the Sturgis office looking for SL. And with SL not in the office, were they then redirected around at 37 SR (by staff looking in her diary)?

Then was that the couple, the 'blonde' and ' 'guy with a suit', the two people who were subsequently spotted by witnesses at 37 SR?

Perhaps a touch far fetched, but can that possible senario be ruled out at all now?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Apology accepted. I know we are all seeking the same end here.

Can I ask would you know if the original index cards have be kept and stored or would they been discarded after being entered onto the computer system?

Thank you

They should be retained, albeit in storage somewhere and not immediately to hand.

As HOLMES 2 now contains all the investigative data then they should not need to be referred to in most circumstances. They have probably also been scanned so the original documents can be viewed easily.

All documents are the subject of the principles of disclosure to the defence in the event of a charge, as well as it being an unsolved case and therefore not subject to a weeding process.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Thank you

They should be retained, albeit in storage somewhere and not immediately to hand.

As HOLMES 2 now contains all the investigative data then they should not need to be referred to in most circumstances. They have probably also been scanned so the original documents can be viewed easily.

All documents are the subject of the principles of disclosure to the defence in the event of a charge, as well as it being an unsolved case and therefore not subject to a weeding process.

re scanning
A lot of the cards were said to have things crossed out or added and reference and cross referencing had to taken into account which may have resulted in human error when manually added to the computer system.

Is there now a more sophisticated computer scanning process that can scan an index card and sort the information no matter the complexity of how it appears in written form on it transferring the data automatically and with accurracy to a master database?

hope that makes sense Im not that computer savvy

 

[Terryb808]

I’d like to suggest a focused approach to this, I know we all want the same thing and are focused in our own way. However, a lot has come to light in recent weeks and if we can focus on one aspect and generally agree, we might make progress.
Whitehall1212 said that the cabbie sighting of SJL’s car in Stevenage Road was thought to be reliable.
This sighting was 2.00pm, can we corroborate this independently?
I know WJ’s sighting as she was walking her dog is very suspect, however, she also placed SJL’s car in Stevenage Road at approx 3.00pm when she returned from her shopping trip.
I’d say this could corroborate the cabbies sighting at 2.00pm.
Then we have the owner of the garage, he returned at 5.15pm, SJL’s car was there then, so this is another independent witness.
The car was officially discovered at 10.00pm, so can we agree that SJL’s car was in Stevenage Road from approximately 2.00pm?

 

[Cluesleuth]

I’d like to suggest a focused approach to this, I know we all want the same thing and are focused in our own way. However, a lot has come to light in recent weeks and if we can focus on one aspect and generally agree, we might make progress.
Whitehall1212 said that the cabbie sighting of SJL’s car in Stevenage Road was thought to be reliable.
This sighting was 2.00pm, can we corroborate this independently?
I know WJ’s sighting as she was walking her dog is very suspect, however, she also placed SJL’s car in Stevenage Road at approx 3.00pm when she returned from her shopping trip.
I’d say this could corroborate the cabbies sighting at 2.00pm.
Then we have the owner of the garage, he returned at 5.15pm, SJL’s car was there then, so this is another independent witness.
The car was officially discovered at 10.00pm, so can we agree that SJL’s car was in Stevenage Road from approximately 2.00pm?

Can I ask why you think WJ's sighting at approx 12.40 is suspect?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

re scanning
A lot of the cards were said to have things crossed out or added and reference and cross referencing had to taken into account which may have resulted in human error when manually added to the computer system.

Is there now a more sophisticated computer scanning process that can scan an index card and sort the information no matter the complexity of how it appears in written form on it transferring the data automatically and with accurracy to a master database?

hope that makes sense Im not that computer savvy

Data sets taken form the evidential material are entered by HOLMES trained operators and cross referenced with the source document, e.g. witness statements, CCTV recordings, intelligence logs, ANPR data etc

Searches can then be carried out in a wide range of search formats, e.g. to identify all occasions when a black BMW has been mentioned, or a man wearing a tie, etc. The results will identify the source document.

A anacronym in computing is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Hence why only trained HOLMES operators input the data sets taken from the source documents. Get it wrong and search results will be limited and potentially impact negatively on the investigation.

 

[Terryb808]

Can I ask why you think WJ's sighting at approx 12.40 is suspect?

Unless SJL (and I accept this is possible) left the office earlier than 12.40pm and went straight to Stevenage Road it could not have been her car.
What we need is corroborated witness accounts and IMO the Cabbie, WJ (3.00pm) and Garage owner 5.15pm tend to stack up.
For the 12.40pm to be correct SJL’s car would need to have left and returned (with the perpetrator and SJL, then perpetrator alone at sometime prior to 2.00pm) which I feel is unlikely.
Establishing the time the perpetrator abandoned SJL’s car in Stevenage Road is important because it fixes the time between leaving the office and her disappearance.

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 If you think SL is buried in the Birmingham area, where would you look first? Would you search Erdington, Edgbaston or Sutton Coldfield?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Whitehall 1212 If you think SL is buried in the Birmingham area, where would you look first? Would you search Erdington, Edgbaston or Sutton Coldfield?

It would need an intelligence led approach.

Look at JC's history before he was sent down in 1981. Where was he living, offending and frequenting? What areas did he gravitate towards? Did he have any specific places that he was drawn to again and again / went as a kid / young adult that evokes memories?

If there is intelligence about his movements during his bail hostel period at Wormwood Scrubs for the six months prior to SJL's abduction.....bring that into the equation.

Feed all the data into a geopostioning system along with JC's preferred deposition sites......in water, near a road and possibly with significance in terms of making a statement (i.e. Dead Woman's Ditch, as with SB).

I think it will be somewhere that gives him a sense of superiority and infamy / sick legacy....he plays games.

See what the system throws up.

Until JC was sent to Wormwood Scrubs I am unaware of any history he has of being in London. How much did he travel around Greater London / Home Counties in those six months in Hammersmith? Where else did he go?

I believe he will have identified sites where he could hold someone hostage and dispose of them. I don't think it is random....it all has a purpose....power and control.

He's a shock and awe attacker, lots of verbal and physical aggression. It disorientates like a stun grenade and gives an attacker the advantage in which time he can overpower.

I think any continued abduction and deposition involves more pre-planning by JC. He knows where he is going.

I think the abduction of SJL was planned as he knew her already, not spur of the moment. This is why I think she disappeared into thin air....because he executed a plan of when, where and how....he had minimised risk of being caught and rehearsed it in his mind.

MOO