UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Whitehall 1212]

All police have to do in interview is to pose to the question to BW if there was a possibilty that say it could be a similar car to SJL's and how sure was that it was actually SJL's own car, of course then BW would have some hesitation and I think anyone of us in her position would say well conceivably it could have been a car similar to SJL's fiesta. BW does not come across as ureliable to me and the Detective on Crimewatch did her sighting had to be taken seriously because she had known SJL personally.
Bear in mind that this sighting on Fulham Palace rd and time which was now being presented must have thrown the police completely they were bound to pose the question to BW

As this would be a witness statement session and not a suspect interview the police will not challenge the witnesses recall.

What the police will do is to obtain the witnesses first account of what they saw and the police will then take them back through that first account to delve into their recall of the detail by asking open questions to enable the witness to expand in their own words, but never leading the witnesses by asking closed questions. Closed questions are only used for the officer to confirm something the witness has said.

The police will also endeavour to take the witness back in their mind to the day, recall the weather, how they felt, what they could smell, feel, hear etc as these can be triggers for deeper recall.

These are certainly techniques that would be used in serious investigations.

 

[asyousay]

I am with LE that she saw Suzy that day. She was friends with her , waved to her. She was on a bike so not going that fast and she saw the hat.


I have no reason to doubt her and the other witness in DV’s book was very unreliable as she didn’t know makes of cars. Nobody else saw the car parked in that spot that early. I don’t think the car was dropped off until 4ish imo

 

[Konstantin]

Police may believe that what an eye-witness says is an honest account of what they believed they saw. That is very different from police being certain that the information is accurate. Police are well aware just how wrong eye witnesses can be when it comes to giving statements and only when there is independent corroboration from other witnesses does the reliability increase.

I've looked at the linked page from the Guardian newspaper from 21st August 1986, more than three weeks after SJL went missing. Why so long? Surely BW was aware......this delay is a concern as BW would surely have come forward within a few days if she was certain she saw SJL!

It's important to note that it says that BW was interviewed "yesterday" at Kensington Pol Stn. This implies the 20th August. This is a long time after BW states she saw SJL and this raises questions over her recall and reliability, i.e. right day/time/SJL?

I think it is a case that BW has convinced herself that she saw SJL in the period between the 28th July and the 20th August, when she spoke with the police. This would not be entirely unusual, particularly as time had passed and there had been no confirmed sightings of SJL.

The information from WJ at 123 SR re SJL's car parked up was obtained through house-to-house enquiries within the first 24 hours and was corroborated by AM, a friend/neighbour who is also the lady whose garage was partially obstructed.

The witness WJ appears much more reliable in terms of timeliness, excellent reasons to remember (inc. times) and corroboration. (AS p26-27).

This is not to say that the Fiesta did not move, was seen by BW and then returned to the same spot.....although is that likely in these circumstances? In my opinion is is not likely, as the Fiesta was unattended when first seen.

Aug 21, 1986, page 3 - The Guardian at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from The Guardian dated Aug 21, 1986, page 3.

www.newspapers.com

If she only saw SJL briefly in the seconds it took her to pass the car how could she determine that she looked serious and not her usual animated self?

It sounds like she’s been thinking about it and projecting emotions onto a split second sighting and that as you say a while after she says it occurred

I’m not convinced by this one. Why indeed take so long to come forward?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I am with LE that she saw Suzy that day. She was friends with her , waved to her. She was on a bike so not going that fast and she saw the hat.


I have no reason to doubt her and the other witness in DV’s book was very unreliable as she didn’t know makes of cars. Nobody else saw the car parked in that spot that early. I don’t think the car was dropped off until 4ish imo

If you have AS's book read p.26-27. It gives a full explanation of what WJ and AM say they saw, the significant reasons they have to remember and why the times given are reliable.

It is extremely relevant that these witness statements were obtained within a few hours of SJL's car being found as it taps into the short term memory recall, which is more detailed.

The three week plus delay before BW gave a statement is my major concern. Why she leave it so long?

 

[asyousay]

If you have AS's book read p.26-27. It gives a full explanation of what WJ and AM say they saw, the significant reasons they have to remember and why the times given are reliable.

It is extremely relevant that these witness statements were obtained within a few hours of SJL's car being found as it taps into the short term memory recall, which is more detailed.

The three week plus delay before BW gave a statement is my major concern. Why she leave it so long?

Do you have a link for 3 weeks later as I can see on a online blog it was a week later?

It was summer so for all we know she went on holiday - millions of people Jet off end of July/August moo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If she only saw SJL briefly in the seconds it took her to pass the car how could she determine that she looked serious and not her usual animated self?

It sounds like she’s been thinking about it and projecting emotions onto a split second sighting and that as you say a while after she says it occurred

I’m not convinced by this one. Why indeed take so long to come forward?

Precisely, it's very unusual to make an assessment of how someone looked in terms of their perceived mood, particularly if the moment is brief and the womans head was turned away from BW.

JMO but I find it unusual that BW saw a man but it would seem could not give any description of him....ethnicity, hair colour, clean shaven or not, glasses/no glasses? I assume the light was good (mid afternoon on a summers day). So she noticed a man but could not expand on what made her believe it was a man?!?!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Do you have a link for 3 weeks later as I can see on a online blog it was a week later?

It was summer so for all we know she went on holiday - millions of people Jet off end of July/August moo

Not entirely sure that you mean. The publication date for the paper is at the top of the page that the link takes you to. The article says BW attended Kensington Pol Stn "yesterday".....that implies the day before publication.

Yes people go away, that could be an explanation, but it would not detract from the effect of such a time delay on memory of a non-contentious sighting. Additionally, the publicity also impacts on reliability, e.g. photos of SJL's car with the hat on the rear parcel shelf.

Aug 21, 1986, page 3 - The Guardian at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from The Guardian dated Aug 21, 1986, page 3.

www.newspapers.com

 

[asyousay]

Precisely, it's very unusual to make an assessment of how someone looked in terms of their perceived mood, particularly if the moment is brief and the womans head was turned away from BW.

JMO but I find it unusual that BW saw a man but it would seem could not give any description of him....ethnicity, hair colour, clean shaven or not, glasses/no glasses? I assume the light was good (mid afternoon on a summers day). So she noticed a man but could expand on what made her believe it was a man?!?!

She wasn’t interested in the man was she?

She saw her friend and noticed her demeanor Because she had spotted her friend out and about.


Was she meant to Know that Suzy was going to vanish without a trace and her witnesses statement would become important.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

She wasn’t interested in the man was she?

She saw her friend and noticed her demeanor Because she had spotted her friend out and about.


Was she meant to Know that Suzy was going to vanish without a trace and her witnessenot s statement would become important.

Just based on my experience of taking thousands of witness statements and having done recall testing exercises in scenarios with different stages of time between witnessing and writing a statements from both my own and others memory, for me there are red flags over the period of time before BW's statement was given, which would give me cause to have reservations over its reliability.

I have much more confidence in the statements of WJ and AM in Stevenage Road.

JMO

 

[asyousay]

Not entirely sure that you mean. The publication date for the paper is at the top of the page that the link takes you to. The article says BW attended Kensington Pol Stn "yesterday".....that implies the day before publication.

Yes people go away, that could be an explanation, but it would not detract from the effect of such a time delay on memory of a non-contentious sighting. Additionally, the publicity also impacts on reliability, e.g. photos of SJL's car with the hat on the rear parcel shelf.

Aug 21, 1986, page 3 - The Guardian at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com

View the digital scanned newspaper from The Guardian dated Aug 21, 1986, page 3.

www.newspapers.com

Thanks so you are just going by the newspaper date on publication. It doesn’t actually claim when she came forward though from reading that.

 

[asyousay]

Just on my experience of taking thousands of witness statements and having done recall testing exercises in scenarios with different stages of time between witnessing and writing a statement of my own memory, for me there are red flags over the time delay and the period of time before BW's statement was given, which would give me cause to have reservations over its reliability.

I have much more confidence in the statements of WJ and AM in Stevenage Road.

JMO

Well LE took her very seriously so that’s enough for me


It ties in with her having a appointment and the man asking her about different properties in the area. If she thought she could get out a sale out of this man why wouldn’t she show him other properties that were for sale.


IMO MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks so you are just going by the newspaper date on publication. It doesn’t actually claim when she came forward though from reading that.

The report says BW provided a statement to police "yesterday", i.e. the day before publication. It's published daily.

 

[asyousay]

The report says BW provided a statement to police "yesterday", i.e. the day before publication.

That again doesn’t prove she hadn’t come forward before that. That’s just when she got a chance to go down to police station and actually write a formal statement . I don’t have the AS book but this blog seems to be quoting stuff from the book and it claims she came forward a week later?!

The Suzy Lamplugh Puzzle Part Two

What Happened to Suzy Lamplugh?

medium.com

ETA - for example it she was away and she called LE they couldn’t demand she fly home. They would have to wait for her to return home before taking a formal statement ( I’m not claiming that happened but it’s a example of why it doesn’t mean it was 3 weeks later when she first came foreword )

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well LE took her very seriously so that’s enough for me

I'm just giving you the LE perspective.

No SIO is going to say on national TV that he/she has reservations over the reliability of the witness. What the SIO is doing is introducing the statement to the nation, saying that it is the only witness statement from someone that knew SJL personally, in the hope that others will come forward to corroborate the sighting or provide something different.

Anything else will dissuade people from coming forward.

Unbelievably, SIO's don't always say what they are thinking when going public. Have you ever heard them ask for someone to make contact with police as they may have vital information that can assist police. That very often means that the individual will be locked up and interviewed at length.....the police don't say that though!

It's all a game of cat and mouse and massaging peoples ego's to get them just where you want them.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That again doesn’t prove she hadn’t come forward before that. That’s just when she got a chance to go down to police station and actually write a formal statement .

Believe me the police will have been banging her door down to get that statement. They know that time is of the essence with such 'witnesses' when there is a serious investigation. Police would have gone to her work/home address.

I'm endeavouring to explain how LE deal with such matters.

 

[asyousay]

Believe me the police will have been banging her door down to get that statement. They know that time is of the essence with such 'witnesses' when there is a serious investigation. Police would have gone to her work/home address.

I'm endeavouring to explain how LE deal with such matters.

I am not doubting you but as I said it was summer she could of been abroad. There are millions of reasons why she may of taken a week to come forward or even 3 weeks for a formal witness statement.


Would they have been beating down her door if she went to Florida for a fortnight?


This isn’t today with mobile phones and 24/7 news coverage.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Do you have a link for 3 weeks later as I can see on a online blog it was a week later?

It was summer so for all we know she went on holiday - millions of people Jet off end of July/August moo

You are correct @asyousay

AS Book page 52
BW had come into the police station and given detectives some astonishing information.
The previous Monday she told detectives, she left her office some time after 2.30 in the afternoon. She was on her bike, and cycled from Munster road into Fulham palace rd thru Fulham Cemetry. And there driving north towards Hammersmith in a white Ford Fiesta with a straw boater on the back sill - who did she see but her old friend Sussanah Lamplugh.

 

[WiseOwl]

I have always believed BW and her sighting of Suzy, I have no reason at all to doubt her.

I don't think she's hesitant in the interview, I think she's being totally honest and any hesitancy is in her trying to recall what she saw that Monday afternoon. The police took her seriously at the time because she was the only witness who saw Suzy that actually knew her.

The only doubt could possibly be the timing of the sighting that afternoon but apart from that i 100% believe what she saw.

 

[asyousay]

I have always believed BW and her sighting of Suzy, I have no reason at all to doubt her.

I don't think she's hesitant in the interview, I think she's being totally honest and any hesitancy is in her trying to recall what she saw that Monday afternoon. The police took her seriously at the time because she was the only witness who saw Suzy that actually knew her.

The only doubt could possibly be the timing of the sighting that afternoon but apart from that i 100% believe what she saw.

I wholeheartedly agree with you

 

[Cherwell]

I have no reason to doubt her and the other witness in DV’s book was very unreliable as she didn’t know makes of cars.

This was because she couldn't remember the make and model of the interviewing detective's car, wasn't it?
I don't think that makes her "unreliable". Not everyone is interested in cars. I couldn't recognise most makes or models, but I would recognise one if it was a type of car I'd driven, or was otherwise familiar with.