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

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 Everyone in the office knew about SJLs errand to the PoW, why don't the police search the site for elimination purposes?

 

[Terryb808]

Yes I did assume as such which the police would weigh up as well when looking at evidence. She simply wasn’t a person to make up false entries and run off to do errands.

Also this was a cut throat business from what I can gather so if she had tried such behaviour in the past it would of been reported.


IMO

It’s been over 30 years since SJL disappeared, no one really knows what she was like. Renowned for being secretive and keeping her busy life compartmentalised it’s not possible to say with any certainty that she wouldn’t put in a fake appointment on the spur of the moment.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I just can’t fall in with the attitude that the police must have got everything right, when a case is not solved you simply must question everything and look for alternatives.

No @Terryb808, what is required is to find evidence that undermines a line of enquiry and/or presents new ones.

This belief that it is acceptable to present unsupported theories is deeply flawed and it is that which is driving this thread.

It is completely the wrong mindset for an investigator and one which ultimately leads to a world of pain.

Maybe it would be better for some to focus on what it means to be an investigator rather than the wild theories.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Whitehall 1212 Everyone in the office knew about SJLs errand to the PoW, why don't the police search the site for elimination purposes?

Simply because no Magistrate/JP would issue a search warrant on the basis of theory over tangible evidence.

Police cannot go and search anywhere they like. They need the lawful reason to do so.

 

[Terryb808]

What we should take into account is that no one came forward until the police reconstruction was broadcast.
It’s already been highlighted that once you do this witnesses fill in the gaps with what they’ve seen on TV.
Look at the various descriptions of Mr Kipper given by these witnesses (see AS) to illustrate this.
HR identified the Belgium diamond dealer as Mr Kipper, this shows how reliable he was as a key witness.
This is clearly a very unreliable line of enquiry to religiously follow for over 30 years.
It clearly need a truly fresh set of eyes looking at this, and not just regurgitating the same old stuff.

 

[Terryb808]

No @Terryb808, what is required is to find evidence that undermines a line of enquiry and/or presents new ones.

This belief that it is acceptable to present unsupported theories is deeply flawed and it is that which is driving this thread.

It is completely the wrong mindset for an investigator and one which ultimately leads to a world of pain.

Maybe it would be better for some to focus on what it means to be an investigator rather than the wild theories.

Much as you don’t like DV he has done just that, after this length of time what he came up with does undermine the original Mr Kipper narrative.
After this length of time original witnesses are beginning to pass away and those that remain are subject to fluctuations in their memory.
Without having an open mind I wonder how the Met manage to solve any cold case.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Why would MG not come forward and say it eas him that afternoon?

He would of known of if he had checked out out the property that afternoon and not like he would need to lie about.

A concerned college worried about his female co-worker who hadn’t come back from a viewing. There is zero reason to not tell the police it was him that was spotted by a witness.


MOO

maybe he did ?
The police (and shortly the press) were fully hooked into a narrative that they weren’t prepared to either question or step away from - maybe even already covering up police incompetence.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What we should take into account is that no one came forward until the police reconstruction was broadcast.
It’s already been highlighted that once you do this witnesses fill in the gaps with what they’ve seen on TV.
Look at the various descriptions of Mr Kipper given by these witnesses (see AS) to illustrate this.
HR identified the Belgium diamond dealer as Mr Kipper, this shows how reliable he was as a key witness.
This is clearly a very unreliable line of enquiry to religiously follow for over 30 years.
It clearly need a truly fresh set of eyes looking at this, and not just regurgitating the same old stuff.

Terry, it had fresh eyes in 2000, together with HOLMES2 indexing.

To return serve.....for over thirty years no one has come forward with any evidence based reason to doubt SJL's diary entry or the sightings in Shorrolds Road. Other alternatives are not supported by evidence.

It is far from being a very unreliable line of enquiry....it is the one based on the only credible information, SJL's diary entry.

A fresh set of eyes is not about dismissing the information we do have and substituting it with unsupported theories, it's about finding evidence to either disprove a line of enquiry or support new ones. <modsnip - personalizing>

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 can you suggest where the Met will search next?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

maybe he did ?
The police (and shortly the press) were fully hooked into a narrative that they weren’t prepared to either question or step away from - maybe even already covering up police incompetence.

And if such intransigence had been present during the initial investigation then it would have been identified during the 2000 review.

Ironically, the only identified intransigence identified came from the Det. Supt. Malcolm Hackett, who was appointed SIO in early 1987. JC had previously been put forward as a possible suspect by Thames Valley Police in late 1986.

Hackett dismissed this out of hand and contrary to the information available. Evidential opportunities were missed as a result. It later transpired that Hackett had been unprofessional in allowing a difficult relationship with with Diana Lamplugh to cloud his judgement.

Have you any grounds for claiming that the police were entrenched in their view and that a poor investigation was subsequently covered up? It's not a helpful argument to make without proof.

The 2000 review admitted that mistakes were made during the original investigation and evidential opportunities were missed, on account of the vast amount of information that needed to be processed, together with D/Supt Hacketts poor judgement. Human error is far from being a cover up.

 

[Terryb808]

Terry, it had fresh eyes in 2000, together with HOLMES2 indexing.

To return serve.....for over thirty years no one has come forward with any evidence based reason to doubt SJL's diary entry or the sightings in Shorrolds Road. Other alternatives are not supported by evidence.

It is far from being a very unreliable line of enquiry....it is the one based on the only credible information, SJL's diary entry.

A fresh set of eyes is not about dismissing the information we do have and substituting it with unsupported theories, it's about finding evidence to either disprove a line of enquiry or support new ones. <modsnip - personalizing>

Okay, can you 100% say SJL didn’t make a fake diary entry?
Can you 100% say that SJL never went to the PoW?
Can you also 100% say that CV didn’t lie to the officer who interviewed him?

The answer to all is no, you don’t have access to the police files so it has to be no.

There are many places SJL could have gone that lunchtime, not just the PoW, that’s just one of them.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Whitehall 1212 can you suggest where the Met will search next?

They have suggested locations in the system and still receive new ones.

These are assessed against any other information that could support pursuing a search at a given location and either approaching the landowner for voluntary permission to search or applying to the Magistrates Court for a search warrant.

The financial implications of searching are also considered against the strength of the information.

JD is still pushing for a particular section of the Grand Union Canal in West London to be searched. I would hope that this does happen before too long. I'm at a loss as to why it hasn't.

This specific area has not previously been searched during the Alice Gross murder investigation, as some claim. Neither has it been comprehensively dredged during maintenance activities.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Ah, we can ask the PoW for voluntary permission to search the building. Then we can ask Network Rail about a search of the embankment

 

[Cluesleuth]

And if such intransigence had been present during the initial investigation then it would have been identified during the 2000 review.

Ironically, the only identified intransigence identified came from the Det. Supt. Malcolm Hackett, who was appointed SIO in early 1987. JC had previously been put forward as a possible suspect by Thames Valley Police in late 1986.

Hackett dismissed this out of hand and contrary to the information available. Evidential opportunities were missed as a result. It later transpired that Hackett had been unprofessional in allowing a difficult relationship with with Diana Lamplugh to cloud his judgement.

Have you any grounds for claiming that the police were entrenched in their view and that a poor investigation was subsequently covered up? It's not a helpful argument to make without proof.

The 2000 review admitted that mistakes were made during the original investigation and evidential opportunities were missed, on account of the vast amount of information that needed to be processed, together with D/Supt Hacketts poor judgement. Human error is far from being a cover up.

Thats not quite how I understood it. Det Supt Hackett did investigate JC and his investigations concluded that no further action needed to be taken.
I think Hackett faced a very difficult job handling how SJL's family influenced the investigation it must have been a quite an extradorinary situation.

<modsnip: WS is primarily pro-LE. Insinuating/speculating on a cover-up or conspiracy or other nefarious actions is not allowed.>

MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Ah, we can ask the PoW for voluntary permission to search the building. Then we can ask Network Rail about a search of the embankment

Apparently DV is working on that. Although, his inherent charm hasn't come up trumps yet

 

[Terryb808]

They have suggested locations in the system and still receive new ones.

These are assessed against any other information that could support pursuing a search at a given location and either approaching the landowner for voluntary permission to search or applying to the Magistrates Court for a search warrant.

The financial implications of searching are also considered against the strength of the information.

JD is still pushing for a particular section of the Grand Union Canal in West London to be searched. I would hope that this does happen before too long. I'm at a loss as to why it hasn't.

This specific area has not previously been searched during the Alice Gross murder investigation, as some claim. Neither has it been comprehensively dredged during maintenance activities.

Interesting, the canal needs to be eliminated, however, the witness had passed on before this can to light. JD himself said he could find no evidence that the witness ever reported this back in 1986.
The account was given to JD by a relative of the deceased lorry driver, which in your words make it questionable.
It’s ironic that money could be found to fund this on the basis of questionable information.
According to other questionable witnesses JC was a regular in the PoW, this should make this a search site on the polices list.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Ah, we can ask the PoW for voluntary permission to search the building. Then we can ask Network Rail about a search of the embankment

Why the embankment if DV believes without doubt she is in the POW and the exact spot there?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thats not quite how I understood it. Det Supt Hackett did investigate JC and his investigations concluded that no further action needed to be taken.
I think Hackett faced a very difficult job handling how SJL's family influenced the investigation it must have been a quite an extradorinary situation.

<modsnip: WS is primarily pro-LE. Insinuating/speculating on a cover-up or conspiracy or other nefarious actions is not allowed.>

MOO

If the SIO can't get on with the victims family in such a significant investigation and is rapidly losing the confidence of their team, then they have to go.

My understanding is that he dug his heels in and refused to acknowledge JC as a possible suspect. This had evidential repercussions.

It's somewhat dangerous to suggest that his 'transfer' was to accommodate a steer to a desired outcome. There is absolutely nothing to support that.

<modsnip>

 

[Terryb808]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>


I’m looking at this from how you would be asked in court, there’s no way you could answer that this was not possible. Additionally, a half decent defence team would not let anyone waffle, they keep on until they make their point.
I’m sure when the CPS looked at this they would see how JC’s defence would approach it and decided that there was no case to take to court.
The question is still the same, can you categorically state that SJL 100% didn’t do any of these things.
Answer is no, it’s got nothing to do with how I or anyone else approaches investigations.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Why the embankment if DV believes without doubt she is in the POW and the exact spot there?

Absolutely! It would be a fishing trip because there is no tangible evidence, just supposition.