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

[Pinkizzy]

Yeeeeeessssss if JC was a regular at the PoW, why hasn't the place been searched eh?

 

[asyousay]

The problem with the POW theory is the fact that Suzy doesn’t need to lie and make up a false diary entry to get out of work and risk getting in trouble if caught.

She knows where her belongings are and it’s literally a place she passes on her way home regardless of the time she gets home . It’s a pub it’s open until midnight.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Terry you know as well as I do that having 100% certainty is not how our judicial system works! That's why there are burdens of proof.

If you are looking at it from the point of view of a defence barrister.

Their brief is to introduce doubt. Every defence barrister, because they are all accomplished, will introduce some doubt.

The question for the jury would be something like 'on the balance of ALL the evidence (much of which we don't know here) is it beyond ALL REASONABLE doubt (not any doubt) that did JC abducted and murdered SJL'?

But it does have to do with the investigative mindset. The investigation is entirely different to how the case is presented in court. Barristers introduce interpretation of the guilty mind, motive and theatrical flourish, which is all aimed at encouraging the jury to recall certain golden nuggets of evidence or challenges.

On the other hand the investigation seeks pointers, which leads to evidence of different types and quality. Reasonable lines of enquiry are followed and either developed or eliminated. The evidence is followed, not theories plucked from the ether.

So the police see SJL's diary entry and it leads to a line of enquiry in Shorrolds Road and we know how that goes.

Once again you'll say 'but you weren't on the investigation'.....but indulge me for a minute.....as sure as eggs is eggs there will have been lines of enquiry to identify other places SJL may go to that day/people she may contact, e.g. Sturgis properties for sale/rent, her flat, the PoW, tennis club, gym, local shop, known friends, house-to-house enquiries in Shorrolds and Stevenage Road etc. I am sure that these would have been checked as a matter of routine on the basis that she met a 'Mr Kipper' at Shorrolds Road at 12:45 and then went onwards. This is all for elimination and to ensure that a later sighting can be added to the timeline and further the investigation.

If any of these people/places pinged the police radar I'm sure the police will have delved further until satisfied.

Once all these enquiries have been satisfied then it leaves far less room for the doubt that the defence would wish to introduce.

FWIW some would say that it's possible to be abducted by aliens. Some good evidence would be required to advance such a hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt in court though. It's possible to throw any situation into the mix....it just doesn't make it a reasonable line of enquiry though.

It's possible to advance any hypothesis. The thing is does it really stack up to more than reasonable doubt when assessing ALL the evidence?

And that my friend is one for the jury.....and they move in dark and mysterious ways.

 

[Pinkizzy]

The problem with the POW theory is the fact that Suzy doesn’t need to lie and make up a false diary entry to get out of work and risk getting in trouble if caught.

She knows where her belongings are and it’s literally a place she passes on her way home regardless of the time she gets home . It’s a pub it’s open until midnight.

She planned to shop around Putney that morning, she probably went to the PoW around that time

 

[WestLondoner]

The problem with the POW theory is the fact that Suzy doesn’t need to lie and make up a false diary entry to get out of work and risk getting in trouble if caught.

She knows where her belongings are and it’s literally a place she passes on her way home regardless of the time she gets home . It’s a pub it’s open until midnight.

Pubs weren't open till midnight in 1986. They were allowed to open until 11pm, or 10.30 on Sundays. Many stayed open till 11 only on Fridays and Saturdays.

SJL had a viewing to fit in at 6 followed by tennis at 7, we don't know where. It is far from clear that she could have got to the PoW before 10 30, so why not go right away?

One of the errors in AS is that he doesn't pick up this diary clash. He reproduces the diary page showing a 6pm viewing but he also claims the landlord's wife spoke to SJL at 12.40 to arrange a visit there at 6pm. It is not possible for her to have done both errands. As we know there were two calls between SJL and the PoW, the likelihood must be that one was to arrange 6pm and the other to rearrange it, as she now had to be somewhere more important.

It's interesting that the police thought it worthwhile to do a house to house in Shorrolds but also in Stevenage. They searched the house and questioned the neighbours of a housewife with kids, they likewise searched and did house to house in Shorrolds, but they didn't search the PoW or do a house to house there even they knew from two witnesses she was going there.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Yes, it is not first hand and it should be treated with due caution.

However, since the death of the alleged witness it is just information that indicates where a specific object of interest may be.

The presence of such an object can invariably be confirmed or disproved.

Owing to these factors and the vital lead it could produce, I feel it important to act.

Obviously any description of the circumstances, including the description of the man allegedly seen dumping the item in the canal is very unlikely to be admissible in court, being classed as hearsay evidence.

 

[WestLondoner]

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.

This error of relying on HR was embedded on day one. SJL was reported missing at 6.45 and AL was brought in at 1030. The focus was on him and he was interviewed until 330. MG and NB were also interviewed that night, but the next day the focus was on the house to house inquiries and the decision to call a press conference was made midmorning before any of the office staff had been interviewed (this is all in AS). So there had been no attempt at reconstruction of a timeline or working out whether HR had seen MG and SF or indeed anyone at all.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

As I have said before, to dismiss that the entry was genuine, without anything to support that it may be so, e.g. previous history of SJL doing so, known practice at Sturgis, then how is it reasonable to suppose otherwise.

By doing so you create a catalyst for wild theories that don't reflect the available evidence.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

She planned to shop around Putney that morning, she probably went to the PoW around that time

She was in the office all morning. Leaving at approx 12:30.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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

And crowdfund the costs even - half of Londoners would put in

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yeeeeeessssss if JC was a regular at the PoW, why hasn't the place been searched eh?

Please tell me that you are thinking that JC is in cahoots with VC?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

And crowdfund the costs even - half of Londoners would put in

There's an issue when process and best practice flies out of the window in favour of "yeah....let's go do anything we want....consequences are for losers"

 

[Konstantin]

The problem with the POW theory is the fact that Suzy doesn’t need to lie and make up a false diary entry to get out of work and risk getting in trouble if caught.

She knows where her belongings are and it’s literally a place she passes on her way home regardless of the time she gets home . It’s a pub it’s open until midnight.

This.

And the assertion that she was playing tennis that evening is fromDV who got it from
A passing remark made by DL in a radio interview and even DV readily admits that DL is not the most reliable of narrators. No one else came forward to say they were supposed to meet her for tennis did they? I’d take that with a giant pinch of salt. She could have gone to grab her stuff after the 6pm appointment. It was safe in the pub and she already knew that the pub staff would have flicked through it to see if her address etc was in it. A pocket diary was unlikely to have long salacious text in it but it would have appointments and numbers.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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

That is my sense of things and let’s not minimise the level to which the police force as a whole would be severely compromised by yet another blunder / failing and the potential consequences of that - yet further loss of confidence in the police for Londoners who are already fairly averse. The Met Police have solid motivation to deflect and distract (esp by pointing at JC) - they could have riots on their hands if SJL was located at the PoW or the rail embankment for a start.

There is solid evidence that SJL intended to go to the PoW that afternoon and to fail to search there considering she has never been seen again is simply ludicrous and a logic fail.

Anything could have befallen her there including a fatal accident that wasn’t even intended murder.

Pubs are dangerous places in every aspect whether it be from a physical health & safety point of view (barrel hatches are terrifying things) all the way to the fact they can be populated by all sorts of seedy creepy people and weirdos many of whom who are heavy users of drugs and alcohol. I worked in pubs for many years and have personally witnessed all manner of horrors and evil.

Things are more civilised nowadays thanks to all manner of factors ~ responsible and professional owners, managers, and staff, proper training, cctv, security etc. Its only 20 years or so since a time when bar staff and managers would drink and smoke with the customers *whilst* on shift, many were alcoholics and troubled people ~ nowadays that is unheard of, there’s been a cultural / societal shift to make pubs safe(r) places and they still aren’t great.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There's an issue when process and best practice flies out of the window in favour of "yeah....let's go do anything we want....consequences are for losers"

Nobody here has made any such suggestion, esp me.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

I've listened to DV's podcast.

DV has also chosen to dismiss the diary entry without any reason to question its veracity.

This has enabled him to advance his theory, inspite of it being built of the back of rejecting the diary out of hand and with no tangible evidence to support his assertions.

What this has succeeded in doing is for others to jump on the PoW bandwagon.

It is not investigation it is sensationalism, of which many seem to clamour.

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 did the cops in 1986 search along Disraeli Rd? Were there any properties managed by Sturgis near there?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

The problem with the POW theory is the fact that Suzy doesn’t need to lie and make up a false diary entry to get out of work and risk getting in trouble if caught.

She knows where her belongings are and it’s literally a place she passes on her way home regardless of the time she gets home . It’s a pub it’s open until midnight.

Pubs are hectic places and often crowded as well as understaffed. Any manager or staff would suggest someone comes to collect their belongings early in the day, preferably before lunch time food service and certainly before trade picks up by mid to late afternoon. 6pm onward and pubs are already crowded and people are already drunk.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Please tell me that you are thinking that JC is in cahoots with VC?

Nope! If the cops are so obsessed with JC, why didn't they search his local properly?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

She was in the office all morning. Leaving at approx 12:30.

Makes sense she would go straight to the pub at 12:30.

Personally, if I spoke to someone who’d left their handbag in the pub, I’d say can you come get it right now before we get busy. That way I can assure the I’m there to personally return it and not off busy doing something else or on a break and that it’s not inconvenient when the bar is busy having someone come asking for lost property. Also if I was the sort of person who wanted to have a chance to chat up SJL or flirt with her, I’d want her to come sooner than later whilst it’s quiet and we can have a chance to chat and I’m still looking smart clean and tidy at the start of the day. Just speculation.