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

[Terryb808]

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.

I've seen this work both ways in court, a poor defence team asking all the questions the prosecution should ask, and then the prosecution asking all the questions the defence should have asked. Luckily (and as you'd expect) the judge puts this right in his summing up.

However, it demonstrated to me that both sides obviously got the preparation wrong and just didn't understand the questions they were actually asking. Without the judge putting things right for the jury the whole thing would have gone very badly for the defendant.

I'm not bound by the same rules, if there is a doubt it should be investigated, especially when its a cold case that's very cold and not been solved.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

they could have riots on their hands if SJL was located at the PoW or the rail embankment for a start.

<modsnip>

Putney and Fulham don't strike me as the hotbed of anarchical uprising....and I lived not far away. All very respectable

The major disorder, I've been involved in grew from very different seeds. Have you had much experience of riots?

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.

By stating there is 'solid evidence' doesn't make the case that there is.

In fact there is no such evidence that SJL intended to go to the PoW that afternoon. The expectation was that she would go at approx. 18:00.

Failing to search is not a 'logic fail'. Police need reasonable suspicion to arrest a suspect for the offence in question, which MAY provide them with a power of search of parts or all of the premises where they were arrested or have control over.

If no one has been arrested then police would need sufficient evidence to persuade a Magistrate/JP that SLP will be found on the premises or evidence relating to her disappearance. As I have said before there is no such evidence.

I sometimes wonder if people have ever stopped to consider how the police function in such situations and more specifically in relation to their lawful powers and procedures. There appears to be significant misunderstanding and misapprehension

I try to explain this so that other Websleuther's will have the insight to recognise how it all fits into the SJL and other investigations.

 

[Pinkizzy]

<modsnip>

Putney and Fulham don't strike me as the hotbed of anarchical uprising....and I lived not far away. All very respectable

The major disorder, I've been involved in grew from very different seeds. Have you had much experience of riots?




By stating there is 'solid evidence' doesn't make the case that there is.

In fact there is no such evidence that SJL intended to go to the PoW that afternoon. The expectation was that she would go at approx. 18:00.

Failing to search is not a 'logic fail'. Police need reasonable suspicion to arrest a suspect for the offence in question, which MAY provide them with a power of search of parts or all of the premises where they were arrested or have control over.

If no one has been arrested then police would need sufficient evidence to persuade a Magistrate/JP that SLP will be found on the premises or evidence relating to her disappearance. As I have said before there is no such evidence.

I sometimes wonder if people have ever stopped to consider how the police function in such situations and more specifically in relation to their lawful powers and procedures. There appears to be significant misunderstanding and misapprehension

I try to explain this so that other Websleuther's will have the insight to recognise how it all fits into the SJL and other investigations.

The office knew she was going shopping in Putney that day, why didn't the police search the PoW a few mins away?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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

I am trying to understand the rationale for your question?

Police searched SJL's flat, as would be standard. There was no sign that she had been back there since leaving for work earlier that morning. Nothing untoward was discovered there.

Unless police had specific information about other properties or areas of Disraeli Road why would they search there?

It is essential to understand that police activity in major investigations is driven by reasonable lines of enquiry, which arise from standard methodology and information obtained during the course of the investigation, which demands further enquiries to either develop it or eliminate it as being of relevance.

Police do not go and search random places..... that is a fishing trip approach, i.e. cast the net wide and see what you catch.

Methodology and an intelligence/evidence driven approach is what is required for an effective investigation.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The office knew she was going shopping in Putney that day, why didn't the police search the PoW a few mins away?

SJL was at work all morning, until she left Sturgis as approx 12:30.

By allegedly going shopping in Putney it does not provide sufficient grounds to apply for a search warrant from the court for the PoW.

A does not equal B!

 

[Terryb808]

I am trying to understand the rationale for your question?

Police searched SJL's flat, as would be standard. There was no sign that she had been back there since leaving for work earlier that morning. Nothing untoward was discovered there.

Unless police had specific information about other properties or areas of Disraeli Road why would they search there?

It is essential to understand that police activity in major investigations is driven by reasonable lines of enquiry, which arise from standard methodology and information obtained during the course of the investigation, which demands further enquiries to either develop it or eliminate it as being of relevance.

Police do not go and search random places..... that is a fishing trip approach, i.e. cast the net wide and see what you catch.

Methodology and an intelligence/evidence driven approach is what is required for an effective investigation.

So house to house elsewhere, but not Disraeli Road, I'd have expected this to be completed in line with the other roads SJL may have visited. After all, theres no evidence she went to Stevenage Road, yet 123 Stevenage Road was searched.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Just speculation.

Sadly personal speculation isn't evidence.

It would be a bit daft for the police to assign precious resources on pursuing a line of enquiry based on speculation, would it not?

It would be good to see folk understand how information/intelligence/evidence leads the way and not speculation or theories without tangible merit.

 

[Pinkizzy]

SJL was at work all morning, until she left Sturgis as approx 12:30.

I don't know where you have this information from?

MG mentioned it during his interview with DV

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So house to house elsewhere, but not Disraeli Road, I'd have expected this to be completed in line with the other roads SJL may have visited. After all, theres no evidence she went to Stevenage Road, yet 123 Stevenage Road was searched.

The post was in relation to searching NOT house-to-house, which may have featured.

They have two very different purposes, although H2H could potentially lead to a search of premises and/or outside areas.

I have endeavoured to explain why some places will be searched and some will not until I am blue in the face.

Is it so hard to understand that if SJL's car was found abandoned opp 123 SR and the property was on Sturgis books, then it makes perfect sense to search it and rule out that SLP was there or had been there, i.e. items found.

There is a direct link between the cars location, Suzy, Suzy's employment and 123 SR

 

[Whitehall 1212]

MG mentioned it during his interview with DV

I wouldn't count DV as objective or reliable.

 

[Terryb808]

The post was in relation to searching NOT house-to-house, which may have featured.

They have two very different purposes, although H2H could potentially lead to a search of premises and/or outside areas.

I have endeavoured to explain why some places will be searched and some will not until I am blue in the face.

Is it so hard to understand that if SJL's car was found abandoned opp 123 SR and the property was on Sturgis books, then it makes perfect sense to search it and rule out that SLP was there or had been there, i.e. items found.

There is a direct link between the cars location, Suzy, Suzy's employment and 123 SR

Explain the exact reason 123 Stevenage Road was deemed as a possible place SJL may have entered without any keys.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I wouldn't count DV as objective or reliable.

If the Met are so confident that SJL is not buried in the PoW, why don't they prove us wrong by searching the place? I don't mind looking like a chump in this case!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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

Where does the evidence that it was JC's 'local' come from?

If JC was a customer only the communal areas can be searched after his arrest if he was there at the time or had just left.

How are we linking JC to other staff at the pub who may have assisted him in disposing of her in the pub, thereby possibly providing grounds for further arrests and a search of the whole pub?

<modsnip - personalizing>

Can I suggest that you look at some other, less well known threads and see how some of the well known Websleuthers, research using OSINT and suggest excellent lines of enquiry with real merit.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Explain the exact reason 123 Stevenage Road was deemed as a possible place SJL may have entered without any keys.

<modsnip: snark>

123 SR was either occupied by the vendor OR vacant and the keys were held at Sturgis.

The inference is that as SJL's car was found opposite a property being marketed by Sturgis and that SJL may have entered either by invite from the vendor in residence, an unknown third party in residence, by someone entering with the keys from Sturgis or by forced entry to an empty property.

The bottom line is that it is a property which either directly or indirectly SJL had access to.....like her flat!

The grounds for search were made out by the fact that her car was found opposite and a wholly objective assumption was made that she may also have been with her vehicle at the place it was found....opposite 123 (see above) and therefore may have entered 123.

I have no idea what powers were used to search or if permission was given on a voluntary basis. This would very much depend on the precise circumstances regarding the property.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If the Met are so confident that SJL is not buried in the PoW, why don't they prove us wrong by searching the place? I don't mind looking like a chump in this case!

If the police just rocked up where you live and said they were going to search without having reasonable or LAWFUL grounds, i.e. that Parliament says they have the grounds and power to do so, would you just say "crack on officer.....examine every area of my castle"?

We don't live in a police state. The PoW is someone's business AND home. Any search MUST be lawful!

Please see my earlier posts regarding police powers to search or Google it, which would be an investigatory kind of thing to do

Clue: Code B, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, predominantly s.9, 17 and 18.

 

[Terryb808]

If the Met are so confident that SJL is not buried in the PoW, why don't they prove us wrong by searching the place? I don't mind looking like a chump in this case!

Nail on the head, if they think DV is wrong they should use some tack & diplomacy and persuade the owner to allow a search to take place.

 

[ruby925]

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.

Pubs were closed between 1500 and 1730 in 1986 ..but they were crowded by 1800 as people left work....

 

[WestLondoner]

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.

It's actually even crazier than that. The chap claiming to have seen this said nothing until 1989 after JC had been convicted and after the press speculation linking him to SJL had started. He then decided that he remembered this from three years ago and that the bloke with the suitcase, someone he glimpsed for a few seconds, had looked exactly like JC. And he also remembered to the day when he had seen this happening!

If someone shared something like this with me I would be tempted to ask them if they bought a newspaper that week three years ago. If they did I'd ask them to tell me any headline they remember and what paper. If they have such an uncanny memory they'll easily be able to remember, and I can then check if they are right.

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

He's quite oblique. He starts with an account of a case where a body was hidden on an embankment a few houses away from where the victim lived. The PoW backs onto a railway which you could get to from the PoW or other adjacent businesses. It's as unlikely to have been disturbed as anywhere in London. Inferentially she died at the pub and was hidden on the adjacent embankment, not least because if she were found under that floor, it clearly involves the pub staff. On the embankment it involves anyone who had access in 1986, I.e. the whole street would have to be eliminated.

 

[WestLondoner]

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

Who's VC?

 

[WestLondoner]

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

If I were the owner of the PoW I would deny permission. At best my pub is disrupted and nothing is found. At worst SJL is found and people have been dining above an unburied corpse for 36 years put there by former staff of this pub. This would destroy my business.

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?

DL made the reference in an interview on her birthday on the Wednesday. This was two days after SJL disappeared and three days after she saw her. I don't buy DL's crazy theories about Mossad or JC but this was a factual point relating to a very recent and indeed her last conversation with SJL.

Nobody came forward because nobody was asked. The first I heard of this was in DV's book. She wasn't playing tennis with Mr Kipper so there was no interest in finding out who this was.