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

[asyousay]

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.

On what grounds?

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

You know what we do with old threads that cause our very few volunteer Moderators too much extra work? We close the discussion until there is new MSM about the case.

To avoid this thread being closed, stop the bickering and personalizing and snarky comments. If members can not post respectfully about the case and can't resist the sarcasm or snark, some serious TOs will be issued and/or we will close this discussion and leave only a Media *NO DISCUSSION* thread open for updates.

Post accordingly.

Thank you.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That’s why good politicians win elections and the police have such a bad image and are trying to win back the public confidence.
A politician would get a yes because he knows how to ask the question.
Isn’t it about time the hate DV was dropped, I’m sure that if JD came up with the PoW theory you’d be all over it.
Try being totally objective about other possibilities than JC is guilty and there’s no other possibility.

I'm objective. It just so happens that JC is where the evidence leads.

The police don't need to win votes. They have powers that enable them to do their job properly. They need to stop employing unsuitable people who have no honesty and integrity. They are a reflection of society and hence have lost the discipline and moral values required to police effectively.

All I've heard is about the PoW but not one person has yet given any proof to show that SJL was open to making fake viewings in her diary or that it was a practice at Sturgis.

DV is not objective, he has a financial motive. He has to find a 'way out there' theory that many will be drawn in by. He also rubbishes the diary just because it is an inconvenient truth.

The PoW 'theory' is based entirely on supposition. People believe what they want to believe but I look at it with an investigators mindset.

<modsnip: Discuss the case, not other members>

 

[Pinkizzy]

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.

The important thing here is SJLs property, her cheque book and diary were in the pub - that's the reason for the search. SJL went on an errand to collect her things from the pub and was never seen again. If her items were found in or outside my castle, I would welcome a search of the building by the police.

 

[asyousay]

The important thing here is SJLs property, her cheque book and diary were in the pub - that's the reason for the search. SJL went on an errand to collect her things from the pub and was never seen again. If her items were found in or outside my castle, I would welcome a search of the building by the police.

Apart from that’s a big old assumption that she left work to run a errand. That’s not been proven and nobody wants their business torn apart and in the news over a unsolved murder case. Mud sticks even if it turns out to be BS.


moo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The important thing here is SJLs property, her cheque book and diary were in the pub - that's the reason for the search. SJL went on an errand to collect her things from the pub and was never seen again. If her items were found in or outside my castle, I would welcome a search of the building by the police.

Items mislaid BEFORE SJL went missing were found at the pub.

SLJ had arranged to collect them later on the Monday, at approx 18:00.

These circumstances would NOT be anywhere near enough for a Magistate/JP to issue a search warrant.

If you were in the same situation as the PoW and gave permission for a voluntary search then that would be a different matter.

In reality if police wanted to search your premises then you would be considered 'of interest' in the investigation, bordering on a suspect. If CV had been viewed as a possible suspect then the police would moved to arrest him and conduct a search on their own terms, which is difficult with a voluntary search.

If you offered to let your place be searched without being asked by the police that would be unusual and the police would be wondering why you had done so. It wouldn't do you any favours.

 

[asyousay]

I think new theory’s need to be discussed because we are going around in circles.

I understand some people think POW is the answer But what if it isn’t?

IMO

 

[WestLondoner]

SLJ had arranged to collect them later on the Monday, at approx 18:00.

Incorrect. She had a viewing at 6pm so cannot have been intending to go to the PoW then.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/e95d0/37474476.ece/AUTOCROP/h1060/bpanews_0e634509-0a23-4a94-824e-f4ebc606c929_embedded21250001

 

[WestLondoner]

I 100% agree with you

I'm confused. Is it your take that MG did not go to 37SR?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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.

Call me delusional if you will but if a young person in my area went missing and on that exact same day it was a known fact they were intending to call at my place to retrieve their missing bag and had even made phone calls to me, ABSOLUTELY I would expect to be immediately brought in for questioning and my place looked around.

If I was innocent, I would also happily and voluntarily go out of my way to give a detailed statement of all the interactions I had with that person and their handbag. In fact I’d be going out of my mind trying to figure out what could have possibly happened and at the same time terrified of being blamed for some weird event. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at nights until they turned up!

But hey that’s just me!

 

[asyousay]

I'm confused. Is it your take that MG did not go to 37SR?

He did go there but he isn’t the mystery man from that afternoon imo

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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

Wasn‘t mid day closing just on Sundays? You’ve got me really racking my memory now!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Call me delusional if you will but if a young person in my area went missing and on that exact same day it was a known fact they were intending to call at my place to retrieve their missing bag and had even made phone calls to me, ABSOLUTELY I would expect to be immediately brought in for questioning and my place looked around.

If I was innocent, I would also happily and voluntarily go out of my way to give a detailed statement of all the interactions I had with that person and their handbag. In fact I’d be going out of my mind trying to figure out what could have possibly happened and at the same time terrified of being blamed for some weird event. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at nights until they turned up!

But hey that’s just me!

It's important for people to know what the police can and can't do, what you have yo comply with and what you don't. Know your rights if you are stopped on the street, in your car, property seized, arrested etc. People not knowing enables bad officers to get away with unlawful and sometimes illegal practice.

Can we accept that the police must act within their lawful powers. They cannot just do as they please....I know there are bad exceptions and hopefully they get thrown out and into jail.

You can't just be brought in for questioning without the police having reason to suspectthat a specific offence has been attempted/committed and they suspect you of having attempted/committed it. Now the immediate arrest also has to be necessary and meet certain criteria otherwise you'll be dealt with by appointment on a different day.

As an example, if police spoke to someone who saw the missing person enter your property, heard a fight and saw you come outside wiping what looked like blood off your hands, then the police would be talking to you and be quite direct about asking if there was someone injured in the property and if so, where?

Essentially, the police want to find what may be an injured person quickly and are seeking your co-operation. In reality you'll probably find yourself being arrested if the quick assessment of the officers is that something is wrong. The police have powers to force entry without warrant for persons at risk of significant harm (good reason to believe needed) or to protect property (water/gas leak etc), so they don't need your co-operation

If someone who had gone missing was known to be coming to yours, possibly with other plans, you're just a witness....you may have a perfectly good explanation and there are no grounds for reasonable suspicion at that time.

So please forget the impression that police just 'haul you in for questionning'. It doesn't work like that as arresting someone is taking away their liberty and it has to done only when necessary and in compliance with police powers of arrest as legislated for in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Having said that, as an experienced police, often the decision to arrest is made in a split second, because an offence is suspected of having been atrempted/committed, the suspect is present and arrest is needed to prevent a clear risk of escape, when there is a risk of harm to the suspect or others, to preserve evidence or prevent others being warned and destroying evidence etc.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

You can't just be brought in for questioning without the police having reason to suspect that an specific offence has been committed and they suspect you of having committed it. Now the immediate arrest also has to be necessary and meet certain criteria otherwise you'll be dealt with by appointment on a different day.

Now for example if police spoke to someone who saw the missing person enter your property, heard a fight and saw you come outside wiping what looked like blood off your hands, then the police would be talking to you and be quite direct about asking if there was someone injured in the property and if so, where?

Essentially, the police want to find what may be a injured person quickly and are seeking for your co-operation. In reality you'll probably find yourself being arrested if the quick assessment of the officers is that something is wrong. The police have powers to force entry without warrant for persons at risk of significant harm (good reason to believe needed) or to protect property (water/gas leak etc), so they don't need your co-operation

If someone who had gone missing was known to be coming to yours, possibly with other plans, you're just a witness....you may have a perfectly good explanation and there are no grounds for reasonable suspicion at that time.

So please forget the impression that police just 'haul you in for questionning'. It doesn't work like that as arresting someone is taking away their liberty and it has to done only when necessary and in compliance with police powers of arrest as legislated for in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Having said that, as an experienced police, often the decision to arrest is made in a split second, because an offence is suspected of having been committed, the suspect is present arrest is needed to prevent a clear risk of escape, when there is a risk of harm to the suspect or others, to preserve evidence or prevent others being warned and destroying evidence etc, are clearly obvious risks.

I hear what you’re saying and believe you.

At the same time, I strongly feel a more ‘curious stance‘ and less dogmatic approach serve detection well.

In the case of the PoW, my firm belief is that failing to ask at the time for a look about to check SJL did not approach the premises and befall some accident or injury somehow near or in the grounds and a request to speak to staff and customers as possible witnesses is a real shame. The entire focal point being a possibly non existent Mr Kipper viewer at the flat which she very probably never went to has maybe been such a huge red herring that it’s almost insurmountable.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I hear what you’re saying and believe you.

At the same time, I strongly feel a more ‘curious stance‘ and less dogmatic approach serve detection well.

In the case of the PoW, my firm belief is that failing to ask at the time for a look about to check SJL did not approach the premises and befall some accident or injury somehow near or in the grounds and a request to speak to staff and customers as possible witnesses is a real shame. The entire focal point being a possibly non existent Mr Kipper viewer at the flat which she very probably never went to has maybe been such a huge red herring that it’s almost insurmountable.

I hear what you say and I know that people who haven't been LE will say as you do.

Yep, an officer, if they don't have enough suspicion to exercise a power of arrest or search could say "do you mind if I have a quick look around"? However the conversation possibly closes down into "am I a suspect then"? You've then lost a cooperative witness who may not quite add up but you can't put your finger on it. If you keep them sweet then they keep talking and may incriminate themselves down the line.

If you say "can I have a look around". They say yes.....you have to explain clearly that the search is entirely voluntary and they are perfectly entitled to refuse. You can't expect to be looking in draws, cupboards, lofts, cellars etc with a voluntary search. The property owner dictates where you can and can't go. It's not a thorough search and is only really a means to assess how the owner acts and what they say. Of course it could heighten suspicion.

Of course if there is good reason to believe someone is at serious risk of harm at the premises the police have powers for immediate entry to find the injured/ill person.

You see it's very nuanced and subtle. You can't take back what you say and do. You can wreck an investigation by acting in haste and not considering all the possible consequences. It's a case of "slowly, slowly, catchy monkey".

This continued belief that the appointment at 37 SR is bogus really interests me. There is nothing tangible that indicates SJL made up appointments. Investigations at 37 SR produced witnesses who gave good descriptions complete with an artists impression and a photo fit.

I believe this reluctance to acknowledge the veracity of the diary appointment is that we don't have an offender charged and a body after all this time. People have a need for closure and to know what happened. Not knowing makes many people certain that the truth lies somewhere else, although there is no evidence for that and no evidence of a false diary entry.

It is not the mindset of an investigator. The timeline for the established line of enquiry is far from complete but it is far less complex than the PoW theory and it fits with what was in the diary.

It would be a far better use of time to try and flesh out the Shorrolds Road - Stevenage Road timeline with uncomplicated, logical, reasonable actions that are supported by some evidence.

The place to start would be with the Sturgis staff, if they would talk freely and frankly.

As we lose witnesses to the passage of time, so we reduce the prospects of finding new evidence that may lead to Suzy.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I guess CV is probably innocent of any crime and a search of the PoW is not necessary

 

[Terryb808]

I guess CV is probably innocent of any crime and a search of the PoW is not necessary

All very confusing really, when innocent people get convicted and guilty people are sometimes thought innocent.
The system is far from perfect, after all it’s run by human beings, they are not machines and do make mistakes.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I guess CV is probably innocent of any crime and a search of the PoW is not necessary

Just imagine if you'd found someone's property and arranged for them to collect it. In the meantime they went missing and all of a sudden fingers were being pointed and people were whispering in hushed tones......not very nice.

CV has not been arrested, charged and least of all found guilty of any involvement.

There are no lawful grounds to search the PoW. It would be a breath of fresh air if folk understood this.

 

[Konstantin]

Apart from that’s a big old assumption that she left work to run a errand. That’s not been proven and nobody wants their business torn apart and in the news over a unsolved murder case. Mud sticks even if it turns out to be BS.


moo

Yes, exactly. The assumption that SJL left the office to run an errand is entirely DV's supposition.

 

[Konstantin]

Just imagine if you'd found someone's property and arranged for them to collect it. In the meantime they went missing and all of a sudden fingers were being pointed and people were whispering in hushed tones......not very nice.

CV has not been arrested, charged and least of all found guilty of any involvement.

There are no lawful grounds to search the PoW. It would be a breath of fresh air if folk understood this.

To be honest, it was DV who set up this man as a suspect, as he is not and was never considered a suspect in the case at all. AS calls him patently honest and straightforward.

DV has set up someone who in reality it would be very easy to find, and had his narrative gained traction in the media the individual could have found himself hounded by the tabloid media. I admit I am now curious as to his motives, does he genuinely believe his assumptions?