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

[Whitehall 1212]

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?

Money is a great motivator. With only twenty years police service his pension will likely to be reduced by 50%.

 

[Terryb808]

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.

That’s interesting, I guess you mean innocent until proven guilty?
Seems this doesn’t apply to JC, the Met decided he was guilty and told the media. He should have been treated fairly regardless of how the police felt about the CPS’s decision not to proceed.

 

[Konstantin]

Money is a great motivator. With only twenty years police service his pension will likely to be reduced by 50%.

Well, to be fair to him, he talks throughout the book about how much he spent on his investigation, in terms of time away from his security business and novel writing, petrol costs in driving up and down the country to interview people, and I assume paying his researcher who did a lot of the background work. And the book is self-published I think so there would have been costs in that and no advance. For him to make money, he would have to have been right, found a body and made money from book sales and media appearances or increased business. He hasn't done that.

From how it's set up I think he did want to have a shot at finding SJL's remains and he presented his work to the police before he published the book, he says that he published after they did nothing.

I believe him that he wanted to find SJL, but I feel uncomfortable about some of the way he presents things in the book (he sets up his interview with the relief landlord in a way that makes the guy look weird, odd, guilty--it's not neutral. He presents the interview with that man's ex girlfriend as also making them look guilty when there are a million reasons why people split up and are not on friendly terms afterwards and he has no idea about why). He sets it up like a novel, in a way, dropping hints that the reader can pick up on and come to the conclusion about whodunnit themselves. SJL's ex boyfriend AL is also presented as "weird" when again, there are good reasons for why he might get exasperated and walk out.

I also feel a bit uncomfortable about him doorstepping people who really don't want to talk to him. I can see his arguments for doing that, but it is invasive. The interviewees don't know him and it's a sensitive and upsetting case. Noone wants to be a The Sun or Daily Mail victim.

Maybe he passionately believes the person he all-but-named is guilty but he has put him at risk for sure.

 

[asyousay]

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

How far is the viewing from pow?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That’s interesting, I guess you mean innocent until proven guilty?
Seems this doesn’t apply to JC, the Met decided he was guilty and told the media. He should have been treated fairly regardless of how the police felt about the CPS’s decision not to proceed.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle which sets the position of a defendants standing in criminal court proceedings. This position is maintained throughout the proceedings and only changes if the defendant is found guilty by the court.

I meant what I said in my post.....it wasn't ambiguous.

The Metropolitan Police named JC as the "only suspect" in the SJL case. It was a statement of fact and clarified the police position for the public, in what had become a very high profile investigation.

 

[Crusader21]

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.

It was reported that SL was a conscientious worker.

So if the diary entry was legit and she wasn't using it to do an errand, why did she fail to fill in a new client card for Mr Kipper???

I'm sure her managed would have taken a very dim view of what was a by any stretch of the imagination not only a reckless act, but against company protocal!

 

[asyousay]

It was reported that SL was a conscientious worker.

So if the diary entry was legit and she wasn't using it to do an errand, why did she fail to fill in a new client card for Mr Kipper???

I'm sure her managed would have taken a very dim view of what was a by any stretch of the imagination not only a reckless act, but against company protocal!

Why couldn’t she of filled in that card when she got back to the office?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It was reported that SL was a conscientious worker.

So if the diary entry was legit and she wasn't using it to do an errand, why did she fail to fill in a new client card for Mr Kipper???

I'm sure her managed would have taken a very dim view of what was a by any stretch of the imagination not only a reckless act, but against company protocal!

Could be because 'Mr Kipper' wasn't a client but an 'associate' of SJL's on a personal level.

 

[Crusader21]

Why couldn’t she of filled in that card when she got back to the office?

Surely that would defeat the whole point of having the card system in the first place???

Could be because 'Mr Kipper' wasn't a client but an 'associate' of SJL's on a personal level.

Are you suggesting SL was not conscientious?

That she was filing a false appt as a ruse? To allow her to go on an 'errand' to meet 'an associate on a personal level'?

That's actually not too far off from what DV is saying!

 

[ruby925]

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

Weekday opening hours restrictions amended by the Licensing Act 1988 ..,

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Surely that would defeat the whole point of having the card system in the first place???


Are you suggesting SL was not conscientious?

That she was filing a false appt as a ruse? To allow her to go on an 'errand' to meet 'an associate on a personal level'?

That's actually not too far off from what DV is saying!

Not a ruse. A viewing for someone she was 'involved' with, that she wanted to keep low key. SJL was known to compartmentalise her life.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Could be because 'Mr Kipper' wasn't a client but an 'associate' of SJL's on a personal level.

A new retained agent perhaps.

 

[Terryb808]

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle which sets the position of a defendants standing in criminal court proceedings. This position is maintained throughout the proceedings and only changes if the defendant is found guilty by the court.

I meant what I said in my post.....it wasn't ambiguous.

The Metropolitan Police named JC as the "only suspect" in the SJL case. It was a statement of fact and clarified the police position for the public in a what became a very high profile investigation.

 

[WestLondoner]

How far is the viewing from pow?

A long way - almost as far as the PoW was from the office. It was at Waldemar Avenue, which is east of her office and about 3/4 of the way from there to Stevenage Rd.

Two people at the pub reckon to have spoken to her. One was early, after she heard from the bank. It's not clear why there was a need for her to call again unless it was to change the arrangement after the Waldemar viewing was booked.

 

[asyousay]

Surely that would defeat the whole point of having the card system in the first place???

Clearly this was a last minute appointment and so she wrote down where she was and would of filled that in later IMO

I am positive in such a cut throat industry that would she did wouldn’t of been frowned upon. It’s about sales at the end of the day! MOO

 

[Terryb808]

In doing so effectively preventing JC from ever receiving a fair trial, and saying JC is guilty, no jury would be able to forget this statement.

 

[Crusader21]

Not a ruse. A viewing for someone she was 'involved' with, that she wanted to keep low key. SJL was known to compartmentalise her life.

That's interesting speculation. Would you be able to expand on, with reasons why you've came up with this theory?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

new retained agent

Are you going all Secret Squirrel on me? What's a.....shhhh......new retained agent?

 

[Crusader21]

Was she meant to be aware The Grim Reaper was walking behind her that morning and wouldn’t make it back to fill in some index form?

IMO that's a very poor comment ....

 

[asyousay]

A long way. It was at Waldemar Avenue, which is east of her office and about 3/4 of the way from there to Stevenage Rd.

Two people at the pub reckon to have spoken to her. One was early, after she heard from the bank. It's not clear why there was a need for her to call again unless it was to change the arrangement after the Waldemar viewing was booked.

Thank You I couldn’t read her handwriting.


The problem is people assume she rung the pub to go then but equally she could of rung to say she would be slightly later due to work commitments. We simply don’t know either way

IMO