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

[Cluesleuth]

The witness BW, who reported seeing the vehicle towards Hammersmith claimed she knew SLJ. She sounded very vague in the TV clip of her being interviewed by a journalist. Four things stood out for me:

1. BW said was unsure if it was SJL's car as they are "very common"
2. The woman in the car had her head turned away from the BW
3. If SJL had changed her hair colour only three days before did BW know this/seen her since Friday? If not and she describes SJL's hair colour as dark brown or similar, and doesn't see the drivers face, it's throws significant doubt on this BW's evidence.
4. BW said she didn't look at the man in the passenger seat. My contention is, if a woman you thought you knew was in a car with a man you would have a look at the man that 'SJL' is with!

I have doubts over whether this 'sighting' ever took place.

I firmly believe that SJL knew her abductor/murderer. Such an abduction on a working day at lunch time in a London street would be exceptionally risky for a complete stranger without significant chance of being witnessed and the police being called or people intervening. A victim who knows the offender is much more likely to enter a house, car, go to a quiet place with the offender, affording him the luxury of choosing his moment to attack, when she is most vulnerable and he is most protected from external interference.

JC's three known abductions/attempted abductions of women in motor vehicles all took place in quiet areas later in the evening. For me JC is the only suspect and therefore I believe in this instance that he must have known SJL to abduct her without a trace.

MOO

Do you believe JC is the business man from Bristol that she had a relationship with?

 

[WestLondoner]

Can someone explain why (quite rightly so), you cannot accuse people of murder without being prsecuted via liable laws in courts. Yet the police can openly and repeatly accuse JC of this murder?

A claim that has been repeated by so many docs, publications etc.

Is there a 'parlimentary privileage' type thing in place for the police? If so, I agree that is wrong and should be removed ....

Your usual recourse would be to sue for libel but to do so successfully you have to show your good name has suffered harm. A convicted murderer and rapist has no good name to lose, so cannot be libelled.

The police (or rather we) ended up having to pay Colin Stagg £700,000.

 

[Crusader21]

Your usual recourse would be to sue for libel but to do so successfully you have to show your good name has suffered harm. A convicted murderer and rapist has no good name to lose, so cannot be libelled.

That's interesting. So to take that a step further, anyone could say pubically that (someone like) Levi Bellfield murdered SL.

As I say interesting, and risk-free if somewhat reckless ....

 

[ruby925]

I only used BW as an example as she was a retained agent.

I know people think Kipper is an odd name but there are people out there with the name. So to me Mr Kipper isnt strange as in a name. Its wether the appointment was false or not.

If a potential client gave his name as Kipper, Kuyper, Keeper or similar, I would definitely ask for a first name. Even though the 80s were a bit more formal with names, if names were taken/given over the fone, a first name would be given imo. Of course, SJL may not have written it down (as she did with the entry for the female) but it does look odd in the light of what happened.

 

[Cluesleuth]

If a potential client gave his name as Kipper, Kuyper, Keeper or similar, I would definitely ask for a first name. Even though the 80s were a bit more formal with names, if names were taken/given over the fone, a first name would be given imo. Of course, SJL may not have written it down (as she did with the entry for the female) but it does look odd in the light of what happened.

To be honest a first name wouldnt initially be important to me but a telephone number would be.
Name address and tel were usually standard for a negotiator to ask for.
An agent shouldnt be giving giving details out to just anyone without at least 2 of the above particulary if any of the properties are vacant.

 

[WestLondoner]

That's interesting. So to take that a step further, anyone could say pubically that (someone like) Levi Bellfield murdered SL.

As I say interesting, and risk-free if somewhat reckless ....

Indeed you could. To win a libel case, you've got to show in the first place that there was a 'sting' to the libel i.e. it harmed your good name.

This changes over time. 50 years ago if you said Liberace was gay, you could get sued for libel, because back then it could be argued it harmed him. His audience was the sort of people who didn't like anyone gay. Today I think it would be near-impossible to claim this was libel. Saying you murdered someone obviously has a sting, but you do have to have a good name to lose in the first place. If you're Levi Bellfield you do not, so we can say anything about him we like. JC same thing.

Once you get past that, you get your libel hearing, but it's not for the libelled party to prove they're not a murderer; it's for the other side to defend what they said, i.e. to prove they are a murderer, loosely speaking. That's an oversimplification, but not a very gross one. While one defence to libel is that it's true, another is that it was an honest opinion arrived at off the facts in a reasonable way.

Libel isn't the only recourse. A loony called Sabine McNeill was jailed for 9 years for grossly defaming people online; she broke a 1997 law against harassment.

 

[WestLondoner]

To be honest a first name wouldnt initially be important to me but a telephone number would be.
Name address and tel were usually standard for a negotiator to ask for.
An agent shouldnt be giving giving details out to just anyone without at least 2 of the above particulary if any of the properties are vacant.

Absolutely, and furthermore, then as now, estate agents are supposed to find out if a would-be viewer is actually "proceedable" before potentially wasting time showing them property. They need to know their own circumstances i.e. do they have a property to sell, what's that worth, how far along with that are they, what's their budget, how much are they borrowing, what type of property e.g. flat or house, newbuild or existing, what sort of timeframe. Once they know all that they have a sense for whether the person is serious and they will start to show them what they have on the books and what may be coming up. The idea that anyone would phone up and say Meet me at this empty property in 10 minutes and SJL would then do so is for the birds, I think.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I really do think we need a change of the law in this area. It shouldn't be legal for the police, constructively or explicitly, to announce that someone has murdered someone, while presenting no evidence.

The Met Police made the statement that JC was the "only suspect" in the SJL case. What they say was that he was guilty, as guilt is a matter for the courts.

As regards Napper....at the time of Rachel Nickell's murder he had one conviction involving an airgun. He had previously admitted an offence of rape to his mother in south-east London, His mother reported it but police were unable to link it to any reported offences. Napper was from south-east London, not the Wimbledon area. There was no earthly reason why he would appear as a possible suspect, whereas Stagg did and the offender profile and the profiler were flawed.

However, the John Duffy profile, a few years before, was detailed and spot on. Therefore, maybe there was too much confidence and hence over-reliance on the profile, and not enough understanding of the pitfalls of offender profiling.

DNA at the time of the RN murder was unable to determine a profile for the killer. Sometime later DNA technology enabled this to be done.

<modsnip>

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Do you believe JC is the business man from Bristol that she had a relationship with?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Yes, absolutely.

Did you consider anyone else that SJL might have known that had a Bristol connection before concluding that?

 

[Crusader21]

The Met Police made the statement that JC was the "only suspect" in the SJL case. What they say was that he was guilty, as guilt is a matter for the courts.

IMO this sums up these discussions, in one.

The police have stated JC is our man. They have a lot more info than what is in the public domain. The CPS could not to trial .... stalemate.

IMO it is perfectably acceptable though to ponder other possibilities, other suspects. I don't think that we should blindly accept the police narrative that JC is responsible, and try to bend or make fit what we do know to support the official line ....

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, absolutely.

The relationship was in 1982. So she had a relationship with him while he was in jail?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Your usual recourse would be to sue for libel but to do so successfully you have to show your good name has suffered harm. A convicted murderer and rapist has no good name to lose, so cannot be libelled.

The police (or rather we) ended up having to pay Colin Stagg £700,000.

There is no defamation as the police said JC was their "only suspect". It is a statement of fact.

If they had said he JC murdered SJL then that would be a different matter. However, they chose their words very carefully, no doubt after legal advice and much discussion.

FYI

Any legal action would be a case of defamation, the means by which the defamation occurred would be slander, libel or both.

The spoken word relates to slander.

The written word relates to libel.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Did you consider anyone else that SJL might have known that had a Bristol connection before concluding that?

My conclusion is based on all the circumstantial evidence in the public domain, JC's description, MO, diary entry and SR witness evidence. The police have pieced together the circumstantial evidence. To an objective mind it is compelling.

Of course it would be open to significant defence scrutiny in court and rightly so. Even I would have great reservations if someone was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. It may undermine confidence in justice. Nevertheless, JC is locked away and by all accounts will soon be gone. He is a monster,

There have not been any similar abductions since he was locked up. If there had of been, then another suspect may have come on the radar. This hasn't happened, which also provides additional confidence that JC is SJL's killer.

I'm not asking you to agree. However, no other scenario provides even circumstantial evidence in support, just supposition and guess work to make the whole little package fit neatly in a box with a ribbon.....or in this case the PoW.

 

[Terryb808]

The Met Police made the statement that JC was the "only suspect" in the SJL case. What they say was that he was guilty, as guilt is a matter for the courts.

As regards Napper....at the time of Rachel Nickell's murder he had one conviction involving an airgun. He had previously admitted an offence of rape to his mother in south-east London, His mother reported it but police were unable to link it to any reported offences. Napper was from south-east London, not the Wimbledon area. There was no earthly reason why he would appear as a possible suspect, whereas Stagg did and the offender profile and the profiler were flawed.

However, the John Duffy profile, a few years before, was detailed and spot on. Therefore, maybe there was too much confidence and hence over-reliance on the profile, and not enough understanding of the pitfalls of offender profiling.

DNA at the time of the RN murder was unable to determine a profile for the killer. Sometime later DNA technology enabled this to be done.

The facts and context are critical. You made no mention of these. Failure to back up with the facts undermines the whole argument. This absence is a consistent feature when the factual evidence does not support your opinion.

So you’re saying the police got it wrong, but it’s not there fault, it’s down to the profiler that the police locked up the wrong man.
Sounds like a case of backing up failure with the evidence that was incorrect in the first place.

 

[Pinkizzy]

My conclusion is based on all the circumstantial evidence in the public domain, JC's description and MO. The police have more.

I'm not asking you to agree. However, no other scenario provides even circumstantial evidence in support, just supposition and guess work to make the whole little package fit neatly in a box with a ribbon.....or in this case the PoW.

Are you suggesting the crime scene was the PoW?

 

[asyousay]

Indeed you could. To win a libel case, you've got to show in the first place that there was a 'sting' to the libel i.e. it harmed your good name.

This changes over time. 50 years ago if you said Liberace was gay, you could get sued for libel, because back then it could be argued it harmed him. His audience was the sort of people who didn't like anyone gay. Today I think it would be near-impossible to claim this was libel. Saying you murdered someone obviously has a sting, but you do have to have a good name to lose in the first place. If you're Levi Bellfield you do not, so we can say anything about him we like. JC same thing.

Once you get past that, you get your libel hearing, but it's not for the libelled party to prove they're not a murderer; it's for the other side to defend what they said, i.e. to prove they are a murderer, loosely speaking. That's an oversimplification, but not a very gross one. While one defence to libel is that it's true, another is that it was an honest opinion arrived at off the facts in a reasonable way.

Libel isn't the only recourse. A loony called Sabine McNeill was jailed for 9 years for grossly defaming people online; she broke a 1997 law against harassment.

OMG - I was a jury member on one of these cases. She was mentioned loads but it wasn’t her case. That’s a blast from the past. I had completely forgotten about it until I just saw that name. Her and the company she kept were completely bonkers. The entire scandal was fascinating and to this day I have never heard anything like it. It was like some kind of a cult and so many people sucked in.



Sorry back on topic

 

[WestLondoner]

The police have stated JC is our man. They have a lot more info than what is in the public domain.

Or do they?

It is very odd that literally all the supposed evidence that has emerged is so feeble. Everything we know about JC, without exception, is supposition, speculation, opinion, and hearsay, and much of it is at odds with things we actually know about him. In no particular order:

Claim: We have JD's personal confidence (whatever that is worth) that JC had access to a black BMW. Fact: JC in fact had a half-share in a red Sierra. If he had access to a BMW by stealing one, so did thousands of people.
Claim: There was an actual Mr Kipper outside 37SR. Fact: Nobody saw SJL outside 37SR.
Claim: In the police's opinion JC looks like Mr Kipper. Fact: He was never put on an ID parade, and he looks like Keanu Reeves. And also Vic Reeves.
Claim: He was a recently-released sex offender. Fact: He wasn't the only one.
Claim: There are independent sightings of someone who looks like him in 37SR. Fact: There was one sighting. Nobody came forward to corroborate it until after a reconstruction was broadcast, and the new sightings contradict each other.
Claim: SJL was in a relationship with a man from Bristol, which must be JC. Fact: Said relationship was in 1982, when JC was in prison; he was from Sutton Coldfield, not Bristol; and he was ten years younger than the man SJL described.
Claim: JC liked to hang about wine bars. Fact: No evidence he ever in his life went to Fulham.
Claim: Abduction fits his MO. Fact: In 1986 he didn't have an MO; he was just a rapist and smalltime crook.
Claim: He was seen looking in Sturgis' window. Fact: "Sighting" dates from fourteen years later.
Claim: He turned up at a woman's house but was chased off by her husband. Fact: "Sighting" dates from fourteen years later.
Claim: JC might have been in London that day. Fact: He was in Sutton Coldfield and offered an alibi which was never checked. As it was never checked, the police decided he did not have an alibi.
Claim: The CPS think the police did a great job. Fact: The CPS are not a Red Team shadowing and evaluating the police's work. They decide what cases to prosecute and have to think there's a realistic prospect of conviction.

And so on.

Claiming someone is a suspect on such flimsy evidence ultimately makes the police look foolish and petulant, and undermines public belief in their competence. Authoritarian demands that they be believed simply because they're the police don't work in a post-Jean Charles de Menezes world. If there's more against JC, then given that they've accused him, that he's at death's door and will never be tried anyway because the CPS aren't buying it, they should show us what else there is. My guess is there's nothing.

When JC dies, logically the case could be closed, because there's no possibility of a prosecution. It will I think be kept open, so that it can't be FOIAd. If it were, the full extent of the evidence seen, which would be hugely embarrassing if it really all is of the quality above.

 

[Crusader21]

There have not been any similar abductions since he was locked up. If there had of been, then another suspect may have come on the radar. This hasn't happened, which also provides additional confidence that JC is SJL's killer.

No such similar abductions since?!

For example, the case of Michael Sams kidnapping an estate agent, even prompted a book! ...

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So you’re saying the police got it wrong, but it’s not there fault, it’s down to the profiler that the police locked up the wrong man.
Sounds like a case of backing up failure with the evidence that was incorrect in the first place.

@Terryb808. You said that, not me! You're entitled to your opinion.

Are you familiar with the Rachel Nickell case and in particular the investigation into Colin Stagg's suspected involvement?