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

[Pinkizzy]

Didn't DV say that if the suspect adds more info to his statement, he's probably innocent, if he gives the bare minimum account of the day then he's probably guilty?

 

[WestLondoner]

How many abductors carry around fake License plates with them?

Well, I would. This was supposedly a planned abduction, so the abductor chose to do it on a Monday lunchtime and chose to get her to go somewhere in her car. He was clearly well organised enough to make SJL disappear completely. Wouldn't he make the car disappear too? The simplest way to do so is to change its identity, and it was easy in 1986 to get replacement plates made. So as well as lining up his safe house and what not, wouldn't he organise that too? He would have left the police with absolutely zero. Dumped in a car park, it could be literally months before the car park operator realised that a parked car wasn't moving.

 

[WestLondoner]

It’s odd how DV throws CV under the bus but doesn’t mention the wife In the plot.


A pub isn’t that large of a space , you have workers around and his wife. Yet he managed on a Monday afternoon to kill somebody/ get rid of the body and ditch a car all while acting normal and yet not one person got suspicious and reported him as acting strange.


He did this under the nose of his wife as well - she loved him so much he was able to murder somebody and all she did was divorce him.


It’s farcical to me that he managed to do all this without anybody he came into contact with noticing he was acting odd including trained detectives. He must have one hell of a poker face my friend.


ETA - not forgetting he had the police on his doorstep that night or following day.


IMO

It's a fair point but the trouble is we don't actually know what was happening at the pub that day beyond what people can remember 35 years later. It's an assumption that the pub was open, but we don't know. CV's partner did food; if no food had been prepared because of the stocktake, would she hang around? I don't know. We also hear nothing of Brendon the cellarman. What the police think they know, they got from CV.

It is pretty weird to me that nobody said anything to MH, the full-time landlord, when he came back. Your staff spoke twice to SJL, she arranged to come and fetch her stuff, she disappeared, there were weird phone calls, the police came, and she's at the centre of a huge search. So you say to CV, Anything happen while I was away? and CV says Um....no, can't think of anything.

 

[WestLondoner]

Riverside Gardens Apartments on Stevenage Rd has Secure underground parking it has vehicle access both sides of the bollards on Stevenage rd it suits a lure and abduction opportunity

Interesting - but if you lured her into an underground car park, wouldn't you leave her car there? Why put it in plain view? There could be a reason but I can't think of one offhand - aren't you better off the longer it takes for the car to be found? WJ was confused about what she'd seen 8 hours previously. Imagine how confused she'd have been if it took 3 days for the car to turn up.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But as I keep saying, the PoW is quite literally the only solid location we know SJL was going to. It doesn’t necessarily indicate CV. However, his involvement in her last day was huge - holding her (possibly salacious) diary and belongings, phoning the bank, speaking to SJL on the phone several times or at the very least twice, arranging for her to collect her items, so he says, is a LOT and serious stuff.

Then there’s the added confusing stories of the alleged visit to him from a fake police officer and the subsequent dispute as to whether he handed two real officers a piece of paper / note that then got ‘lost’. Plus he changed his own versions of events AND was never rigorously focussed on in the first place as a possible person of interest.

Not to mention SJL heading to the PoW could be meaningful in many other ways as anybody - staff, customer, passerby on foot or vehicle, could have been there / in the vicinity who either deliberately targeted her, made a random predatory abduction, or simply caused her death by accident or misadventure and covered it up.

It looks like we’ll never know as in a holistic sense NONE of anything to do with the PoW, the staff, anyone in the vicinity, nor the area itself was included for a forensic evaluation.

OK. I urge you to read your post....para 4

Not to mention SJL heading to the PoW could be meaningful in many other ways as anybody - staff, customer, passerby on foot or vehicle, could have been there / in the vicinity who either deliberately targeted her, made a random predatory abduction, or simply caused her death by accident or misadventure and covered it up.

You are creating a whole load of supposition about all kinds of scenarios. The fact is that there is NO evidence yet identified for any such scenarios. Without evidence they are meaningless. We can all create supposition in this way.

It is important to be objective and to follow what the evidence tells us. As it happens the evidence tells us very little but there are identified lines of enquiry. Identify as much factual information as possible about the below lines of enquiry.

1. SJL's diary entry
2. SJL's collecting car in Radipole Road
3. SJL going to 37 SR
4. SJL's car being found opp 123 SR
5. SJL's background (romantic/sexual relationships/liaisons, family, friends, colleagues, associates, activities)
6. Actions of Sturgis staff/office procedures/office issues
7. SJL's flat
8. and Yes....SJL's found property at the PoW

Note that I am NOT introducing any supposition about what may have happened in any of the lines of enquiry. They need to be progressed by objective investigation to see what evidence and corroboration can be obtained. This will then drive the direction of the investigation, once individual lines of enquiry have been completed and other remain open.

Introducing supposition is lazy and poor investigation technique. It is important to uncover the evidence and to follow where it leads.

The police will have covered these in one way or another, they were not incompetent, they were overwhelmed with information. The review will have also covered them and cross-referenced the information better as it was entered on HOLMES2.

The reality is that a lot of this evidence may be lost with the passage of time, memories fade/play tricks, witnesses die, documents are destroyed etc.

So forget supposition, because it doesn't advance an investigation in a meaningful way, if you want to do a good job.

If you want to come up with theories, then fine, it may prompt discussion.....but it is NOT evidence and the investigator in me wants explanations that are backed up by evidence. So I don't but into it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Didn't DV say that if the suspect adds more info to his statement, he's probably innocent, if he gives the bare minimum account of the day then he's probably guilty?

The detective takes the statement so should be digging down into the detail, using cognitive memory methods, where necessary.

As a detective you wouldn't go back to the office with a half-baked statement.

If the witness can barely remember anything or changes to accommodate new information then either they're just unreliable or they are trying to cover something up, which could be entirely unrelated, e.g. tax evasion, handling stolen goods.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

With a lack of evidence and many facts, I’m just squirreling around with hypotheses and considerations.

As long as we have the one solid and evidenced fact - that SJL’s property was at the PoW and she intended to head there within the same afternoon she disappeared then personally I find that way too significant to discard.

Some people say how can CV have acted alone to do something but even for me that’s a stretch too far as that’s an assumption with nothing to back it up - there are so many and various incidents and dynamics that could have occurred, not least that sometimes people act together and anyhow we have not a single clue or data. For me all of that doesn’t shut something down from being possible, it leaves it wide open with boundless possibilities.

 

[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 the collective weight of the circumstantial evidence, not one individual facet.

I have said this before, more than once. It would be helpful if this was understood, to avoid unnecessary questions.

 

[asyousay]

With a lack of evidence and many facts, I’m just squirreling around with hypotheses and considerations.

As long as we have the one solid and evidenced fact - that SJL’s property was at the PoW and she intended to head there within the same afternoon she disappeared then personally I find that way too significant to discard.

Some people say how can CV have acted alone to do something but even for me that’s a stretch too far as that’s an assumption with nothing to back it up - there are so many and various incidents and dynamics that could have occurred, not least that sometimes people act together and anyhow we have not a single clue or data. For me all of that doesn’t shut something down from being possible, it leaves it wide open with boundless possibilities.

Do you not think LE considered that and discarded it because CV and the wife was forthcoming and honest when questioned?

There has never been a hint before this book they could be involved in this as far as I’m aware.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

With a lack of evidence and many facts, I’m just squirreling around with hypotheses and considerations.

As long as we have the one solid and evidenced fact - that SJL’s property was at the PoW and she intended to head there within the same afternoon she disappeared then personally I find that way too significant to discard.

Some people say how can CV have acted alone to do something but even for me that’s a stretch too far as that’s an assumption with nothing to back it up - there are so many and various incidents and dynamics that could have occurred, not least that sometimes people act together and anyhow we have not a single clue or data. For me all of that doesn’t shut something down from being possible, it leaves it wide open with boundless possibilities.

You are correct in saying that SJL's property being found at the PoW is a legitimate line of enquiry.

1. However, it has to go back to how/where/when it went missing....this could be relevant.
2. Where (exactly)/when is was found and by whom (I understand that this was CV)
3. SLJ's actions when she discovered the items were missing/witness to this either directly or remotely (bank)
4. Actions by finder (CV)/once again witnesses to this (directly or remotely)
5. SJL's arrangements for return/collection
6. Examination of the found items and evidence gathering potential

This doesn't bring in any supposition or theories about what may or may not happened. It is an evidential/intelligence led approach.

The what happened bit occurs, if things don't add up and there is enough suspicion of a relevant offence to arrest someone. Then they are given the opportunity to answer harder questions and the police can use powers of search to seize evidence and conduct forensic examination.

The police spoke with CV. I don't believe that he was arrested. The police were satisfied that SJL's disappearance had nothing to do with the PoW.

 

[Crusader21]

The police were satisfied that SJL's disappearance had nothing to do with the PoW.

On many, many occasions the police have been satisfied with certain assumptions, that subsequently have later proved to be incorrect.

15 all .....

 

[Crusader21]

Anyone else remember the BBCs 'Rough Justice' series?

It highlighted probable mis- carriages of justice, in a country whose judicial system was supposedly the envy of the world ....

 

[Whitehall 1212]

On many, many occasions the police have been satisfied with certain assumptions, that subsequently have later proved to be incorrect.

15 all .....

1. The police dealt first hand with CV and the PoW.

2. The police know what information was obtained and how it was processed.

3. The police concluded lines of enquiry and were satisfied that CV and the PoW had no bearing on the investigation.

How about coming up with some evidence for your assertion? Otherwise what you say is meaningless and carries no weight! It's far from impressive.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Anyone else remember the BBCs 'Rough Justice' series?

It highlighted probable mis- carriages of justice, in a country whose judicial system was supposedly the envy of the world ....

Find me a country in the western world that operates the adversarial system of justice, where there are not mis-carriages of justice?

You won't because the system is not perfect. However, it is the best there is and within it there are the means to challenge such miscarriages, although the wheels can turn slowly.

You watch 'Rough Justice' so it focusses the mind on cases of miscarriages of justice. It doesn't balance up the equation with all the sound convictions and acquittals. It doesn't discuss all the offenders who have evaded justice....these are also miscarriages of justice.....are you advocating for these too?

In short it is down to the viewer to understand how the the programme should be taken in context and provide their own balance to the subject matter.

What percentage of criminal trials in England and Wales result in a guilty verdict that is considered a miscarriage of justice?

It's easy to moan about situations, it doesn't bring anything positive to the table. if you have solutions then speak up.

 

[Crusader21]

How about coming up with some evidence for your assertion? Otherwise what you say is meaningless and carries no weight! It's far from impressive.

What assertion is that please?

If it's my view that the police, although the believe they are correct, may actually be wrong. Then there is multiple cases of this being the case.

Probably like most long-time followers of this case, I believed the police line that JC was responsible. Frustrated time and time again with failed digs etc.

I'd say I'm about 95% certain now that there are credible, plausible other explanations for what happened that Monday.

I'm glad and applaud folk who don't just accept the official line. But question, re-evaluate, discover new evidence etc. Imo this gives us the best chance of closure to this case ...

 

[Crusader21]

Find me a country in the western world that operates the adversarial system of justice, where there are not mis-carriages of justice?

You won't because the system is not perfect. However, it is the best there is and within it there are the means to challenge such miscarriages, although the wheels can turn slowly.

You watch 'Rough Justice' so it focusses the mind on cases of miscarriages of justice. It doesn't balance up the equation with all the sound convictions and acquittals. It doesn't discuss all the offenders who have evaded justice....these are also miscarriages of justice.....are you advocating for these too?

In short it is down to the viewer to understand how the the programme should be taken in context and provide their own balance to the subject matter.

What percentage of criminal trials in England and Wales result in a guilty verdict that is considered a miscarriage of justice?

It's easy to moan about situations, it doesn't bring anything positive to the table. if you have solutions then speak up.

Unless you can understand this basic principle of investigation you will not progress to thinking with an investigative mindset.

May I ask you directly a few questions please?

Do you think it was wise / proper / correct for the Met to 'take the highly unusual step' of pubically naming 'JC as the only person of interest'?

Any do you think that press conference has helped or hindered the quest to uncover what happened to SL?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I

Do you not think LE considered that and discarded it because CV and the wife was forthcoming and honest when questioned?

There has never been a hint before this book they could be involved in this as far as I’m aware.

One thing we know for sure is that LE were 100% committed to the Mr Kipper abduction narrative. We know that because they went immediately to national mainstream news with it and pushed it relentlessly.

It hasn't been openly stated AFAIK but doubtless LE wouldn't have been too worried about or working on SJL's disappearance for quite some time after concerns being reported as she was a grown woman with an active and complicated social life and many friends and places to go.

 

[asyousay]

I


One thing we know for sure is that LE were 100% committed to the Mr Kipper abduction narrative. We know that because they went immediately to national mainstream news with it and pushed it relentlessly.

It hasn't been openly stated AFAIK but doubtless LE wouldn't have been too worried about or working on SJL's disappearance for quite some time after concerns being reported as she was a grown woman with an active and complicated social life and many friends and places to go.

That doesn’t mean they don’t follow other lines of inquiry.

 

[Terryb808]

I


One thing we know for sure is that LE were 100% committed to the Mr Kipper abduction narrative. We know that because they went immediately to national mainstream news with it and pushed it relentlessly.

It hasn't been openly stated AFAIK but doubtless LE wouldn't have been too worried about or working on SJL's disappearance for quite some time after concerns being reported as she was a grown woman with an active and complicated social life and many friends and places to go.

The abduction narrative is one that is entirely possible, what doesn’t fit is JC. He’s not an organised criminal, this has been highlighted many times in this thread.
What we’re expected to believe is that this haphazard criminal pulled off the perfect crime.
The way this has been carried out appears to have been well planned, again as outlined within this thread is the possibility that the perpetrator just had an incredible amount of luck.

 

[Crusader21]

That doesn’t mean they don’t follow other lines of inquiry.

Do you seriously believe the police would announce to the world that there are 'no other suspects', then behind the scenes work on other suspects/ lines of enquiry ???