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

[Whitehall 1212]

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?

It was an exceptionally unusual step for any police force to take. It will not have been taken without much discussion, including legal advice.

It is vital to remember that there was a full and thorough review of the investigation, when all the evidence was re-examined. All the original informatiom on thousands of index cards was uploaded onto HOLMES2.

The review was conducted with the most modern of police investigative and forensic tools.

The police staged a press conference with the Lamplugh's in which they apologised publicly for the errors of the initial enquiry.

In the final analysis there was only one suspect, JC. The CPS said the police had "left no stone unturned", which is an independent affirmation of the depth and breadth of the review.

The CPS assessment was that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to secure a conviction. Some direct evidence was needed.

The police knew that they needed a body. Their only suspect was serving three life terms, one for murder, with an indeterminate sentence. He is unlikely to ever be released

I don't believe it has undermined the hunt for SJP's body.

I honestly believe that JC abducted and killed Suzy....no one else. My conclusion is evidence based, not a belief that I must agree with the police.

As to whether it was right for the police to announce that JC was "the only suspect".....they didn't say killed her or he's her murderer or the guilty party....just "the only suspect" and that is often misquoted. What they said is fact.

I think after a passage of nearly 20 years, a major over-arching review, an attempt at charge and a family who agreed, it provided the Lamplugh's with public closure and affirmation that the only suspect was already in prison and would probably never be released.

I took comfort in knowing JC was locked away. Many, many did. I suggest far more than claim JC had nothing to do with it.

Confidence in the police is at an all time low now, they deserve that. They need to get their act together and rebuild trust.

I think many dismiss the Met's conclusion because they are the Met or the wider police. It is a kick back against authority that many people no longer respect. I can understand that.

If the evidence was there that pointed to other suspects then I would take it on board, like all evidence. I have no reason to doubt that JD's team would have too.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

You are aware that the Met Police had escalated SJL's disappearance from 'missing person enquiry' to 'murder' enquiry before daylight on Tuesday 29th July.....the morning after SJL's disappearance?

This is why the publicity was so intense, so quickly. They had to find any witnesses fast, whilst their recollection would still be fresh.

 

[Crusader21]

Out of interest, can any one name any other UK cases in which police similarly have named their man, before a trial took place?

 

[Pinkizzy]

You are aware that the Met Police had escalated SJL's disappearance from 'missing person enquiry' to 'murder' enquiry before daylight on Tuesday 29th July.....the morning after SJL's disappearance?

This is why the publicity was so intense, so quickly. They had to find any witnesses fast, whilst their recollection would still be fresh.

This week, there was an article about the Soham murders in the Times. Huntley was very friendly and helped out with the press conference until he said something inappropriate about one of the girls. He was too helpful and that led to him making mistakes and his downfall.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Out of interest, can any one name any other UK cases in which police similarly have named their man, before a trial took place?

I can't.....and I think it is the massive exception, because of the very specific circumstances. This is because the police in the UK traditionally keep live case information, before any court proceedings out of the public domain, unless absolutely necessary for public safety, appeals for witnesses etc.

It's important to remember that the police said "the only suspect". When a solitary person is charged with a serious offence and the police release their name, age, town..... do we assume that if just one person has been charged then they are the only suspect. I think we do and don't think twice about it.

There was no opinion advanced as to guilt. That would have been shocking. The police knew they were never going to say that.

I don't think it would have undermined a possible court case later on down the line. Jury's are told that they have to try the defendant on the evidence presented to the court and nothing else. In high profile investigations many jurors will remember the press coverage etc. As long as they are clear on their obligations then it wont impact on their individual decision as a juror.

Just out of interest many people don't realise that the police lawful duty and legal obligation in investigations is not only to obtain evidence to support the case for a suspected persons involvement in an offence.....it is also to identify any evidence to disprove a suspected persons involvement in an offence. So the police role is to identify ALL the available evidence both for and against the suspects alleged involvement.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This week, there was an article about the Soham murders in the Times. Huntley was very friendly and helped out with the press conference until he said something inappropriate about one of the girls. He was too helpful and that led to him making mistakes and his downfall.

Yes, that he made himself unofficial spokesperson was a red flag for police...based on the psychology behind it. That he also asked officers how the investigation was going and "how long does it take DNA to break down" probably didn't help either.

I suspect police were keeping very close tabs on him.....day and night.

 

[Crusader21]

@Whitehall 1212 apologies for continual questioning, but do you think the (unprecedented) police actions in naming JC, may have been an attempt to force the hand of the CPS?

Or to put it another way, did the police reckon if they themselves named JC, then the CPS would go to trial?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Yes, that he made himself unofficial spokesperson was a red flag for police...based on the psychology behind it. That he also asked officers how the investigation was going and "how long does it take DNA to break down" probably didn't help either.

I suspect police were keeping very close tabs on him.....day and night.

Did any of the witnesses in the SJL case ask how the investigation was going?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Whitehall 1212 apologies for continual questioning, but do you think the (unprecedented) police actions in naming JC, may have been an attempt to force the hand of the CPS?

Or to put it another way, did the police reckon if they themselves named JC, then the CPS would go to trial?

The police can charge a suspect without the approval of the CPS. I think the police considered it, but it would have been rather petulant and not the current accepted procedure, particularly when it's a serious offence.

The problem is that the CPS are the body that prosecutes the case on behalf of the Crown and they would just have said to the police "we're not prosecuting it, because the there is no realistic prospect of conviction", sending the police away with their tails between their legs.

The CPS are entirely independent of the police. Yes they work closely together. The CPS advise Senior Investigating Officers on the weaknesses in the evidence and what evidence is required to meet the significant evidential weight for charge.

However, the CPS will not be coerced or forced in any way. They guard their independence to assess the strength of the evidence entirely objectively and apply what is called the Full Code Test, as follows:

1. Does the evidence provide a realistic prospect of conviction (it's a high bar to reach)
2. Is prosecution in the public interest

If yes to both then the CPS will authorise that the person is charged by the police with the offences the CPS indicate.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I

Did any of the witnesses in the SJL case ask how the investigation was going?

I have no idea. I was not involved in the investigation.

I do know coppers are very suspicious and avoid giving out information. So if anyone had, I feel certain that the red flags would have gone up PDQ and they would have been looked at a lot more closely.

 

[WestLondoner]

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.

This.

According to AS, two officers went to the PoW the next morning. It was during that morning that the decision to stage a press conference was made. The entire thrust of that press conference was that SJL went to 37SR and had not been seen since.

Hence, by the time the PoW was visited, the officers concerned already 'knew' SJL had been abducted by 'Mr Kipper'. It's clearly possible that this coloured their approach, because why would you be interested in what happened at a pub in Putney, when the official version was already that she had last been seen outside a house two miles away in Fulham at 1pm.

This is actually one of the reasons why it's quite possible for CV's account of events to be correct. If he had related information about calls to the pub, would the officers have been interested, given that it had been decided she never went there? Would the senior officers have been interested, given that they had publicly gone all-in on Mr Kipper? This would involve admitting error.

An instructive example is the hoax Ripper tape and letters. The man in charge believed it because he wrongly thought these contained information the public did not know. He actually instructed that suspects, including Sutcliffe, be eliminated for not having a Wearside accent. A relatively junior officer compiled a memo showing that everything the hoaxer had sent in had been in the newspapers. He was angrily bawled out for his trouble and threatened with demotion. He was, of course, entirely right, but look where it got him.

I think it's pretty clear how a suggestion that the police were barking up the wrong tree would have been received. Look at how it's being received today.

 

[WestLondoner]

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.

Agree 100%. It could indeed be an abduction, but JC is such an abject, patent buffoon that it stretches credulity to breaking point to imagine that he could be capable of pulling it off.

The fool doesn't appear to have got away with any of his crimes at all. I mean FGS, the idiot kept his victim's £750 car! And she left her fingerprints in his flat! And he kept the tax disc in his own car - along with a replica gun! Duh! This would practically guarantee that if he got pulled over even for a dodgy brake light and searched he'd be nicked, but the fool then actually went out and committed crimes in that car with that stuff in it! Jeez Louise as they say stateside.

The only crime he could perhaps have got away with would seem to be murdering Sandra Court. A car park ticket places his shared car in Southampton that day. However, he was on a curfew and she disappeared at about 2am, so I don't see how he can have done this. If he was able to flout the curfew, then he could also have done so in supposed guise as the man from Bristol who always had to leave early. He also wasn't the car's only driver, and GOK who it might have been lent to.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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 ???

If credible information was received regarding another individual being involved in SJL's disappearance the police would be duty bound to investigate.

Lines of enquiry do not have to relate directly to suspects. They could relate to deposition of SJL's body, items found that were missing from SJL etc. Of course a new line of enquiry may relate to JC or any other potential suspect.

The police would not provide a public update on any new lines of enquiry unless they required the public's help to advance them.

The investigation will remain open as long as SJL still missing.

 

[Crusader21]

If credible information was received regarding another individual being involved in SJL's disappearance the police would be duty bound to investigate.

Lines of enquiry do not have to relate directly to suspects. They could relate to deposition of SJL's body, items found that were missing from SJL etc. Of course a new line of enquiry may relate to JC or any other potential suspect.

The police would not provide a public update on any new lines of enquiry unless they required the public's help to advance them.

The investigation will remain open as long as SJL still missing.

I get all that but what about the credibility of the force, etc if the police confidently announce to the world 'We have our man'. Then say 'we'll actually, following a different line of enquires there's this other person .....'

 

[Pinkizzy]

Agree 100%. It could indeed be an abduction, but JC is such an abject, patent buffoon that it stretches credulity to breaking point to imagine that he could be capable of pulling it off.

The fool doesn't appear to have got away with any of his crimes at all. I mean FGS, the idiot kept his victim's £750 car! And she left her fingerprints in his flat! And he kept the tax disc in his own car - along with a replica gun! Duh! This would practically guarantee that if he got pulled over even for a dodgy brake light and searched he'd be nicked, but the fool then actually went out and committed crimes in that car with that stuff in it! Jeez Louise as they say stateside.

The only crime he could perhaps have got away with would seem to be murdering Sandra Court. A car park ticket places his shared car in Southampton that day. However, he was on a curfew and she disappeared at about 2am, so I don't see how he can have done this. If he was able to flout the curfew, then he could also have done so in supposed guise as the man from Bristol who always had to leave early. He also wasn't the car's only driver, and GOK who it might have been lent to.

I think he had permission to spend the whole bank holiday with his friend near Southampton

 

[WestLondoner]

The CPS said the police had "left no stone unturned", which is an independent affirmation of the depth and breadth of the review.

It's not part of the CPS' job to mark the police's homework, however, and tell them they'd done a grand job.

The CPS:

• decides which cases should be prosecuted;
• determines the appropriate charges in more serious or complex cases, and advises the police during the early stages of investigations;
• prepares cases and presents them at court; and
• provides information, assistance and support to victims and prosecution witnesses.

Prosecutors must be fair, objective and independent. When deciding whether to prosecute a criminal case, our lawyers must follow the Code for Crown Prosecutors. This means that to charge someone with a criminal offence, prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, and that prosecuting is in the public interest.

At the same time as telling the police they'd looked at a lot of evidence, they also concluded that it didn't add up to a case worth pursuing - which rather spoils the effect. A sceptic might think that the police had clearly looked at a lot of irrelevant evidence.

So this claim that the CPS' remarks amount to a ringing endorsement always makes me laugh. It is a bit like Jeff Lynne proudly repeating John Lennon's remark that if the Beatles hadn't split up, they'd have turned into something like ELO. He didn't mean it as a compliment.

 

[WestLondoner]

I think he had permission to spend the whole bank holiday with his friend near Southampton

Did he indeed! That puts a different complexion on it - it makes it possible he did it. There may actually be a crime JC got away with....

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I get all that but what about the credibility of the force, etc if the police confidently announce to the world 'We have our man'. Then say 'we'll actually, following a different line of enquires there's this other person .....'

Can we be clear that the police said that JC was "the only suspect". It means just that and nothing more.

It doesn't mean there can never be another suspect, it doesn't mean the police are labelling JC as guilty.

The choice in language and meaning when posing questions is really important.

In spite of the police announcement there is no issue in new lines of enquiry emerging, even now. The police will assess the veracity and investigate, if appropriate.

Change in the focus of the investigation is not a credibility issue. It's an investigation....new information can come in years later. Why do you think police push cold cases on major anniversaries?

I sometimes wonder if the confidence in the police per se is so damaged that the public have no faith in them at all. I find that very regrettable.

I have faith in two key areas of policing due to professionalism and expertise:

1. Major incidents and running towards the danger to protect life.

2. Major investigations. Whatever happened historically, major investigation teams really are the gold standard of investigation

I hope this is making sense?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Did he indeed! That puts a different complexion on it - it makes it possible he did it. There may actually be a crime JC got away with....

That's according to CBD...

 

[Crusader21]

I hope this is making sense?

Yes it does, but I'm sure you'll admit it's very messy.

It appears the JC conference contains a form of words that the Downing St press office would doth their caps to ...