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

[Whitehall 1212]

Are there other detectives fully knowledgeable with the case and aware of all information held by the police that also agree with JD's points of view? What if JD has got a personally motivated agenda to push this theory, could that make him the blind spot in all of this? How many other suspects were scrutinised and to what depth? If it's all so certain then why was JC not charged and convicted prior to his recent end of life situation? I'm confused.

I have spoken with JD. He had no agenda, just a commitment to find SJL and put the offender before the Crown Court.

He would not have dismissed any credible theory/line of enquiry. That was very much my assessment. I can't say more than that.

Serving officers would not be in a position to comment, unless it was an officially sanctioned as a Met Pol statement.

Ex-officers are still bound by confidentiality as it is still a live investigation.

The fact that it is still a live investigation is the reason why the police will not reveal the intelligence/evidence/enquiries carried out.

Police don't comment any more than they need to on live investigations. I appreciate it may be infuriating and we are all inquisitive/nosey, but that's the way it has to be for operational reasons. <modsnip>

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

We don't have any proof she was abducted though, she could have come to some bizarre accident, emergency, freak death situation whereby the person(s) involved have covered it up. All bets are open.

Or she could have gone inside a shop, pub, office, home, garage, been murdered for whatever motivation and then disposed of or even still be there now. That is the problem, too many options.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I have spoken with JD. He had no agenda, just a commitment to find SJL and put the offender before the Crown Court.

He would not have dismissed any credible theory/line of enquiry. That was very much my assessment. I can't say more than that.

Serving officers would not be in a position to comment, unless it was an officially sanctioned as a Met Pol statement.

Ex-officers are still bound by confidentiality as it is still a live investigation.

The fact that it is still a live investigation is the reason why the police will not reveal the intelligence/evidence/enquiries carried out.

Police don't comment any more than they need to on live investigations. I appreciate it may be infuriating and we are all inquisitive/nosey, but that's the way it has to be for operational reasons. <modsnip>

If it's all so confidential then why is JD being so forceful and open with his theory?

Also, whistle-blowing is a thing nowadays for any officers who have concerns about the way things were done back in the 80s.

Personally, I don't think the police are covering up a murder, of course not. I do think the police cover up their own failures though, as do most institutions when errors have occurred albeit unintentional and without malice.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If it's all so confidential then why is JD being so forceful and open with his theory?

Also, whistle-blowing is a thing nowadays for any officers who have concerns about the way things were done back in the 80s.

Personally, I don't think the police are covering up a murder, of course not. I do think the police cover up their own failures though, as do most institutions when errors have occurred albeit unintentional and without malice.

JD has now retired. He can comment on the case, but he will choose his words carefully as he is aware of what is in the public domain and what is not. To maintain the integrity of the investigation, the confidentiality of witnesses and dignity of SJL, the vast majority of the information/evidence will stay under wraps for when/if there is ever a Crown Court trial.

Whistleblowing is a thing. There is a significant Employment Tribunal taking place involving Greater Manchester Police and whistleblowing at present.

'Gang bosses escaped because cops were squabbling' - the allegations rocking GMP

The two alleged gang leaders have never faced justice - the senior detective turned whistleblower who was in charge of the investigation blames his bosses in evidence provided to an employment tribunal

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Where police corruption has always been a problem is with investigations into serious organised crime. It has long been a strategy of OCG's to set up/compromise/identify weaknesses/use honey traps and then 'encourage' officials to be corrupt, be that police detectives (the more senior the better), CPS, court officials, judiciary, prison officers etc. This is now very robustly monitored, particularly with certain police/NCA departments and investigations that target OCG's.

I accept that police have not been forthcoming with being up front about their mistakes and failures. Many organisations are the same, as you say. I feel it is a massive problem and requires a change of culture.

Airlines use black box thinking, which is to openly admit errors and address them to eliminate them. It is not a blame culture but one of learning because mistakes in the sky can cause hundreds of lives to be lost.

I find it hard not to believe that the SJL review was one of ideas and frankness. One where all thoughts were encouraged and thrown into the mix. After the errors of the initial investigation they would have gone to great lengths to make sure that they got things spot on.

I find it enormously disappointing that there is so little confidence in the work of JD's investigation team.

People seem to feel that if there is no body and no conviction then the police must have got it all wrong. How about that the original errors that lost evidential opportunities, the limitations of forensics, the absence of ANPR, CCTV, mobile phone data etc, and the sheer luck of the offender allowed him to get away with it? It was 1986 not 2016.....investigators just didn't have all the tools they do today.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If it's all so certain then why was JC not charged and convicted prior to his recent end of life situation? I'm confused.

Other suspects were eliminated. JC remained as the "only suspect". The evidence, which is significant but circumstantial was assessed by the CPS and they did not believe there was a realistic prospect of conviction on just the circumstantial evidence alone.

The case needed some direct evidence to prove it was beyond reasonable doubt that JC had been with SJL at the material time. Sadly that evidence has not yet become available.

It doesn't need to be smoking gun....bang to rights "I saw him do it with my own eyes guv'nor".

 

[Terryb808]

If it's all so confidential then why is JD being so forceful and open with his theory?

Also, whistle-blowing is a thing nowadays for any officers who have concerns about the way things were done back in the 80s.

Personally, I don't think the police are covering up a murder, of course not. I do think the police cover up their own failures though, as do most institutions when errors have occurred albeit unintentional and without malice.

Yes, basically what the report commissioned by Mrs May concluded.

 

[WestLondoner]

How do we know that she hadnt asked someone to the 6pm appointment?

Two ways. One, MG raised the alarm when she didn't show up to it so he was clearly expecting her to conduct it, I.e. nobody in the office had said they would be doing it for her. The second way is money. The nature of the viewing implied a bid was imminent and the commission went to whoever secured a bid. To delegate this viewing would amount to giving away money.

 

[Konstantin]

It's more likely she arranged for 18:00 initially and then called back after the second viewing was arranged to say she couldn't get there for 18:00. I propose that SJL advised she would call by later in the evening and would they keep he property safe until she could get there?

According to AS I believe SJL spoke to the relief landlady i.e. the wife of the relief landlord who DV is (let's be honest) accusing.

There were several people at the pub who knew about her belongings being found there including the actual landlord, who was away by the time she would have come to collect them.

The relief landlord says she arranged to come and pick up her things "later" i.e. no time was given, according to him. Now of course if you think that he and his wife were involved in a conspiracy to cover up her murder or accidental death that they didn't report in case someone thought it was foul play, then they would say that wouldn't they.

I have thought about this so much and I just can't find that plausible, it involves several people, or at least two, in a conspiracy to cover up a death and dispose of a body, when it was known that the victim was planning to attend the pub to pick up her things. Her bank, colleagues at Sturgis, possibly other people (the pub staff had no idea whom she told did they?). Pubs are open late, she could have gone after her 1800 appointment which would have taken 30 minutes probably. There is really no concrete evidence that she was going to play tennis, her stuff was in her flat and only her mum who is not a reliable narrator and to whom SJL didn't really tell everything that was going on in her life. No one else came forward to say they were planning to meet her for tennis. The police would have gone into her planned movements in great detail as they were trying to find her.

The pub was near her home, it would be open when she passed it en route home, it makes more sense for her to go there on her way back than risk getting caught in traffic going there at lunchtime.

 

[Terryb808]

According to AS I believe SJL spoke to the relief landlady i.e. the wife of the relief landlord who DV is (let's be honest) accusing.

There were several people at the pub who knew about her belongings being found there including the actual landlord, who was away by the time she would have come to collect them.

The relief landlord says she arranged to come and pick up her things "later" i.e. no time was given, according to him. Now of course if you think that he and his wife were involved in a conspiracy to cover up her murder or accidental death that they didn't report in case someone thought it was foul play, then they would say that wouldn't they.

I have thought about this so much and I just can't find that plausible, it involves several people, or at least two, in a conspiracy to cover up a death and dispose of a body, when it was known that the victim was planning to attend the pub to pick up her things. Her bank, colleagues at Sturgis, possibly other people (the pub staff had no idea whom she told did they?). Pubs are open late, she could have gone after her 1800 appointment which would have taken 30 minutes probably. There is really no concrete evidence that she was going to play tennis, her stuff was in her flat and only her mum who is not a reliable narrator and to whom SJL didn't really tell everything that was going on in her life. No one else came forward to say they were planning to meet her for tennis. The police would have gone into her planned movements in great detail as they were trying to find her.

The pub was near her home, it would be open when she passed it en route home, it makes more sense for her to go there on her way back than risk getting caught in traffic going there at lunchtime.

As you’ve said “there’s no real evidence” and that just about applies to everything.
That’s what makes this case so difficult, there’s a lot of information out there, however, none of it can be relied on 100%.
As said by many, the only things we know sure sure is she left the office at approximately 12.40pm and her car was found at 10.03pm.
We know nothing about what happened in between.

 

[WestLondoner]

According to AS I believe SJL spoke to the relief landlady i.e. the wife of the relief landlord who DV is (let's be honest) accusing.

There were several people at the pub who knew about her belongings being found there including the actual landlord, who was away by the time she would have come to collect them.

The relief landlord says she arranged to come and pick up her things "later" i.e. no time was given, according to him. Now of course if you think that he and his wife were involved in a conspiracy to cover up her murder or accidental death that they didn't report in case someone thought it was foul play, then they would say that wouldn't they.

I have thought about this so much and I just can't find that plausible, it involves several people, or at least two, in a conspiracy to cover up a death and dispose of a body, when it was known that the victim was planning to attend the pub to pick up her things. Her bank, colleagues at Sturgis, possibly other people (the pub staff had no idea whom she told did they?). Pubs are open late, she could have gone after her 1800 appointment which would have taken 30 minutes probably. There is really no concrete evidence that she was going to play tennis, her stuff was in her flat and only her mum who is not a reliable narrator and to whom SJL didn't really tell everything that was going on in her life. No one else came forward to say they were planning to meet her for tennis. The police would have gone into her planned movements in great detail as they were trying to find her.

The pub was near her home, it would be open when she passed it en route home, it makes more sense for her to go there on her way back than risk getting caught in traffic going there at lunchtime.

I think that puts it very well - good post. The issue with this case is that there is doubt about all the theories, the doubt often being cast by the mutually contradicting witnesses.

The PoW was so obviously a place SJL intended at some point to go that it is simply amazing it was never searched when places like 123SR were. While as you have set out it requires something weird to have gone on there, we know from MH that something weird did - e.g. CV's astonishing silence about it all. MH only found out it was SJL whose property had been found a year later when the police came back - how weird is that?!

DV's book only exists because the PoW was never searched.

If it and the embankment were searched, it would establish the PoW visit as a red herring, and we could then get back to thinking about how an abduction could have worked.

An abductor apparently got her to swallow a false name, met her at one place, got her to another in her own car, killed / secured her there, dumped her car (all this within max 2 hours), got back to his own, and vanished. If this was JC and he had a BMW he had stolen it, so he's either taking a staggering risk using a stolen car or he has disguised it's plates. But if he can disguise his car's plates why not disguise hers too? Then he doesn't have to get rid of it so fast. And did his stolen BMW ever turn up?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

According to AS I believe SJL spoke to the relief landlady i.e. the wife of the relief landlord who DV is (let's be honest) accusing.

There were several people at the pub who knew about her belongings being found there including the actual landlord, who was away by the time she would have come to collect them.

The relief landlord says she arranged to come and pick up her things "later" i.e. no time was given, according to him. Now of course if you think that he and his wife were involved in a conspiracy to cover up her murder or accidental death that they didn't report in case someone thought it was foul play, then they would say that wouldn't they.

I have thought about this so much and I just can't find that plausible, it involves several people, or at least two, in a conspiracy to cover up a death and dispose of a body, when it was known that the victim was planning to attend the pub to pick up her things. Her bank, colleagues at Sturgis, possibly other people (the pub staff had no idea whom she told did they?). Pubs are open late, she could have gone after her 1800 appointment which would have taken 30 minutes probably. There is really no concrete evidence that she was going to play tennis, her stuff was in her flat and only her mum who is not a reliable narrator and to whom SJL didn't really tell everything that was going on in her life. No one else came forward to say they were planning to meet her for tennis. The police would have gone into her planned movements in great detail as they were trying to find her.

The pub was near her home, it would be open when she passed it en route home, it makes more sense for her to go there on her way back than risk getting caught in traffic going there at lunchtime.

Absolutely, as you say the pub is open late and it would be possible for SJL to recover her property anytime that evening, without causing inconvenience.

Oddly, the joint enterprise pub conspiracy theory has also appeared on the Claudia Lawrence thread. No wonder so many pubs are closing down!

It really is a step too far, there is nothing credible to support it and no one has been able to rebut the information around Shorrolds Road.

It's the overwhelming desire to have answers and closure that produces obscure theories. The police have identified the only suspect but the key bit of evidence evades them, i.e. SJL's body. This doesn't give the closure people need and they have to direct their angst and apportion blame. The police are an easy target because they don't provide a running commentary of the investigation and hence they are unable to defend themselves. Therefore the hollow voice of the naysayer is heard all too readily.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

it is simply amazing it was never searched when places like 123SR were.

It's not, as there were no lawful grounds for a search of the PoW. The circumstances with 123 SR were entirely different, which provided the lawful grounds for search. It's quite straightforward.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

An abductor apparently got her to swallow a false name

To stay with the facts as they are known. SJL wrote the name "Mr Kipper" in her desk diary. The source of the name used has not been ascertained.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

met her at one place, got her to another in her own car, killed / secured her there, dumped her car (all this within max 2 hours), got back to his own, and vanished.

This has an uncanny similarity to the abduction and murder of SB, albeit the killer of SB hid her car in his garage and disguised its identity.

I would add that the individual who abducted SJL would also needed to dispose of her body, just as JC did with SB.

So it would seem that the narrative you have provided is very much based on the MO of the "only suspect" in the disappearance of SJL!

 

[Pinkizzy]

Absolutely, as you say the pub is open late and it would be possible for SJL to recover her property anytime that evening, without causing inconvenience.

Oddly, the joint enterprise pub conspiracy theory has also appeared on the Claudia Lawrence thread. No wonder so many pubs are closing down!

It really is a step too far, there is nothing credible to support it and no one has been able to rebut the information around Shorrolds Road.

It's the overwhelming desire to have answers and closure that produces obscure theories. The police have identified the only suspect but the key bit of evidence evades them, i.e. SJL's body. This doesn't give the closure people need and they have to direct their angst and apportion blame. The police are an easy target because they don't provide a running commentary of the investigation and hence they are unable to defend themselves. Therefore the hollow voice of the naysayer is heard all too readily.

What do you think happened to Claudia Lawrence? Do you think she was one of Halliwell's victims?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV's book only exists because the PoW was never searched.

Is this an acknowledgment that there is no credible evidence to support DV's theory?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What do you think happened to Claudia Lawrence? Do you think she was one of Halliwell's victims?

Nope.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Nope.

In your opinion, what happened to her then?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

In your opinion, what happened to her then?

It's the wrong thread to discuss that.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Was the name KIPPER chosen by the perpertrator for a specific reason....
Time to put your Detective head on and see what you can uncover, perhaps the name itself is the biggest clue

A divination card is a type of item that can be collected to exchange for a reward.

Kipper Card Divination

Kipper Card Divination

Card 19-Bereavement/Funeral/Coffin-This can be an actual death or a funeral, but it can also signify any definitive, irrevocable conclusion, such as graduation, retirement, moving to a new home, being fired from a job, or the end of a relationship. Something is coming to an end, and there is no...

divinationlessons.wordpress.com