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

[Whitehall 1212]

Even if not, if SJL was in fact heading there but never actually arrived, then it still raises a huge question mark over the assumptions that it was she who was seen outside 37SR, etc. If she never arrived, how far did she actually get?

I can see a similar thought process with how 'implausible' it was that the PoW was not searched.

1. The diary showed an appt at 37 SR
2. Witness descriptions at the material time were that:

a) a woman matching SJL's description was standing alone O/S 37 with her back to the house
b) A suited and booted man was seen O/S with a woman matching SJL's description

There was no information of SJL being seen anywhere else or going anywhere else at that time. There was a questionable 'sighting' by BW later.

CV was spoken to as a witness to the finding of SJL's property. Police were satisfied that SJL had not attended the PoW.

Apart from area around Stevenage Road, where the car was found, SJL's flat and the 18:00 viewing booked in SJL's diary what other credible information is there that SJL may go elsewhere of her own volition?

This notion of a 'huge question mark over assumptions' that it was SJL O/S 37 SR is wrong. It was the only line of enquiry with any information to support and corroborate it.

Other locations that SJL may have gone to were checked and eliminated. Where else do you propose there was credible information to investigate?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

When police are looking for suspects then they identity possible motive

Most murder victims are known to their killers....more than a passing acquaintance.

The police have the 'diary', they know what's in it. They would have identified if there was anything that could have been used to blackmail SJL by a finder.

Obviously the police were more than satisfied that CV had no motive to have harmed SJL even if she had come to collect her diary.



I have endeavoured more than once to explain the need for reasonable grounds to apply for a search warrant and how 123SR and the PoW are entirely different in terms of their respective locations and the consequential grounds for search.

It should not be unfathomable as it's a logical process of:

1. 123SR, car found opp indicating abandoned in a hurry, property marketed by Sturgis. Quite possibly the owners accommodated a voluntary search.

2. PoW. No indication that SJL had been there or in the immediate vicinity. This could apply to the Tennis Club, SJL's local shop or anywhere else she may have gone that day. Without some concrete info that she was there....no grounds!

You can take a horse to water......

No motive even if she came to collect her diary !?
Really?

So the police have 100% ruled out that CV could have made a pass at Suzy? They are certain of that? They are certain he didn’t have a nasty temper or was under the influence of substances or that he didn’t give her a drink and spike her or drug her or cover up an accidental death? Did he take her in the back room to get her cheque book out of the safe? That’s all totally ruled out is it?

And his wife? Is she ruled out of all potential variables too? They are 100% certain that Suzy didn’t go there in an already low mood and in a hurry and get into a moody argument with him or his wife on any grounds whatsoever?

And all the bar staff, tradespeople, and all the customers inside or coming and going as she was approaching?

Rule of logic: You can’t prove a negative

 

[Whitehall 1212]

No motive even if she came to collect her diary !?
Really?

So the police have 100% ruled out that CV could have made a pass at Suzy? They are certain of that? They are certain he didn’t have a nasty temper or was under the influence of substances or that he didn’t give her a drink and spike her or drug her or cover up an accidental death? Did he take her in the back room to get her cheque book out of the safe? That’s all totally ruled out is it?

And his wife? Is she ruled out of all potential variables too? They are 100% certain that Suzy didn’t go there in an already low mood and in a hurry and get into a moody argument with him or his wife on any grounds whatsoever?

And all the bar staff, tradespeople, and all the customers inside or coming and going as she was approaching?

Rule of logic: You can’t prove a negative

Rules of Effective Investigation: Follow the evidence, pursue legitimate lines of enquiry, be objective, be thorough and don't second guess everything.

I wonder which of our two 'rules' would be more effective!

You do realise that the SIO has to maintain a detailed decision log, which provides an evidential record for all decisions made during the investigation.

This is reviewed by more senior officers not involved in the day-to-day investigation. It provides the checks and balances that legitimate lines of enquiry have been pursued and either eliminated with sound reasons or are continuing to be investigated.

I have always found that by having good insight into process and procedure it enables me to make a viable assessment of the outcomes.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That doesn’t mean lines of enquiry were followed and it certainly doesn’t mean people were ‘ruled out’.

What is your evidence to support saying the police ruled out CV and everyone connected to the PoW? When have they stated that and to whom?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DBM

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That doesn’t mean lines of enquiry were followed and it certainly doesn’t mean people were ‘ruled out’.

What is your evidence to support saying the police ruled out CV and everyone connected to the PoW? When have they stated that and to whom?

If you feel that you have good reason to believe that legitimate lines of enquiry were not followed and possible suspects were not ruled out then I would urge you to contact the Met Police Specialist Casework Investigation Team on 020 7230 4294 or anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

No motive even if she came to collect her diary !?
Really?

So the police have 100% ruled out that CV could have made a pass at Suzy? They are certain of that? They are certain he didn’t have a nasty temper or was under the influence of substances or that he didn’t give her a drink and spike her or drug her or cover up an accidental death? Did he take her in the back room to get her cheque book out of the safe? That’s all totally ruled out is it?

And his wife? Is she ruled out of all potential variables too? They are 100% certain that Suzy didn’t go there in an already low mood and in a hurry and get into a moody argument with him or his wife on any grounds whatsoever?

And all the bar staff, tradespeople, and all the customers inside or coming and going as she was approaching?

Rule of logic: You can’t prove a negative

This adversarial approach is a little frantic!

The rule of law works on the principles of innocence until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial.

There is no evidence for any element of your scenarios. How do I know this. I know this because the only person who has ever been arrested in connection with SJL's disappearance is JC.

If there was any evidence of any element of what you allude to then CV and possibly others would have been arrested and treated as suspects.

Are you suggesting that the police should fabricate evidence because none exists for a theory that they may 'like' or find 'convenient' in the same way that you find it so? Such a thought process of "ooh this or that could have happened" is an example of those that resulted in people being 'fitted up' in the bad old days of policing. I hope you can see how such a fervent mindset is the slippery slope to corrupt practice and miscarriages of justice. TBH this makes my blood boil!

Without reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed and a reasonable suspicion of an individual having committed the offence then they cannot be arrested.

Once arrested and upon arrival at a custody suite the grounds for the arrest have to be relayed to the Custody Sergeant, who will only authorise detention if the arrest is lawful and the grounds for suspicion are sufficient.

The lawfulness of the continued detention is subject to review stages by an officer of Inspector rank up to 24 hours and after that up to a further twelve hours detention may be authorised by an officer of Superintendent rank or above.

If the detained person requests a solicitor then they will also check the custody record to ensure that the arrest is lawful and that the Codes of Practice regarding the arrest and subsequent detention have been followed.

Only when the evidence is of sufficient weight and proceedings are deemed to be in the public interest will the CPS authorise a charge.

In major investigations very close attention is paid to ensure that ALL policies, procedures and relevant legislation is followed to the letter. The reason for this is that most court cases that are dismissed are due to errors in policies, procedures or not complying with legislative requirements. For an offender to walk away, when the evidence is overwhelming, due to a procedural error, would be a travesty. It's happened....look at the case of David Smith....ripper type murderer of sex workers (Hampton, SW London)

Such investigations are not guesswork, they are thorough and objective. Every legitimate line of enquiry is followed, because not to do so would undermine the investigation and any subsequent trial.

If you have a lack of faith in the police to conduct such investigations, then ask yourself why that is so? Is it because you are applying some notable errors as the benchmark for how police investigate or because you have your own negative experiences with the police?

As a police officer we have pet hates, mine were people who drink drive, use mobile phones whilst driving, those who commit distraction burglaries of elderly and vulnerable people and those who abuse children or vulnerable adults. Those pet hates are linked to particularly unpleasant incidents that I dealt with and regularly witnessing first hand the trauma that results from such offences.

But the one that good, honest police officers hate more than any other is the bent copper.....because they undermine the very essence of why we joined the police in the first place.....it's a betrayal of the values and morals that a police officer must uphold.

 

[Pinkizzy]

There's a suggestion that David Smith (lorry driver) is the East Lancs Ripper

 

[Pinkizzy]

This adversarial approach is a little frantic!

The rule of law works on the principles of innocence until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial.

There is no evidence for any element of your scenarios. How do I know this. I know this because the only person who has ever been arrested in connection with SJL's disappearance is JC.

If there was any evidence of any element of what you allude to then CV and possibly others would have been arrested and treated as suspects.

Are you suggesting that the police should fabricate evidence because none exists for a theory that they may 'like' or find 'convenient' in the same way that you find it so? Such a thought process of "ooh this or that could have happened" is an example of those that resulted in people being 'fitted up' in the bad old days of policing. I hope you can see how such a fervent mindset is the slippery slope to corrupt practice and miscarriages of justice. TBH this makes my blood boil!

Without reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed and a reasonable suspicion of an individual having committed the offence then they cannot be arrested.

Once arrested and upon arrival at a custody suite the grounds for the arrest have to be relayed to the Custody Sergeant, who will only authorise detention if the arrest is lawful and the grounds for suspicion are sufficient.

The lawfulness of the continued detention is subject to review stages by an officer of Inspector rank up to 24 hours and after that up to a further twelve hours detention may be authorised by an officer of Superintendent rank or above.

If the detained person requests a solicitor then they will also check the custody record to ensure that the arrest is lawful and that the Codes of Practice regarding the arrest and subsequent detention have been followed.

Only when the evidence is of sufficient weight and proceedings are deemed to be in the public interest will the CPS authorise a charge.

In major investigations very close attention is paid to ensure that ALL policies, procedures and relevant legislation is followed to the letter. The reason for this is that most court cases that are dismissed are due to errors in policies, procedures or not complying with legislative requirements. For an offender to walk away, when the evidence is overwhelming, due to a procedural error, would be a travesty. It's happened....look at the case of David Smith....ripper type murderer of sex workers (Hampton, SW London)

Such investigations are not guesswork, they are thorough and objective. Every legitimate line of enquiry is followed, because not to do so would undermine the investigation and any subsequent trial.

If you have a lack of faith in the police to conduct such investigations, then ask yourself why that is so? Is it because you are applying some notable errors as the benchmark for how police investigate or because you have your own negative experiences with the police?

As a police officer we have pet hates, mine were people who drink drive, use mobile phones whilst driving, those who commit distraction burglaries of elderly and vulnerable people and those who abuse children or vulnerable adults. Those pet hates are linked to particularly unpleasant incidents that I dealt with and regularly witnessing first hand the trauma that results from such offences.

But the one that good, honest police officers hate more than any other is the bent copper.....because they undermine the very essence of why we joined the police in the first place.....it's a betrayal of the values and morals that a police officer must uphold.

MG mentioned that SJL wanted to go shopping in Putney that day and the office knew her lost items had been found in the PoW. Verbal evidence of SJLs movements should have equal weighting to the written evidence of her movements in her diary. I guess the police searched properties on Wyfold, Wardo as they were mentioned in her diary.

 

[Konstantin]

As a police officer we have pet hates, mine were people who drink drive

A close relative of mine was a casualty sister and often had to help deal with the results of drink driving up close and personal, so has the same feeling.

 

[asyousay]

MG mentioned that SJL wanted to go shopping in Putney that day and the office knew her lost items had been found in the PoW. Verbal evidence of SJLs movements should have equal weighting to the written evidence of her movements in her diary. I guess the police searched properties on Wyfold, Wardo as they were mentioned in her diary.

There is zero evidence she went shopping though. There was never a question of Suzy simply getting up and leaving work to go off and run personal errands. From the little we know she was a model employee. Plus the evidence points towards her being at her appointment with eyewitnesses placing her there.


Has anybody ever come forward to place her at the POW?

Moo

 

[Konstantin]

If SJL had gone to get her stuff back from teh pub that lunchtime, you'd think she'd have taken her bag to put them in.

It's going to be a dead giveaway if she rocks back into the office clutching a chequebook, diary and postcard and she would not want to leave that in the Fiesta all afternoon or it could go walkies again or be peeked at by the lad who used her car to go to properties to take pictures.

Also, both the relief landlord and his wife told police the pub was busy that afternoon, and unless there is a giant conspiracy and they told a rather stupid and checkable lie, the fact is that if SJL had gone there, she would have been seen by all the blokes in there propping up the bar that lunchtime. She was a very attractive woman. They would have been dudes in a pub. They'd have noticed her. And the relief landlord would have been busy running the pub. Yet he has time to lure her to the pub with no one noticing, for which he would have to arrange to meet her somehow where she isn't seen by the others around the place, murder her in a cellar, possibly after raping her, clean himself up and move her body into a crawl space sharpish, then trot back up the stairs to serve London pride to some old blokes reading the Racing Post? As if nothing had happened. Then excuses himself again, and off he is again to dump her car, which he probably would not have seen her arrive in or know where she parked it, (assuming he had the foresight to realize there must have been a car--he's a very calm offender--takes the keys off her before he drags her body into the cellar crawl space, or he'd have to go rummaging around it to find them) and back to the pub.

 

[asyousay]

If SJL had gone to get her stuff back from teh pub that lunchtime, you'd think she'd have taken her bag to put them in.

It's going to be a dead giveaway if she rocks back into the office clutching a chequebook, diary and postcard and she would not want to leave that in the Fiesta all afternoon or it could go walkies again or be peeked at by the lad who used her car to go to properties to take pictures.

Also, both the relief landlord and his wife told police the pub was busy that afternoon, and unless there is a giant conspiracy and they told a rather stupid and checkable lie, the fact is that if SJL had gone there, she would have been seen by all the blokes in there propping up the bar that lunchtime. She was a very attractive woman. They would have been dudes in a pub. They'd have noticed her. And the relief landlord would have been busy running the pub. Yet he has time to lure her to the pub with no one noticing, for which he would have to arrange to meet her somehow where she isn't seen by the others around the place, murder her in a cellar, possibly after raping her, clean himself up and move her body into a crawl space sharpish, then trot back up the stairs to serve London pride to some old blokes reading the Racing Post? As if nothing had happened. Then excuses himself again, and off he is again to dump her car, which he probably would not have seen her arrive in or know where she parked it, (assuming he had the foresight to realize there must have been a car--he's a very calm offender--takes the keys off her before he drags her body into the cellar crawl space, or he'd have to go rummaging around it to find them) and back to the pub.

This x100


I posted something similar on here. Whichever you look at it he would of murdered somebody and gone back to pulling pints and yet nobody noticed his behavior as being off. Nobody reported him vanishing for hours at a time. The Police was on his doorstep as well collecting Suzy’s stuff and again he raised no red flags.


It simply doesn’t make any sense IMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There's a suggestion that David Smith (lorry driver) is the East Lancs Ripper

Yes, he was in the mix as part of a wholesale review of unsolved murders (Operation Enigma).

The shocking brutality matches his known offences but could of course match others too. So far the evidence has not supported a charge or charges.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

MG mentioned that SJL wanted to go shopping in Putney that day and the office knew her lost items had been found in the PoW. Verbal evidence of SJLs movements should have equal weighting to the written evidence of her movements in her diary. I guess the police searched properties on Wyfold, Wardo as they were mentioned in her diary.

Of course verbal intent to go somewhere would have been followed up. It would be a legitimate line of enquiry.

The police followed up the PoW and were entirely confident that she didn't go there.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If SJL had gone to get her stuff back from teh pub that lunchtime, you'd think she'd have taken her bag to put them in.

It's going to be a dead giveaway if she rocks back into the office clutching a chequebook, diary and postcard and she would not want to leave that in the Fiesta all afternoon or it could go walkies again or be peeked at by the lad who used her car to go to properties to take pictures.

Also, both the relief landlord and his wife told police the pub was busy that afternoon, and unless there is a giant conspiracy and they told a rather stupid and checkable lie, the fact is that if SJL had gone there, she would have been seen by all the blokes in there propping up the bar that lunchtime. She was a very attractive woman. They would have been dudes in a pub. They'd have noticed her. And the relief landlord would have been busy running the pub. Yet he has time to lure her to the pub with no one noticing, for which he would have to arrange to meet her somehow where she isn't seen by the others around the place, murder her in a cellar, possibly after raping her, clean himself up and move her body into a crawl space sharpish, then trot back up the stairs to serve London pride to some old blokes reading the Racing Post? As if nothing had happened. Then excuses himself again, and off he is again to dump her car, which he probably would not have seen her arrive in or know where she parked it, (assuming he had the foresight to realize there must have been a car--he's a very calm offender--takes the keys off her before he drags her body into the cellar crawl space, or he'd have to go rummaging around it to find them) and back to the pub.

You forgot to add "Spoiler Alert" as a header

This would make the nominations for the "Old Bailey Defence Summing Up of the Year Awards"

On a serious note, it would be useful to know if SJL just taking her purse, keys and property details to viewings was a regular thing or if she usually took her handbag too. It may be that she didn't want to wander around with the handbag or leave if in the car unattended.

 

[Konstantin]

On a serious note, it would be useful to know if SJL just taking her purse, keys and property details to viewings was a regular thing or if she usually took her handbag too. It may be that she didn't want to wander around with the handbag or leave if in the car unattended.

Depending on how big it was, it might have got in the way/looked unprofessional to be lugging around a house viewing where you are pointing at things and opening cupboards to show the storage space. She could plausibly leave her purse out of sight locked in the car parked outside/nearby but not a big or heavy bag, if she had one of those large "keep the kitchen sink, massive makeup bag, two hairbrushes and a novel" jobs.

 

[Konstantin]

This would make the nominations for the "Old Bailey Defence Summing Up of the Year Awards"

DV portrays him as deaf and very bumbling, and speaking funny (but then, he's a northerner and DV is a London boy, so he probably did sound funny to him, by gum), so I'd add this to the defence as well.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DV portrays him as deaf and very bumbling, and speaking funny (but then, he's a northerner and DV is a London boy, so he probably did sound funny to him, by gum), so I'd add this to the defence as well.

DV has a very pronounced speech impediment, so it's disappointing if he felt it appropriate to take someone's speech and dialect into account when assessing their credibility as a witness.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Depending on how big it was, it might have got in the way/looked unprofessional to be lugging around a house viewing where you are pointing at things and opening cupboards to show the storage space. She could plausibly leave her purse out of sight locked in the car parked outside/nearby but not a big or heavy bag, if she had one of those large "keep the kitchen sink, massive makeup bag, two hairbrushes and a novel" jobs.

SJL didn't need a bag to carry her chequebook, she could pop the items into her jacket pockets