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

[Cherwell]

Why should anyone have been put on an ID parade in front of HR?

To eliminate the possibility that the man he saw was MG?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

To eliminate the possibility that the man he saw was MG?

Thanks for replying @Cherwell, although it was a somewhat rhetorical question.

I addressed @WestLondoner's comment as it demonstrated common misconceptions in police procedure, which your answer also confirmed, but which are entirely understandable.

All police actions relating to the investigation of offences are determined by policies, procedures and/or legislation. If any aspect is conducted incorrectly there is a real possibility that ALL evidence obtained thereafter in an investigation could be ruled inadmissible in court.

I endeavour to explain how the police operate to provide deeper understanding and context for non-criminal investigator Websleuthers.

A minority choose not to want to become more enlightened, due to knee jerk police antipathy. Their problem, not mine.

So to ID parades:

What was known as an ID parade (line up) in 1986 has been replaced by video albums, known as VIPER.

However, the principles have not changed. They are for the identification of a suspect who has denied their involvement in the offence. They are not available to eliminate a third party, i.e. MG.

The police are not compelled to conduct video identification (was ID Parade). They will only do so when they are confident that the victim(preferred)/witness will positively ID the suspect.

Once a suspect has been positively identified by a victim/witness, then no further VIPER session (ID parade) will take place. Other victims/witnesses will be asked to identify in court....e.g. "Is the man who attacked you in this court today"?.....style of question from the prosecution.

Neither will the police conduct a VIPER (ID parade) if it has no material value to the case, e.g. the other evidence is overwhelming.

How the police obtain identification evidence is laid down in legislation, i.e. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984).

The PACE Codes of Practice provide guidance on the every day use of the PACE legislation.....Code D applies to identification evidence procedures.

Nice to know:

Code A - Stop and Search (person)
Code B - Search of premises/seizure and retention of items from people/properties
Code C - Detention in police custody (rights/treatment)
Code D - Identification of suspects and also taking fingerprints, footwear impressions, DNA samples, suspect photos, intimate body samples, non-intimate body samples, removal of clothing, impressions
Code E - Audio recorded interviews
Code F - Video recorded interviews
Code G - Powers of arrest
Code H - Police detention of those concerned in terrorism

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Much of the information available to us comes from a book published in 1988 which is not available online. The author was given access to police files so the information is trustworthy. Posters are citing it as a source where applicable, but it is of course not possible to give links to a published book. The book is out of print and copies are scarce and expensive.

I quote AS (page....) if I am stating a fact from the book.

OK it doesn't link directly, but those who have the book, and many appear to, can check to confirm if they so desire.

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 could investigate this case

UK - UK - Diane Jones, 35, Coggeshall, Essex, murdered 23 July 1983

https://www.suffolk.police.uk/news/cold-cases-0/diane-jones

www.websleuths.com

 

[Cluesleuth]

What baffles me is that everyone has a best friend, someone they confide, and consult with in fun times and bad times sharing personal highs, lows and everything in between. Its never been clear to me who SJL''s best friend was.

Thinking back to SJl's discloure to her Uncle that she was being lent on by someone in way that she thought was wrong and didnt like, he said that she appeared quite angry about it. The approx date of this conversation would have given dectectives an idea of where to look in her personal and work diaries to find out who was around her personally and professionally at that time.
Ive looked at the accounts for this but none give a date either in days or weeks, has anyone researched this at all and found a date for the conversation.
MOO

 

[RichardKimble]

I remember we also had cashpoint cards which were used to withdraw money from ATMs or "cashpoints" as they were called.
However there's no mention of her losing her purse, and that's where her cards were likely to be. It was the chequebook and diary/notebook, plus a postcard which was probably stuffed inside one or the other.

My bad on the purse, but even dropping a Cheque book back then was sacrilege, so she would then in all likelihood have been carrying a handbag/ shoulder bag .Did she just leave the CQ book behind after using it .

 

[Cherwell]

However, the principles have not changed. They are for the identification of a suspect who has denied their involvement in the offence. They are not available to eliminate a third party, i.e. MG.

Thanks for explaining this.

It seems rather short-sighted policy not to make wider use of ID parades (however carried out). What would be the harm in using them to check witness IDs? Suppose it was MG that HR saw at the house? If he had been given the opportunity to see MG and picked him out as the man he saw, the "Mr Kipper" drawing would have been exposed as a red herring and discarded.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks for explaining this.

It seems rather short-sighted policy not to make wider use of ID parades (however carried out). What would be the harm in using them to check witness IDs? Suppose it was MG that HR saw at the house? If he had been given the opportunity to see MG and picked him out as the man he saw, the "Mr Kipper" drawing would have been exposed as a red herring and discarded.

Code D of the PACE Codes of Practice (identification elements) explains how identification evidence must be obtained correctly. This is so that it cannot be deemed inadmissible in court. ID Parades, now VIPER, ONLY applies to suspects who deny their involvement, not others.

HOWEVER

In the situation that you are referring to, i.e. that HR saw and described MG as the man he saw at 37 SR, do you not think it exceptionally likely, nay certainly, that the police thought just the same? They knew that MG went to the address that afternoon to look for SJL!

When police took statements from HR and MG, they will have drilled down into the time provided by the witnesses for their observation/action/attendance. The detective will have sought from the witness reasons for their 'time parameters', i.e. reason to know/be certain.

I don't doubt that both statements also provide narrative of their conversation with each other, which would also support the first description given by HR, in that MG also refers to what HR told him at the time.

The police will have identified such an 'overlap' in the timeline and addressed it, to rule out that it was not MG that HR saw O/S 37 SR and described.

ALTHOUGH

In this case we know that HR did not mistake MG for the man he saw. We know this as MG spoke with HR when he went looking for SJL, and it was MG who received the first description of the man O/S 37SR from HR. Ref. AS p. 8

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It seems rather short-sighted policy not to make wider use of ID parades (however carried out). What would be the harm in using them to check witness IDs?

Code D is not a police policy, it's the working instruction for the the PACE legislation, which includes identification evidence procedures and is ONLY relevant for suspects who deny their involvement in an offence, to ensure admissibility. It cannot be extended to include non-suspect identification issues and it doesn't need to as they are not subject to the rules on admissibility of evidence in court.

The police will rule out the scenario in question here because:

a) The police need to rule out mistaken identity and questionable recall by the witness as part of the investigation process
b) If they don't then the defence, in court, will call into doubt the veracity of the witness and their statement

 

[asyousay]

The property was empty so if not Suzy and a client who was there at that time?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I don't think there's any evidence she was heading to 37SR aside from the diary entry; IIRC, AS says MG looked at her diary to see where she had gone because nobody knew.

Gratuitously telling your workmates a direct lie is a different level of deception compared to leaving a CYA "appointment" in your diary. You may be back before it's ever read, and it's really only there to cover your boss's back if he is asked where you are.

Another interesting point is that although she had clearly told colleagues about her stuff being found at the PoW, nobody mentions her expressing any surprise at this. I mean, I have never been to the PoW, so if I got a phone call from the bank to say Your stuff has been found at this pub you haven't been to - I'd be pretty bemused at how it got there. There is no suggestion SJL couldn't fathom what her stuff was doing there, so clearly she had been there the night before. We just don't know why or with whom, if anyone.

Re SJL's missing stuff - it's still v unclear as to how these possessions were removed from her bag and by whom and for what intention. Also, whether someone deliberately took items from her bag and then dumped them at the PoW (on the doorstep?) or left them there for her to collect, having maybe even informed her of this. Or even whether someone did such a thing maliciously with the intent that information contained within may be revealed to others.

SJL hardly seems the type who goes around losing cheque book and diary. If someone grabs what they can from your handbag whilst you're not looking, usually they want cash or small high value items but cheque book fraud was alive and kicking in the 80s so they would have surely taken that. Even in its own right this aspect makes little sense.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

You'll have to excuse this old mind, its not so young, we got married in 1982, from recall a purse or in my case a wallet was something that was guarded with your life, possibly only the one credit card ( Barclaycard) possible one debit card and cash plus maybe cheque book , so to leave this over a weekend makes no sense to me, much like leaving a mobile in todays world.

ETA ,scratch debit card, it was not introduced until 87.

100% and a cheque was nearly as good as cash as one could write out a cheque for payment of items below £50 in shops with no questions asked.

 

[Cherwell]

If someone grabs what they can from your handbag whilst you're not looking, usually they want cash or small high value items but cheque book fraud was alive and kicking in the 80s so they would have surely taken that. Even in its own right this aspect makes little sense.

That's a good point, and it would help if we knew what the diary looked like. Could it have been mistaken for a small wallet-style purse, I wonder. If someone dipped her bag quickly, they might have thought they'd got the cheque book and the card that would validate the cheques. You did need that when paying by cheque in shops. Once they realised they didn't have the card, they dumped the items.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That's a good point, and it would help if we knew what the diary looked like. Could it have been mistaken for a small wallet-style purse, I wonder. If someone dipped her bag quickly, they might have thought they'd got the cheque book and the card that would validate the cheques. You did need that when paying by cheque in shops. Once they realised they didn't have the card, they dumped the item

I don't think cheque guarantee cards were invented at that time. As said above, only cash withdrawal cards, might be wrong.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Re SJL's missing stuff - it's still v unclear as to how these possessions were removed from her bag and by whom and for what intention. Also, whether someone deliberately took items from her bag and then dumped them at the PoW (on the doorstep?) or left them there for her to collect, having maybe even informed her of this. Or even whether someone did such a thing maliciously with the intent that information contained within may be revealed to others.

SJL hardly seems the type who goes around losing cheque book and diary. If someone grabs what they can from your handbag whilst you're not looking, usually they want cash or small high value items but cheque book fraud was alive and kicking in the 80s so they would have surely taken that. Even in its own right this aspect makes little sense.

My thinking is that matter of the missing/found property is more relevant than many give credit for.

JMO

 

[Cherwell]

I don't think cheque guarantee cards were invented at that time. As said above, only cash withdrawal cards, might be wrong.

They certainly were. They were in use in the 1970s, possibly earlier. They guaranteed payment up to £30, which was later increased to £50.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

They certainly were. They were in use in the 1970s, possibly earlier. They guaranteed payment up to £30, which was later increased to £50.

MSM

Cheque guarantee card - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, and you had to keep them separate so thieves couldn't steal your cheque book and cheque card simultaneously. SJL's cheque would be in her purse so anyone lifting the cheque book would need to lift the purse too.

If she'd never been to the PoW how did her stuff get there? If the nearest she had been was Mossop's on Friday how her stuff take 48 hours to travel to the PoW?

Why was there so little curiosity about this in 1986 given that is the best attested likely destination for her on Monday?

 

[WestLondoner]

What baffles me is that everyone has a best friend, someone they confide, and consult with in fun times and bad times sharing personal highs, lows and everything in between. Its never been clear to me who SJL''s best friend was.

Thinking back to SJl's discloure to her Uncle that she was being lent on by someone in way that she thought was wrong and didnt like, he said that she appeared quite angry about it. The approx date of this conversation would have given dectectives an idea of where to look in her personal and work diaries to find out who was around her personally and professionally at that time.
Ive looked at the accounts for this but none give a date either in days or weeks, has anyone researched this at all and found a date for the conversation.
MOO

Her best friend appears to have been PSS.

 

[RichardKimble]

Yes, and you had to keep them separate so thieves couldn't steal your cheque book and cheque card simultaneously. SJL's cheque would be in her purse so anyone lifting the cheque book would need to lift the purse too.

If she'd never been to the PoW how did her stuff get there? If the nearest she had been was Mossop's on Friday how her stuff take 48 hours to travel to the PoW?

Why was there so little curiosity about this in 1986 given that is the best attested likely destination for her on Monday?

Its like the key's , if say these things were found in JC's possession then that would add up imo, but the police entered the house with the keys SL had ? a CQ book lost? misplaced ? turns up at the POW with out rhyme nor reason.
Is there a timeline for losing her CQ book and reporting it to the bank to stop any CQ's ?