UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #4

[RichardKimble]

Oh I am definitely creeped out because I know who and what he is. If I saw it without knowing I would probably think he was a bit smarmy, he is playing up to the woman interviewing him, talking about his fantasy. But then I do know who he is so I can never have a naïve reaction to him. HIs ex-employer interviewed in teh video talked about how he was attractive to women but his comments about JC having the thoughts he did about "yuppies" was creepy.

It's often hard to tell from photos and video what people are like in real life too--he was probably more charismatic in real life. He certainly managed to get girlfriends--the solicitor for example (she does sound very weird herself). We know he is a compulsive/serial liar (which makes DV writing to him asking if he done it rather odd to me, of course he is going to say he never done it.)

I hadn't seen it before, but is that a actual video trying to sell himself on a dating site or a test, not sure what to make of it though but if JC was successful on the dating front what was he trying to achieve , was it targeted at a certain echelon of people ie: up and coming Sloane's . Remember this is 1980's so wokery doesn't come into it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I have just read a book called UNSOLVED CRIMES, edited by Claire Welch. These real-life crimes are taken from the case files of The People & The Daily Mirror, so I presume that Claire Welch had access to these MSM outlets reports on the various unsolved crimes that are in the book.

In it there is a chapter on Suzy (page 104), it's only 11 pages long and doesn't really tell us anything more than we already know about the case. However, there was one subject I can't recall hearing about before and that was a link to the Richmond sex attacker.

In the book it states that by 1st August the police were linking Suzy's disappearance to a frenzied sex attacker who had already assaulted 3 women within 18 months in the Richmond area of London. The likeness of the photofit of the man seen with Suzy and the sex attacker were strikingly similar. Victims of the Richmond sex attacker had a razor blade held to their throats.

Has anyone on this thread heard of this link to the Richmond sex attacker before?

JC wasn't released from mainstream prison into the 'halfway house' until early in January/February 1986....six months before his parole on 25th July.

Therefore if these alleged offences covered a period of 18 months until August 1986, then for the first ten months of any 'spree' it can't have been JC....he was locked up.

 

[asyousay]

I'm dubious about that 'desk in the window' line. Especially when all the desks are obscured by many lines of A4 house for sale banners.

To see SL you'd have needed to peer in, in between the sales lines, IMO she wouldn't be visbible to a passer-by on the street ....

Yes this is being mentioned in the C5 documentary and it goes to show that they clearly don’t fact check. So Suzy wrote it in her Diary so it must be true?! Clearly she can’t have been in the window with all the property deeds on boards around the windows. It doesn’t take being a rocket science to notice that over sight.


Mooooooooo

 

[asyousay]

I can not imagine the pain of the family when they would get phone calls saying a body has been found it could be Suzy time and time again.

To just not never get that closure and to be able to move on and begin the healing process fully.

I can understand DL motivations more now and why she was so pushy and I’m sure she was no Angel but then she just wanted the truth and she had money and influence so why not use that to try and bring her daughter home.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes this is being mentioned in the C5 documentary and it goes to show that they clearly don’t fact check. So Suzy wrote it in her Diary so it must be true?! Clearly she can’t have been in the window with all the property deeds on boards around the windows. It doesn’t take being a rocket science to notice that over sight.


Mooooooooo

Have a look at the reconstruction. Assuming it is accurate in relation to where SJL sat in Sturgis.... she was located nearest to the front window....albeit with restricted view through the properties for sale, but nevertheless prominent relative to the other staff.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I can not imagine the pain of the family when they would get phone calls saying a body has been found it could be Suzy time and time again.

To just not never get that closure and to be able to move on and begin the healing process fully.

I can understand DL motivations more now and why she was so pushy and I’m sure she was no Angel but then she just wanted the truth and she had money and influence so why not use that to try and bring her daughter home.

AS's book documents DL, both before and after SJL went missing, as someone who wanted to manage the family dynamic almost to the point of exhaustion and also how the Lamplugh's are perceived by the wider family, friends and the outside world.

I think that this may have hindered the investigation to some degree, as SJL's personal life came under the microscope as a line of enquiry. DL was unaccepting of what she saw as negative revelations about SJL, causing the investigation team be economical in what they told her and which possibly prevented friends and associates from talking freely about the SJL they knew, warts and all, which may otherwise have led to the line of enquiry which solved the crime.

JMO

 

[asyousay]

So somebody claims they saw JC outside Sturgis on the Sunday looking though the window.

But Suzy was down on the coast so he would of been hard pressed to being looking in on Suzy?!

 

[Pinkizzy]

What reasons would you consider?

You can't answer a question with another question

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So somebody claims they saw JC outside Sturgis on the Sunday looking though the window.

But Suzy was down on the coast so he would of been hard pressed to being looking in on Suzy?!

That is to miss the point though!

The point is that JC was was positively identified looking into the Sturgis, Fulham window on the Sunday, the day before SJL went missing. The woman who ID'd JC was standing next to him.

This firmly places JC in Fulham, a place he has always denied going to. Not only this, it places him at Sturgis, where SJL worked. This could be indicative of stalking/obsessional behaviour.

See at 40 mins 30 seconds in

No access outside UK

 

[Whitehall 1212]

You can't answer a question with another question

I can thing of numerous answers to your question.

I'm suggesting that you think of possible reasons....being a sleuther and all. It prompts consideration of all possible factors, which is the mark of an investigator.

If someone else always provides the answers then how do we learn?

 

[asyousay]

That is to miss the point though!

The point is that JC was was positively identified looking into the Sturgis, Fulham window on the Sunday, the day before SJL went missing. The woman who ID'd JC was standing next to him.

This firmly places JC in Fulham, a place he has always denied going to. Not only this it places him at Sturgis, where SJL worked. This could be indicative of stalking behaviour.

See at 40 mins 30 seconds in

No access outside UK

Yep but this was what 15 years after the fact. How many people can honestly say they would be able to ID somebody from just standing next to somebody.
Unless they got into a conversation why would a man looking into a window make such a memorable impression that 15 years later they could ID them from a tape?

I mean we have some posters on here claiming that whitenesses got their times wrong or days. Yet I’m meant to believe this witness had that strong of a recall


Moooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Pinkizzy]

I can thing of numerous answers to your question.

I'm suggesting that you think of possible reasons....being a sleuther and all. It prompts consideration of all possible factors, which is the mark of an investigator.

If someone else always provides the answers then how do we learn?

Well...the obvious question is...did this lady speak with an English accent? If she was that stunning, why didn't anyone speak with her?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yep but this was what 15 years after the fact. How many people can honestly say they would be able to ID somebody from just standing next to somebody.
Unless they got into a conversation why would a man looking into a window make such a memorable impression that 15 years later they could ID them from a tape?

I mean we have some posters on here claiming that whitenesses got their times wrong or days. Yet I’m meant to believe this witness had that strong of a recall


Moooooooooooooooooooo

The witnesses were shown a video compilation, which included JC and he was positively identified. Sound may not have been used unless the witness heard JC speak when she saw him.

The original JC dating agency interview was shown on regional TV programme (HTV West - covering Bristol and the West Country) on the evening that JC was jailed for the murder of Shirley Banks, 28th April 1989.

The Operation Phoebus re-investigation team will have been exceptionally thorough in assessing the witnesses potential exposure to the regional TV programme and any wider circulation before 2000, which they will have established. Any likelihood of compromise will need to have been recorded and disclosed to the defence, in any subsequent prosecution.

This identification related to JC engaged in what seems like an an innocuous act, i.e. looking in an estate agents window in Fulham, is circumstantial evidence. In and of itself it is easily dismissed, but collectively with all the other evidence it supports JC being involved in SJL's disappearance.

The witness will have initially provided a statement of what she observed on that day and been asked to describe JC, and her reasons for remembering him, which of course would carry significant importance after an elapsed time of 14 years.

Only after this will the video identification procedure have been conducted in accordance with PACE 1984, by an identification procedure trained officer, entirely independent of the investigation.

Here is the original HTV West extended news article. It goes into significant depth about the dating video and the JC's offender profile.

JMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well...the obvious question is...did this lady speak with an English accent? If she was that stunning, why didn't anyone speak with her?

Consider SJL's journey and the opportunities people would have to see SJL clearly for long enough.

Not even in 1986 were those in south-west London inclined to speak with strangers....you generally got an odd look if you did and they couldn't get away quickly enough

JMO

 

[Pinkizzy]

Consider her journey and the opportunities people would have to see SJL clearly for long enough.

Not even in 1986 were those in south-west London inclined to speak with strangers....you generally got an odd look if you did and they couldn't get away quickly enough

JMO

Her occupation involved speaking to the public and selling properties How would she find new clients with properties to sell if she didn't network?

 

[asyousay]

Clive Mole detective inspector

DV isn’t at all subtle is he?!!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Her occupation involved speaking to the public and selling properties How would she find new clients with properties to sell if she didn't network?

I think we are discussing at cross-purposes. I am referring to the likelihood of strangers approaching SJL on the street, not in relation to her occupation.

Maybe I am talking a foreign language

 

[Konstantin]

Consider SJL's journey and the opportunities people would have to see SJL clearly for long enough.

Not even in 1986 were those in south-west London inclined to speak with strangers....you generally got an odd look if you did and they couldn't get away quickly enough

JMO

The witnesses were shown a video compilation, which included JC and he was positively identified. Sound may not have been used unless the witness heard JC speak when she saw him.

The original JC dating agency interview was shown on regional TV programme (HTV West - covering Bristol and the West Country) on the evening that JC was jailed for the murder of Shirley Banks, 28th April 1989.

The Operation Phoebus re-investigation team will have been exceptionally thorough in assessing the witnesses potential exposure to the regional TV programme and any wider circulation before 2000, which they will have established. Any likelihood of compromise will need to have been recorded and disclosed to the defence, in any subsequent prosecution.

This identification related to JC engaged in what seems like an an innocuous act, i.e. looking in an estate agents window in Fulham, is circumstantial evidence. In and of itself it is easily dismissed, but collectively with all the other evidence it supports JC being involved in SJL's disappearance.

The witness will have initially provided a statement of what she observed on that day and been asked to describe JC, and her reasons for remembering him, which of course would carry significant importance after an elapsed time of 14 years.

Only after this will the video identification procedure have been conducted in accordance with PACE 1984, by an identification procedure trained officer, entirely independent of the investigation.

Here is the original HTV West extended news article. It goes into significant depth about the dating video and the JC's offender profile.

JMO

That's super helpful thanks. I admit I had the idea that some random person randomly remembered JC but that is not what happened. I assume the evidence/testimony is all weighted anyway.

 

[Konstantin]

Clive Mole detective inspector

DV isn’t at all subtle is he?!!

yes this did rather stand out.

 

[Konstantin]

I think we are discussing at cross-purposes. I am referring to the likelihood of strangers approaching SJL on the street, not in relation to her occupation.

Maybe I am talking a foreign language

To be honest, the males who noticed her probably noticed her because she was attractive.

On a related note, DV went to try to find one of the male witnesses who saw SJL on Shorrolds. He appears to believe that the witnesses are somehow odd, or dodgy. He reports having issues tracking him down and this adds weight to his idea that the witnesses are somehow dodgy, since he cannot find him--does he exist? He finds a single reference to his one witness, and goes to the address, only to find a lady who is jointly listed with the male on the ER. The lady denies all knowledge of the witness.

My thoughts on this, FWIW-- the reference DV is talking about is a 20 year old public ER record available on a public site (but you need to pay to view the full address). I would not expect a 20 year old ER record in London to still have the same people living there, it would be very unusual (although not impossible, some people do not move). My experience of the site with the public ER records is the "living at the same address" records are often inaccurate so I would not take the woman DV spoke to who said she had no idea who the witness was as being mysterious or suspicious. Most likely, she has no idea who the dude is and if she did know, why would she talk to some random bloke who fetched up on her doorstep, and acted aggressive? I would tell someone to **** off if they did that to me.

But here;s the interesting thing about the witness name. I think it is a slight misprint in AS's book which is the source for DV's knowing the man's name. DV is right that there are no public records for the witness, that's because I suggest his name is slightly misspelled (one letter is wrong) and if you spell it right there is a male born 1966 of that name in Fulham. I'd say most likely that was the male witness, if AS gave the age of the witness as a young man (he'd have been 20).

All MOO obviously, it has no bearing on the case, just shows how tracking people down decades after the fact based on limited source material is hard to do.