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

[Cherwell]

It's a clip from one of the documentaries that are linked earlier in the thread. He says they went to have a drink in the pub next door (to Mossops) and that is where she lost or had her items stolen.

AL doesn't name the pub but it's known that they went to Mossops, so "the pub next door" must refer to the Prince of Wales.

 

[Konstantin]

AL doesn't name the pub but it's known that they went to Mossops, so "the pub next door" must refer to the Prince of Wales.

I don't know the area at all, or what was there at the time, so have no clue if there were other pubs around. Sometimes people do say "next door" to mean something quite close so it's not necessarily a reference ot the POW if there was a posher/ trendier place nearby that they went to. SOmeone familiar with it posted that it was a bit of a rough and ready sort of older blokes pub, not really somewhere you'd expect sloanies to hang out...

We need someone who knows what pubs were around at the time!

 

[asyousay]

It's a clip from one of the documentaries that are linked earlier in the thread. He says they went to have a drink in the pub next door (to Mossops) and that is where she lost or had her items stolen.

As noted elsewhere I am not a fan of DV's interview style and I don't really think he gives full context for his interview reporting. So AL's remarks to him in the interview he had -- before AL stormed out-- don't have much context other than what DV gives us, and he is trying to portray this as "weird". We have no idea what AL thought the interview would be about, what line of questioning DV was going to take, if he knew up ahead there would be two people interviewing him (which alters the balance of power), or what the interview was going to be for e.g. was it going to be a splash in the Sun or Mail?

AL might have thought DV was being aggressive or intrusive or hinting at accusing him so he got annoyed, shut down, said nothing happened, and just left.

Incidentally in this extract you can see how DV is setting up the theft of SJL's stuff to be a big deal with words like "oddly absent".

Here's the quote from DV's book for the benefit of those who have not read it. The context is that DV and his assistant have arranged to meet AL in a coffee shop in London to interview him. By the time this section below happens, the interview is not going well. DV is asking him a lot of questions about his movements in the last days before SJL disappeared and his interactions with her. It comes across like DV is being quite aggressive with the questioning--he is asking a lot of questions as if this is a police interview. It's not a chat. So by the time we get here, AL is described by DV as "tense". The last question prior to this is "did you ever read anything about SJL that upset you?".



AL then storms off. My feeling is that the rather aggressive and personal questioning right from the get go, two people he'd never met, unclear reason for interview and probing questions, just p**** him off and upset him. It's a weird dynamic, there is a power inbalance here, AL is almost put in the position of a suspect, it might have brought back unpleasant and stressful memories of his extensive questioning after SJL disappeared which cannot have been pleasant.

Thanks for the quotes - big help

So he definitely does deny it though which was all I was saying in my original post.

He also never directly named POW either - it’s a assumption based on location but pubs are two a penny and I would assume even more so in the 1980’s. If he wasn’t a local then he could of got confused.

MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I never mentioned rape. There is - obviously - no evidence that she was raped.

You posted 'anger and a desire for revenge and punishment.

My post is to make it clear that rape is not sexual, it is a crime of violence, of power and control, which is why it is prevalent when there is uncontrolled 'anger and a desire for revenge and punishment' .

 

[Cherwell]

No, I think "the pub next door" is quite specific. It's much more specific than something like "a pub nearby".
Perhaps they hadn't been in there before, didn't know what it was like, and went in simply because it was next door.

 

[Cherwell]

You posted 'anger and a desire for revenge and punishment.

My post is to make it clear that rape is not sexual, it is a crime of violence, of power and control, which is why it is prevalent when there is uncontrolled 'anger and a desire for revenge and punishment' .

But why are you bringing up rape at all? This is a straw man.
I repeat, I never mentioned rape. Many murders are committed without rape.

 

[WestLondoner]

Thanks for the quotes - big help

So he definitely does deny it though which was all I was saying in my original post.

He also never directly named POW either - it’s a assumption based on location but pubs are two a penny and I would assume even more so in the 1980’s. If he wasn’t a local then he could of got confused.

MOO

I went to Mossop's in 1988 and I remember nothing about what was nearby.

Eerie thought that SJL may have been 50 or so feet away.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Not everything has to be conducted like a movie though. There's ways of conveying messages, threats, and making deals on someone's head that don't involve ringing up and making overt ransoms. We all assume that every single incoming and outgoing phone call from Sturgis and the Lamplughs and SJL's flat and even the phone box she may or may not have used have been scrutinised but where is the evidence of that as it's never been stated and there's so many conflicting stories of who rang who and when etc, including the odd calls to the PoW.

The act of the abduction itself would in some cases be all that was needed to convey a message.

Where it can instill anger in some people like family and friends, for a large number of people in the community and potential witnesses it could instill fear.
MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But why are you bringing up rape at all? This is a straw man.
I repeat, I never mentioned rape. Many murders are committed without rape.

JC is the "only suspect". JC is known to become extremely violent when rejected and his MO is one of abduction, restraint, violent rape and murder.

Far from being a straw man, this is the likely reality of what befell SJL.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I went to Mossop's in 1988 and I remember nothing about what was nearby.

Eerie thought that SJL may have been 50 or so feet away.

Not as eerie as it is implausible!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Not everything has to be conducted like a movie though. There's ways of conveying messages, threats, and making deals on someone's head that don't involve ringing up and making overt ransoms. We all assume that every single incoming and outgoing phone call from Sturgis and the Lamplughs and SJL's flat and even the phone box she may or may not have used have been scrutinised but where is the evidence of that as it's never been stated and there's so many conflicting stories of who rang who and when etc, including the odd calls to the PoW.

I think you've been watching too many movies.

I'm talking real world and you are mistaken!

 

[Cherwell]

JC is the "only suspect". JC is known to become extremely violent when rejected and his MO is one of abduction, restraint, violent rape and murder.

Far from being a straw man, this is the likely reality of what befell SJL.

I see. So we are to close our minds to any other solution.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I see. So we are to close our minds to any other solution.

We need to open our minds to the evidence.

Random 'solutions' without anything to support them are meaningless and therein lies the problem.

 

[Cherwell]

We need to open our minds to the evidence.
Random 'solutions' without anything to support them are meaningless and therein lies the problem.

Unfortunately the "evidence" has been largely left to our imagination.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Unfortunately the "evidence" has been largely left to our imagination.

Well it hasn't, has it! I think the issue is around what some mistakenly expect of the evidence.

Smoking guns and caught red handed are highly unusual.

In the vast majority of cases it is the collective weight of the individual elements, which build the case against an individual.

Gaps in the timeline and the evidential picture are very usual. Nevertheless, convictions occur because the common sense interpretation of the evidence is overwhelming.

Some vociferous posters have ONLY ever followed this thread. Do they want to understand how investigation and prosecution work in general terms? Or are they only concerned with one high profile case from nearly forty years ago?

I ask myself if they have the breadth of knowledge of the criminal justice system to understand how a case is built.

I would urge anyone to follow a high profile crown court murder case that is reported comprehensively in MSM and discussed on Websleuths, to gain an understanding of what evidence is and isn't.

 

[Cherwell]

I would urge anyone to follow a high profile crown court murder case that is reported comprehensively in MSM and discussed on Websleuths, to gain an understanding of what evidence is and isn't.

I have followed many such murder cases. That's what brings a lot of us to WS.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I have followed many such murder cases. That's what brings a lot of us to WS.

Therefore you will know that very often the individual elements can seem tenuous and there can be more than one explanation for them, however unlikely.

You will have seen when there are gaps in the evidence or timeline that cannot be filled and create some doubt, which any half-decent defence counsel will achieve.

However, when the individual elements are viewed collectively they clearly demonstrate the offenders guilt.

There are some following SJL who seem unable to view the evidence objectively and recognise that each is a piece in an incomplete jigsaw.

Very rarely is the jigsaw ever completed, especially with narcissistic, psychopathic killers, because they don't give up their secrets.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I see. So we are to close our minds to any other solution.

Absolutely not. Dont be influenced by what someone else tells you, do you your own research and gather as much detail as possible it will pay off in the end.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Absolutely not. Dont be influenced by what someone else tells you, do you your own research and gather as much detail as possible it will pay off in the end.

Absolutely, only be influenced by what the evidence tells you.

Certainly don't be influenced by wild theories that have absolutely zero evidence to support them.

 

[Konstantin]

Very rarely is the jigsaw ever completed, especially with narcissistic, psychopathic killers, because they don't give up their secrets.

JC lied and lied in his police interviews even when confronted with evidence. He just made up more and more bizarre stories, presumably assuming he had a chance at being believed. He is all about control.

Rereading the Berry Dee book, and I know that Berry Dee isn't the best of sources, but htere is enough in there about JC's habits and tricks to give a lot of pauses for thought, including his penchant for buying champagne and flowers and trying to wheedle meetings out of people who had dumped him to persuade them to give him another chance. He did not like rejection. His stalking is also laid out there.