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

[Pinkizzy]

Does anyone remember Mike Barley describing an interview where JC pours the tea for the detectives and points out that their interview technique could be improved? JC is a charmer and yet he can turn very nasty in a heartbeat.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Does anyone remember Mike Barley describing an interview where JC pours the tea for the detectives and points out that their interview technique could be improved? JC is a charmer and yet he can turn very nasty in a heartbeat.

Here it is. Discussion of how JC would try and manipulate interviews and interviewers. Watch from 26 minutes.

Psychiatrists comment to DS Barley after an assessment of JC

'This is a man who can dispose of a human life with as much emotion as you and I throw away a toffee wrapper'

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

When you've seen how a narcissist operates, having full awareness of what they are doing, it is unbelievable how they can lie so convincingly, charm others, manipulate others and play them off against each other, and that is just the half of it.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There are other possibilities, such as anger and desire for revenge and punishment. It could have been an entirely personal motive driven by some action of hers.

I watch those documentary series about hardcore prisons and suchlike - I distinctly recall in one of them the prison govenor was asked if there was any commonality in motivation for murderous violent offenders - he said yes, one word 'disrespect', every single person in his (male) prison will tell you they maimed or killed someone because they had felt disrespected by them.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I guess loads of people leave stuff in pubs so landlords and staff are used to checking for lost property and dealing with it.

Dunno... I've worked in many pubs and it's not so usual for people to leave stuff, believe it or not. Usually it's just a small item they've taken off such as a hat, cardigan, or scarf and the odd low value item they've put on the floor next to where they were sitting then forgot when they left like an umbrella or a bag of shopping or small things accidentally dropped into the seat like coins, a hair comb, or a lighter. Rarely ever find purses, wallets, handbags, coats, and not personal mail or paperwork. You'd think there's tons of stuff lost but in my experience surprisingly little.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I think you've been watching too many movies.

I'm talking real world and you are mistaken!

Mistaken about what?

If you truly have the one and only solution to what happened to SJL why is there absolutely zero evidence of it and no charges, no interviews, and no conviction ever brought about? Plus the person you feel is responsible has steadfastly denied this crime even though he is permanently incarcerated and at the end of his life.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Mistaken about what?

If you truly have the one and only solution to what happened to SJL why is there absolutely zero evidence of it and no charges, no interviews, and no conviction ever brought about? Plus the person you feel is responsible has steadfastly denied this crime even though he is permanently incarcerated and at the end of his life.

Mistaken about how the possibility of a ransom demand being received, was dealt with in 1986 and beyond.

It's not a case that there MUST be another solution just because JC has not been charged.

The evidence must be followed, not dismissed without good reason. It can't just be replaced with theories that have no basis in fact.

I despair that some have followed this thread for so long and still fail to have a sound awareness of the breadth and depth of the investigation, the review and the re-investigation.

The information is freely available to watch and read and re-watch and re-read, however many times it takes to get a clear understanding of all aspects of the case.

Here are some facts:

1. A large number of possible suspects were identified, investigated and eliminated.

2. There is significant circumstantial evidence against JC.

3. DCI Stuart Ault, one of the investigators on the re-investigation was initially sceptical of JC's involvement. His view changed following the re-investigation based on the evidence.

4. JC was arrested and interviewed for a number of days throughout the course of the investigations, in Bristol, London and Yorkshire.

5. A file of evidence was submitted to the CPS for a charging decision. Their view was that without evidence of a direct link between SJL and JC there was not a realistic prospect of conviction. Hence JC has not been charged or prosecuted to date.

6. There is no evidence that points away from JC and towards another suspect.

7. None of the other 'theories' have any credible evidence that support them.

8. Have you followed JC,s numerous denials, that can be disproved in fact? The man is a compulsive liar and manipulator, because he is a narcissist.

Why is JC being the 'only suspect' anathema to some, but yet they seem unable to present any credible evidence as to why JC isn't the offender?

 

[EddietheEagle]

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.

We used to go to the Duke's Head a lot, the Youngs pub by the river and less frequently the Star and Garter next door. Being on the river, they were more the 'Putney Set' type of pub. You'd get quite a throng there sometimes which would spill out onto the embankment. I can't think of other go-to pubs in Putney where they might have gone. Putney was evolving more into a wine bar place by that point. I had a friend in Disraeli Rd but I don't remember ever going to the Prince of Wales. Being on the corner of Upper Richmond Rd and Oxford Rd, which is a cut-through down to Putney Bridge Rd, it didn't really have a great setting for my liking. But, but, on the other hand it was around the corner from Disraeli Rd. If you had just emerged from Mossops next door and were looking for a quick drink before closing then I guess the PoW might be the obvious choice. It wasn't down-at-heel afair so I could imagine SL going there, with her flatmate perhaps. I think that's conceivable.

There's a confusing picture around the scenario of the missing items and how it fits in to the case. It seems potentially linked given the mysterious 'phone calls and the later cameo of the call in the Shirley Banks case. I know you don't believe in that parallel as far as JC is concerned. However, there is evidence that puts both SL and JC in that pub. To me that is potentially significant. Richard Banks picked out JC in an identity parade. He had noticed him in the Avon Gorge Hotel more than once and remembers JC actually sitting at the table next to him in the bar/restaurant on one occasion. That is creepy. Plausibly, JC could have noticed. then watched SL in the PoW too although I'm not aware of the process of stalking as it leads in to actual abduction. Nor do we know much about JC as a stalker. How, for example, could JC have known that SB in Bristol was going shopping that evening, in order to plan what he did? Is there always an additional element of spontaneity or opportunism involved? i.e. You go out to find a victim and try and ride your luck.

 

[EddietheEagle]

Mistaken about how the possibility of a ransom demand being received, was dealt with in 1986 and beyond.

It's not a case that there MUST be another solution just because JC has not been charged.

The evidence must be followed, not dismissed without good reason. It can't just be replaced with theories that have no basis in fact.

I despair that some have followed this thread for so long and still fail to have a sound awareness of the breadth and depth of the investigation, the review and the re-investigation.

The information is freely available to watch and read and re-watch and re-read, however many times it takes to get a clear understanding of all aspects of the case.

Here are some facts:

1. A large number of possible suspects were identified, investigated and eliminated.

2. There is significant circumstantial evidence against JC.

3. DCI Stuart Ault, one of the investigators on the re-investigation was initially sceptical of JC's involvement. His view changed following the re-investigation based on the evidence.

4. JC was arrested and interviewed for a number of days throughout the course of the investigations, in Bristol, London and Yorkshire.

5. A file of evidence was submitted to the CPS for a charging decision. Their view was that without evidence of a direct link between SJL and JC there was not a realistic prospect of conviction. Hence JC has not been charged or prosecuted to date.

6. There is no evidence that points away from JC and towards another suspect.

7. None of the other 'theories' have any credible evidence that support them.

8. Have you followed JC,s numerous denials, that can be disproved in fact? The man is a compulsive liar and manipulator, because he is a narcissist.

Why is JC being the 'only suspect' anathema to some, but yet they seem unable to present any credible evidence as to why JC isn't the offender?

Another telling fact, an elucidation of point 8 above, is that to this day, JC denies any involvement in the death of Shirley Banks.

 

[Konstantin]

Another telling fact, an elucidation of point 8 above, is that to this day, JC denies any involvement in the death of Shirley Banks.

I was literally just going to post this!

8. Have you followed JC,s numerous denials, that can be disproved in fact? The man is a compulsive liar and manipulator, because he is a narcissist.

If you ask most people in prison probably they would all deny they did the crimes they are in there for. But JC is known to deny, deny, make up ridiculous stories like a businessman from Bristol did it, a man sold me SB's car., he went to Leamington to find a theatre. His lies are not even plausible but he still tells them because he enjoys being in control. How can a man with no conscience have a change of heart (he doesn't have one) and admit to a crime to relieve family members' pain? He can't empathize with their pain and probably gets off on it.

Richard Banks picked out JC in an identity parade. He had noticed him in the Avon Gorge Hotel more than once and remembers JC actually sitting at the table next to him in the bar/restaurant on one occasion. That is creepy.

Yes it seems JC is known to stalk people. He might have coincidentally come across SB in Debenhams that night but this suggests he already knew who she was, Maybe he found out she was going to go shopping that night, who knows.

 

[asyousay]

You can see with SB he can pull off a abduction without anybody realising that somethings happened. Nobody knows the exact location she was snatched either do they?


Also if CV isn’t a liar and those two phone calls did happen in the afternoon she had vanished then JC also got SB to make a phone call to her office didn’t he?

 

[WestLondoner]

I was literally just going to post this!

If you ask most people in prison probably they would all deny they did the crimes they are in there for. But JC is known to deny, deny, make up ridiculous stories like a businessman from Bristol did it, a man sold me SB's car., he went to Leamington to find a theatre. His lies are not even plausible but he still tells them because he enjoys being in control. How can a man with no conscience have a change of heart (he doesn't have one) and admit to a crime to relieve family members' pain? He can't empathize with their pain and probably gets off on it.



Yes it seems JC is known to stalk people. He might have coincidentally come across SB in Debenhams that night but this suggests he already knew who she was, Maybe he found out she was going to go shopping that night, who knows.

JC reminds me of a child who is unable to fathom why grown ups don't believe his lies, which all seem perfectly plausible to him.

Pretty well everything he says should be treated with disbelief, including protestations that he did and did not commit any particular crime.

 

[Cherwell]

How can a man with no conscience have a change of heart (he doesn't have one) and admit to a crime to relieve family members' pain? He can't empathize with their pain and probably gets off on it.

I could imagine that at this stage in his life he might also get off on bragging about how he did it, and how clever he was not to have been caught.

 

[Cherwell]

However, there is evidence that puts both SL and JC in that pub.

Do you know what evidence there is for JC being in the Prince of Wales? Apart from the statement in the documentary which isn't substantiated.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There's a confusing picture around the scenario of the missing items and how it fits in to the case. It seems potentially linked given the mysterious 'phone calls and the later cameo of the call in the Shirley Banks case. I know you don't believe in that parallel as far as JC is concerned. However, there is evidence that puts both SL and JC in that pub. To me that is potentially significant. Richard Banks picked out JC in an identity parade. He had noticed him in the Avon Gorge Hotel more than once and remembers JC actually sitting at the table next to him in the bar/restaurant on one occasion. That is creepy. Plausibly, JC could have noticed. then watched SL in the PoW too although I'm not aware of the process of stalking as it leads in to actual abduction. Nor do we know much about JC as a stalker. How, for example, could JC have known that SB in Bristol was going shopping that evening, in order to plan what he did? Is there always an additional element of spontaneity or opportunism involved? i.e. You go out to find a victim and try and ride your luck.

I'm slightly confused, please can you clarify? What is the evidence that puts JC in the PoW? Are you saying Richard Banks identified JC and confirmed him as definitely being in the PoW as well as the Avon Gorge hotel?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Do you know what evidence there is for JC being in the Prince of Wales? Apart from the statement in the documentary which isn't substantiated.

Also, if there was evidence, why was the PoW not forensically searched and still has not been?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Also, if there was evidence, why was the PoW not forensically searched and still has not been?

There never has been any evidence, relating to the PoW, which would provide the necessary grounds for a search warrant to be obtained from a court.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I was literally just going to post this!

If you ask most people in prison probably they would all deny they did the crimes they are in there for. But JC is known to deny, deny, make up ridiculous stories like a businessman from Bristol did it, a man sold me SB's car., he went to Leamington to find a theatre. His lies are not even plausible but he still tells them because he enjoys being in control. How can a man with no conscience have a change of heart (he doesn't have one) and admit to a crime to relieve family members' pain? He can't empathize with their pain and probably gets off on it.



Yes it seems JC is known to stalk people. He might have coincidentally come across SB in Debenhams that night but this suggests he already knew who she was, Maybe he found out she was going to go shopping that night, who knows.

JC was a clumsy criminal who acted spontaneously in anger or predatory need to abuse it seems and with narry a care about outcome, consequences, and pretty much absence of considering cause and effect. He must have acted remarkably out of character to get away with this crime for so long with not a jot of evidence? So to my mind, it's important to keep all other options wide open and on the table.

 

[Crusader21]

There never has been any evidence, relating to the PoW, which provides the necessary grounds for a search warrant to be obtained from a court.

I wonder what evidence there was to allow a for a dig in Sutton Coldfield?!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

There never has been any evidence, relating to the PoW, which would provide the necessary grounds for a search warrant to be obtained from a court.

So in this same regard there has never been any evidence linking JC to the PoW or the area surely would have been searched?