I’m all ears though if you have supporting evidence that proves she often left the flat to make phone calls because she didn’t want her flat mate to overhear her conversations.
Also didn’t her boyfriend claim she didn’t ring him on the Sunday? I’m sure I read that somewhere originally.
It's literally what everybody had to do. Your landline was physically tethered to the wall, and there were no cordless handsets. So you had your conversation wherever that was: kitchen, living room, in larger houses (not 2-bed flats) one of the bedrooms. If you receive a personal call on your mobile at work today, you probably walk away from your desk, for the same reason.
Of course and the evidence says the items was stolen on Friday and that Sunday night there wasn’t a pub visit. LE have also never come out and made a claim items went missing Sunday have they?
Well, I'm not sure the evidence
does say that.
First, the cheque book was more likely lost than stolen, because there was no point stealing a cheque book without the cheque guarantee card. You couldn't pay for anything just with a cheque, because if it were for more than what you had in your account, it would bounce. So you had to produce the cheque card. This had your signature on it and the payee was supposed to compare the signature on that with the one on the cheque you had just written, and make sure they're the same. If they are, s/he writes the number on the card across the back of the cheque. When presented, the bank would then pay that cheque, hence "cheque guarantee card", whether you had enough money in your account or not. Therefore, to use stolen cheques, you needed to steal the cheque card as well. For this reason, banks told you not to keep it with the cheque book. If they suspected that you had, they would deduct the stolen cheques from your balance, exactly like they do with cash withdrawals today if they think you've kept your PIN with your debit card. So theft is unlikely.
Next, if the stuff went missing at Mossop's on Friday, how did it end up at the PoW two days later, and where was it between times?
Third, SJL was apparently pretty exercised on Monday morning about the retrieval of the cheque book. There were at least three phone calls about it - one from her bank to say 'call this pub', and two calls to the pub. If this was such a big deal to her at work on Monday, you have to wonder why she said nothing about it to anyone at work on Saturday morning, or at the party that evening, or all day at the beach on Sunday, or to her mother on Sunday night. The best explanation for this to me is that she hadn't yet lost her stuff at those times.
Finally, AL's claim was that he spoke to SJL on the phone on Sunday, but he can't remember who called whom. So right away, when they were at the beach all day, I ask - why was there a call at all? What could they not discuss there that required a phone call? He claims the point of the call was to arrange something for Tuesday. Why did it suddenly become urgent to discuss that on Sunday night, when it hadn't come up all day? Why not ring her in the office next day? I can believe there was a call, but I reckon it would have been for her to reiterate that she was dumping him, a point he'd clearly not yet absorbed because he'd hung around the coast all day. She could have given him this message in person at the coast, but that would have involved doing so with others around. Given how secretive SJL routinely was in her private life, it defies belief that she'd have done that. Equally, I doubt she would have made this call from the flat living room, with the lodger around. We know she took calls there from people he didn't know and whom none of her other circle seemed to know either - this was a woman who gave nothing away. Realistically, he can't have called her. She left the coast before he did and went to her mother's house, so he'd have struggled even to know where to reach her.
She had to drive past the PoW to get home from her mother's house. She needed to make a private call.There are phone boxes outside the PoW. She'd know that because she had been to Mossop's (and you knew where all the phone boxes were - you had to in case yours went wrong). She needed to move him along because he's not getting it.
Hence I conclude that she did not lose her stuff at either Mossop's or the PoW on Friday, because it is impossible to see how it takes 48 hours to turn up outdoors, and possibly at a different property, or to understand why she said nothing about this to anyone until Monday. She probably stopped at the PoW on Sunday night, because her stuff being found then and there places her then and there. She didn't go there with AL, but to call him to remind him he was chucked, a call he remembers but says was about something else. I don't believe AL's account that the conversation was about arrangements for Tuesday. I think he said this to cover up the fact that he'd been blown out, and to make the police think he and she were still on good terms, and thus he had no motive to kill her. I don't think he did as it happens, but he must have felt vulnerable because it's always the boyfriend, and the police were getting him to do things like try her car out for size.
Where AL's co-operated with interviewers in the past, this has always been further to DL / the Met's theory that JC dunnit. He'd be comfortable with that, because a writer or documentary producer who's bought the JC story isn't going to be interested in verifying AL's account of what happened. Up rocks DV and starts asking questions about just that, which makes AL very uncomfortable very quickly indeed.
Another odd thing about him is that AS and others suggest that he was about to get dumped, and others indicate that he was nobody special to SJL, just someone with whom she turned up to places and events. The only person who seems to have been unaware of this is AL himself.
