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

[Whitehall 1212]

The two obvious initial errors in the investigation IMO were believing HR, and then going straight for a press conference that cemented HR's inaccurate and probably irrelevant account into the public consciousness.

1. Have you seen the press conference?

2. Are you aware of the place in the investigation and timelines involved before the press conference took place?

3. Are you aware of the circumstances that surrounded it?

 

[PPowell]

>>Bear in mind that JC is a narcissistic psychopath. They don't play by the same rules as mere mortals. It's all a game of power and control.
I recommend the Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh from Channel 5, if you want to see first hand how JC operates. He would swear black is white.....truth is anathema to him.<<

Sounds interesting. I just found online so will watch it.
As the main suspect and people being confused as to if a man with a history of abduction, violence and murder could have been in her area, and details about his personality to see if he denied previous crimes, I think it's important to discuss him.

 

[PPowell]

>>That's not evidence. He needs to show his working. Police told a court Stefan Kiszko raped Lesley Molseed, knowing that he was infertile and her attacker was not. For all we know, there is lots more in the police files that proves JC did not do it and which, for obvious reasons, is not being disclosed. <<

Stefan Kiszko didn't have a long history of rape, abduction and violent attacks on women. When a violent monster might have been in the vicinity a woman has been abducted, isn't it common sense to look into him?
I know criminal law says the prosecution has to provide the burden of proof in a trial, but that means a guilty person can be found innocent if not enough evidence is found. However documentaries and message boards can talk about why he might not have done it, but where is all this evidence he didn't do it? If they're all so wrong, why doesn't JC sue them? In a civil case it's a balance of probabilities than being found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, so he would be more likely to lose that.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

>>Bear in mind that JC is a narcissistic psychopath. They don't play by the same rules as mere mortals. It's all a game of power and control.
I recommend the Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh from Channel 5, if you want to see first hand how JC operates. He would swear black is white.....truth is anathema to him.<<

Sounds interesting. I just found online so will watch it.
As the main suspect and people being confused as to if a man with a history of abduction, violence and murder could have been in her area, and details about his personality to see if he denied previous crimes, I think it's important to discuss him.

There is a lot of inaccurate material in mainstream media. It's been rehashed over years and almost become 'fact' by default as no one knows the original source.

Some authors peddle totally wrong information either through ignorance or because they have an ego to massage or are out to make profit.....Christopher Berry-Dee springs to mind in my opinion!

The Suzy Lamplugh Story by Andrew Stephen gives a detailed account of the SJL's background, her disappearance and the first investigation. It's hard to get and can be quite expensive. Some libraries have it though.

I would take note if what the detectives say. It's source information, which is the most reliable. Everything else is a question of finding out where it is sourced from and the sources motive if it is to have any credibility.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

For all we know, there is lots more in the police files that proves JC did not do it and which, for obvious reasons, is not being disclosed.

If police had proof that JC could not have been involved in SJL's disappearance they most certainly would not have taken the very unusual step of naming him as the 'only suspect' who could not be eliminated and for which there is significant circumstantial evidence.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I know criminal law says the prosecution has to provide the burden of proof in a trial, but that means a guilty person can be found innocent if not enough evidence is found.

For clarification:

Every defendant is presumed innocent unless found guilty in a court of law.

It is for the Crown to prove the defendant is guilty not the defence to prove innocence.

The burden of proof in criminal law is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.....or in layman's terms.... to be certain. It is a high bar to cross.

 

[WestLondoner]

Stefan Kiszko didn't have a long history of rape, abduction and violent attacks on women.

Even so, they still framed him.

When a violent monster might have been in the vicinity a woman has been abducted, isn't it common sense to look into him?

And all the others who might have, too; all the rapists recently released from Wormwood Scrubs, for example, and all those found subsequently to be in the area.

I know criminal law says the prosecution has to provide the burden of proof in a trial, but that means a guilty person can be found innocent if not enough evidence is found. However documentaries and message boards can talk about why he might not have done it, but where is all this evidence he didn't do it? If they're all so wrong, why doesn't JC sue them?

It's not for anyone to prove that Cannan didn't do it; it's for the police to prove that he did. The CPS do not believe they have done so, which is why he has never been prosecuted.

He can't sue because as a convicted murderer and rapist, he has no reputation to lose.

His known crimes took place in the Midlands, Reading, and Bristol. There's no evidence he committed any crimes in London.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's not for anyone to prove that Cannan didn't do it; it's for the police to prove that he did.

It's not for the police to prove anything. The police role is to investigate, obtain evidence, arrest possible suspects AND through interview and further investigation secure evidence that either supports a arrested persons involvement OR points away from the arrested persons involvement.

The police submit a file of evidence to the CPS who will authorise a charge if it passes both the threshold and public interest test.

It is only for a court to decide guilt. The police have never said JC was guilty.

The major problem here is a lot of misunderstanding of so many aspects.

His known crimes took place in the Midlands, Reading, and Bristol. There's no evidence he committed any crimes in London.

You're forgetting a burglary in Fulham!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

And all the others who might have, too; all the rapists recently released from Wormwood Scrubs, for example, and all those found subsequently to be in the area.

Many other possible suspects were identified, investigated and eliminated.

This had been confirmed by Jim Dickie.

For reasons of operational integrity the police do not provide updates on the investigation to Joe Public.

 

[PPowell]

It's not for anyone to prove that Cannan didn't do it; it's for the police to prove that he did. The CPS do not believe they have done so, which is why he has never been prosecuted.

He can't sue because as a convicted murderer and rapist, he has no reputation

Good job this is for websleuths then and not the police, but as Whitehall said, the police just gather information to present the case to the CPS, who then decide if to take it to trial, and then the only people who can decide guilt are a judge and jury, if it's proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Suzy was abducted and more than likely murdered, and John Cannan has a history of abducting and murdering women. To quote Whitehall 1212 again, the police say that JC is the 'only suspect' who could not be eliminated and for which there is significant circumstantial evidence.

There's also no proof she was murdered, so shall we stop saying that? Or can we because it's more than likely?

I'm sure JC could sue for being accused of a crime he didn't do, but probably knows he would lose with the lower burden of proof required than a criminal trial.

 

[Cherwell]

In which case we shouldn't forget the attempted burglary by JC when approaching a house for sale in the Fulham area and entering believing the female occupant to be alone.....only to disappear sharpish when her husband appeared.

In 1986 section 9(1(a)) Theft Act 1968 was the offence of burglary when entering as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, criminal damage, GBH.....or rape.

The rape element has since been repealed.

As I said before JC would commit offences wherever he found himself.

There's a source for everything I post as well as a source for everything I don't

Circumstantial Evidence

Everything about Circumstantial Evidence

www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk

When JD says police know that JC was in Fulham on the day SJL went missing.....

"A witness comes forward to say that a man matching Cannan’s description turned up at a house for sale in Fulham uninvited and without an estate agent. He chats to the lady owner and gains entry to the house. Clearly he thinks they’re alone. He starts acting strangely, and it’s only when the husband appears, that the man makes a very swift exit."

So, that's it, is it? Was JC interviewed about this? Was there an ID parade?

 

[PPowell]

And all the others who might have, too; all the rapists recently released from Wormwood Scrubs, for example, and all those found subsequently to be in the area.

I'm watching the Channel 5 documentary now. It's saying JC was identified by witnesses.
Do you wonder why we're still talking about this case from the 1980s? Because most women are raped or murdered by somebody they know, and it's rare to be abducted by a stranger. John Cannan had previously abducted strangers from their car at knife point.

 

[PPowell]

His known crimes took place in the Midlands, Reading, and Bristol. There's no evidence he committed any crimes in London.

He's very resourceful. He even managed a rape in Reading by hopping off the train of a journey between Bristol and London.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

"A witness comes forward to say that a man matching Cannan’s description turned up at a house for sale in Fulham uninvited and without an estate agent. He chats to the lady owner and gains entry to the house. Clearly he thinks they’re alone. He starts acting strangely, and it’s only when the husband appears, that the man makes a very swift exit."

So, that's it, is it? Was JC interviewed about this? Was there an ID parade?

You know JC was interviewed by JD's officers. Sections of those interviews are on MSM

What did JD say?

These are all first hand, reliable, trustworthy sources. When they say something they are clear what is confirmed fact and what is their opinion.

Regrettably, so few seem to be aware of their contribution and the weight of that contribution to the information that has been authorised for disclosure into the public domain.

Some things are more subtle than we would wish.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm watching the Channel 5 documentary now. It's saying JC was identified by witnesses.
Do you wonder why we're still talking about this case from the 1980s? Because most women are raped or murdered by somebody they know, and it's rare to be abducted by a stranger. John Cannan had previously abducted strangers from their car at knife point.

The "witnesses" came forward fourteen years later. Amazingly, they could remember the day, date, and time of something they'd hitherto forgotten for 14 years.

This is not evidence, IMO; it's gossip.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm watching the Channel 5 documentary now. It's saying JC was identified by witnesses.
Do you wonder why we're still talking about this case from the 1980s? Because most women are raped or murdered by somebody they know, and it's rare to be abducted by a stranger. John Cannan had previously abducted strangers from their car at knife point.

The police claim Cannan knew SJL, although they won't say why they think this. If so, this is another hole in the claims they make against him because SJL was then not attacked by a stranger.

 

[WestLondoner]

Good job this is for websleuths then and not the police, but as Whitehall said, the police just gather information to present the case to the CPS, who then decide if to take it to trial, and then the only people who can decide guilt are a judge and jury, if it's proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Suzy was abducted and more than likely murdered, and John Cannan has a history of abducting and murdering women. To quote Whitehall 1212 again, the police say that JC is the 'only suspect' who could not be eliminated and for which there is significant circumstantial evidence.

There's also no proof she was murdered, so shall we stop saying that? Or can we because it's more than likely?

I'm sure JC could sue for being accused of a crime he didn't do, but probably knows he would lose with the lower burden of proof required than a criminal trial.

She was legally declared dead in 1994. As nobody has come forward to say where her body is or to describe the accident in which she died, she's highly likely to have murdered.

The police have not persuaded the CPS, who have seen all their best arguments. The supposed case against Cannan is speculation and supposition IMO. He's not been charged for a reason. That the police think something is in no way any sort of persuasive argument. They thought Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell. They thought Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket.

Cannan cannot sue anyone for for anything. He has no good name to lose, so cannot sue for libel.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The police claim Cannan knew SJL, although they won't say why they think this. If so, this is another hole in the claims they make against him because SJL was then not attacked by a stranger.

Why would they say how they knew.....it's evidence and therefore not in the public domain.

Cannon also had a number of convictions for violently attacking and raping a former partner when she rejected him.

JC would attack both stranger and those that he knew intimately with the same ferocity.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The "witnesses" came forward fourteen years later. Amazingly, they could remember the day, date, and time of something they'd hitherto forgotten for 14 years.

This is not evidence, IMO; it's gossip.

This shows a lack of awareness of witness recall when there is good reason to remember.

We know that witnesses tried to contact police during the original overwhelmed investigation and that becaue of the deluge some enquiries were not followed up on until the 2000 re-investigation.

A witness that contacted police in 1986 as a witness in connection with one of the most high profile cases in the UK, would likely retain their recall in a different area of the brain, which would be available for a lifetime.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

She was legally declared dead in 1994. As nobody has come forward to say where her body is or to describe the accident in which she died, she's highly likely to have murdered.

The police have not persuaded the CPS, who have seen all their best arguments. The supposed case against Cannan is speculation and supposition IMO. He's not been charged for a reason. That the police think something is in no way any sort of persuasive argument. They thought Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell. They thought Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket.

Cannan cannot sue anyone for for anything. He has no good name to lose, so cannot sue for libel.

The police do not put an 'argument' to the CPS.

The police gather and present  ALL the evidence both for and against the suspects involvement and submit it to the CPS for the evidential threshold and public interest tests.

If the evidence meets both standards then the charges are authorised by the CPS.

The specific circumstances surrounding both the Rachel Nickell and aftermath of 21/7 failed bombing enquiries have no bearing on the Lamplugh enquiry. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise.

You are incorrect about JC not being able to sue for libel. The Defamation Act of 2013 has a 'serious harm' test. The linking of JC with SJL's disappearance could be argued to have seriously harmed his reputation.

The reason he hasn't taken action is more likely to be that what has been said is justified in that it is true. If he were to litigate the evidence may be revealed in open court.....he wouldn't want that and if held in camera then if he were to lose based on the claim being justified it would be made public.