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

[Whitehall 1212]

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

Resourceful in a sick, dangerous, psychopathic way!

 

[PPowell]

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.

JC attacked both women he previously knew and strangers. Often only meeting the woman for a short time, but enough time to gain their trust. He's an extremely dangerous psychopath. There's evidence his modus operandi was similar to how Suzy was probably abducted and murdered. However as there isn't proof she was abducted and murdered, will you argue that didn't happen? Her family haven't spoken against her being legally declared dead.

 

[PPowell]

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

All those people you say were wrongly convicted were eventually released. There are even cases such as Sion Jenkins where it's still seems more likely he did it, but after appeals he was released due to the jury not being able to decide. That's what the appeals process is about, so people wrongly convicted can have more chances.

Why do you imagine that JC can't sue? It is possible to argue that he's being seen as a worse monster than he already is, He claims the Suzy accusations are ruining his chance of parole, so would have good reason to sue.

 

[Terryb808]

"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?

The account above sound very much like one from CBD’s book “Prime Suspect”.
Where’s the source for this, but then LE don’t have to provide one do they.

 

[Terryb808]

All those people you say were wrongly convicted were eventually released. There are even cases such as Sion Jenkins where it's still seems more likely he did it, but after appeals he was released due to the jury not being able to decide. That's what the appeals process is about, so people wrongly convicted can have more chances.

Why do you imagine that JC can't sue? It is possible to argue that he's being seen as a worse monster than he already is, He claims the Suzy accusations are ruining his chance of parole, so would have good reason to sue.

The key comment here is “eventually released”, I’m personally confident that you’d have a different opinion if you had been locked up due to a police error.

Some have had a considerable portion of their freedom taken away due to such error.

You just can’t give them this back.

 

[WestLondoner]

All those people you say were wrongly convicted were eventually released. There are even cases such as Sion Jenkins where it's still seems more likely he did it, but after appeals he was released due to the jury not being able to decide. That's what the appeals process is about, so people wrongly convicted can have more chances.

Why do you imagine that JC can't sue? It is possible to argue that he's being seen as a worse monster than he already is, He claims the Suzy accusations are ruining his chance of parole, so would have good reason to sue.

Ah, so that's all right then. As long as they eventually get out, it's all good. Really? Is that the standard? Think about what you're saying.

The Parole Board decides whether he should be released, and in making that decision, they consider submissions by, among others, the police. If the police say they think he murdered others, the Parole Board can decide on the balance of probabilities whether they think that's true.

At no point in this process is there anyone who can be sued for anything, because they're all doing exactly what they're statutorily supposed to be doing. The police, financial regulators, and all sorts of government bodies enjoy immunities from litigation that private citizens don't. This is obviously necessary as otherwise the police could be sued for slander every time they said "I'm arresting you on suspicion of shoplifting".

There's a question over whether they should be allowed to say things that clearly prejudice the chance of someone getting a fair trial, but in Cannan's case the CPS had already rejected their evidence, so there was no trial to prejudice.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The account above sound very much like one from CBD’s book “Prime Suspect”.
Where’s the source for this, but then LE don’t have to provide one do they.

Police don't convict...juries do.

In many cases it had been a lack of interest by the defence counsel in defending their client rigorously.....the same bias/discrimination that was present in the police as it was in society as a whole.

'The police are the public and the public are the police' Sir Robert Peel

The policing we have is a reflection on the society from which officers are drawn and the 'values' espoused by it.

It's easy to criticise with voracity when you are standing on the touchlines. When you get on the pitch and play your part you'll see a very different game.

 

[WestLondoner]

JC attacked both women he previously knew and strangers. Often only meeting the woman for a short time, but enough time to gain their trust. He's an extremely dangerous psychopath. There's evidence his modus operandi was similar to how Suzy was probably abducted and murdered. However as there isn't proof she was abducted and murdered, will you argue that didn't happen? Her family haven't spoken against her being legally declared dead.

This is what is known as a syllogism: JC attacked women, SJL was attacked, therefore JC attacked SJL.

There is unfortunately no evidence that "his modus operandi was similar to how Suzy was probably abducted and murdered". This is a myth put about by TV documentaries. From his attacks on Julia Holman, the Reading victim, and others, his MO was to force his way into the victim's car or property while threatening her with a weapon. The only non-stranger he's known to have assaulted is Sharon Major, with whom he was cohabiting.

We don't know how SJL was abducted, and the only instance of an abduction by Cannan is Shirley Banks, who disappeared while late-night shopping. So we don't know what happened there either, and even if we did, one attack is not a modus operandi. As he ended up with Shirley Banks' car, and managed to get her to phone work to say she'd be late, it sounds like he did something else again.

 

[WestLondoner]

The account above sound very much like one from CBD’s book “Prime Suspect”.
Where’s the source for this, but then LE don’t have to provide one do they.

IIRC this is one of those next-century sightings, where someone in 2000 or 2001 sees a TV documentary about how the police reckon Cannan did it and helpfully phones in a sighting 14 years after the fact.

It's very clear from what the CPS have said that the police have failed to establish any connection between JC and SJL, which is why they keep digging up random places connected to him in hopes that this will establish that connection. Sightings fourteen years after the fact would be laughed out of court.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The Parole Board decides whether he should be released, and in making that decision, they consider submissions by, among others, the police. If the police say they think he murdered others, the Parole Board can decide on the balance of probabilities whether they think that's true.

The parole board do not take into account offences for which the prisoner has not been convicted.

The parole board are merely concerned with the threat that the individual represents if they were released back into society.

That JC has not acknowledged his crimes and refused to take part in sessions for sexual offenders demonstrates that he has not been rehabilitated in any way.

 

[Crusader21]

In 2022, does anyone seriously believe that a named 'bad man' is confirmed as guilty of a notorious murder, thanks to a few throw away lines on a BBC news item from a retired detective?

If you do then good luck to you!

 

[WestLondoner]

"JC is a bad man, therefore JC killed SJL" actually conflates two things: "JC is a bad man", and "JC killed SJL". Demonstrating the first proposition is trivially easy, but it does not entail the second.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IIRC this is one of those next-century sightings, where someone in 2000 or 2001 sees a TV documentary about how the police reckon Cannan did it and helpfully phones in a sighting 14 years after the fact.

You don't recall rightly.

It's very clear from what the CPS have said that the police have failed to establish any connection between JC and SJL, which is why they keep digging up random places connected to him in hopes that this will establish that connection. Sightings fourteen years after the fact would be laughed out of court.

For the sake of truth and accuracy.....the police do not dig up random places connected to JC.

The police have a duty to investigate and if credible information is received indicating where SJL may be then the police will decide on the appropriate response.

The veracity of a witness who makes an approach some years after the event will be tested in court, as all witnesses are.

Numerous sexual offenders have now been convicted and continue to do so many, many years after their offences, when their child victims have come forward as adults.

We're these victims laughed out of court?

Were these victims told 'your evidence carries no credibility because it relates to events when you were a child 30, 40, 50+ years ago'?

Humility and accuracy are required....not wildly inaccurate statements, which have no basis in truth.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

but then LE don’t have to provide one do they.

Precisely and for good reason.

Does anyone actually believe that the police should disclose the details of their investigation and the evidence obtained?

 

[Crusader21]

Does anyone actually believe that the police should disclose the details of their investigation and the evidence obtained?

But they have been doing that ....

What I find unsettling is the very real possibility that the police may disclose details that back up their naming of a prime suspect, and withhold evidence that points elsewhere ....

 

[Crusader21]

New twist in Suzy Lamplugh cold case as ex-cop claims she never went to meet 'Mr Kipper' before she disappeared

AN ex-cop has claimed missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh never went to meet “Mr Kipper” before she disappeared in the latest twist of the unsolved murder case. The 25-year-old vanished …

www.thesun.co.uk

The nephew of deceased witness Harry Riglin, claims that Harry was never really sure that he saw SL at Shorrolds Rd!

Are the police aware of this and if so is a major part of the Mr Kipper narrative now incorrect?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But they have been doing that ....

What I find unsettling is the very real possibility that the police may disclose details that back up their naming of a prime suspect, and withhold evidence that points elsewhere ....

Police have not revealed more evidence than they needed to in seeking public support with the investigation.

They have provided comment on some limited aspects of the investigation and an assertion that the 'only suspect' is JC, who is safely locked away.

The police also have to manage the safety and concerns of the wider public. This is why they made such unprecedented public announcements in an effort to assuage concerns.

A big part of the problem is that most people have absolutely no idea how the law works or an awareness of the legal obligations on police throughout any criminal investigation.

When the police submitted the evidence file to the CPS, under the rules of disclosure, which is legislated for in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, they MUST disclose anything recovered during the course of the investigation that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case.

The duty of the police is to obtain ALL the evidence both supporting the suspects arrest and pointing away from it.

Historically, cases have been lost and overturned when police have withheld evidence. This is perverting the course of justice and they should be locked away for it.

Serious crime investigators are the cream of the detective crop. They know the rules inside out and don't do anything which could later undermine the case.

I get it that people hate the facts being 'hidden' from them until a case goes to trial. We are all inquisitive or nosey and love salacious gossip!

It is a consequence of having a justice system which stands or falls on the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

Would you rather we did away with that?

 

[WiseOwl]

You don't recall rightly.



For the sake of truth and accuracy.....the police do not dig up random places connected to JC.

The police have a duty to investigate and if credible information is received indicating where SJL may be then the police will decide on the appropriate response.

The veracity of a witness who makes an approach some years after the event will be tested in court, as all witnesses are.

Numerous sexual offenders have now been convicted and continue to do so many, many years after their offences, when their child victims have come forward as adults.

We're these victims laughed out of court?

Were these victims told 'your evidence carries no credibility because it relates to events when you were a child 30, 40, 50+ years ago'?

Humility and accuracy are required....not wildly inaccurate statements, which have no basis in truth.

There have been eight searches so far for Suzy's body:

2000 & 2001: Norton Barracks
2001: Quantock Hills
2003, 2004 & 2018: Shipton Road, Sutton Coldfield
2010: Drakes Broughton
2019: Pershore

None of these searches found anything at all - absolutely nothing.

So how can the information given to the police be credible, in what way? The information they were given was both inaccurate and misleading, the only way it could be considered credible is if they found anything.

 

[PPowell]

Ah, so that's all right then. As long as they eventually get out, it's all good. Really? Is that the standard? Think about what you're saying.

The Parole Board decides whether he should be released, and in making that decision, they consider submissions by, among others, the police. If the police say they think he murdered others, the Parole Board can decide on the balance of probabilities whether they think that's true.

At no point in this process is there anyone who can be sued for anything, because they're all doing exactly what they're statutorily supposed to be doing. The police, financial regulators, and all sorts of government bodies enjoy immunities from litigation that private citizens don't. This is obviously necessary as otherwise the police could be sued for slander every time they said "I'm arresting you on suspicion of shoplifting".

There's a question over whether they should be allowed to say things that clearly prejudice the chance of someone getting a fair trial, but in Cannan's case the CPS had already rejected their evidence, so there was no trial to prejudice.

I didn't say it was "alright then" that they were eventually released. Why do you need to make up things I didn't say? I think it's awful they had so many wasted years. My point was the appeal process is for people wrongly convicted and it eventually worked for them. Even Sion Jenkins was released while still being the main suspect.
Whitehall seems to be the only one on here who understands about the legal process. Others decide he's innocent, while thinking it's up the the police if a person is found guilty.

In a democratic society there has to be a system of checks and balances between departments, which is why once the CPS bring forward a case from the police, the lawyers and courts are a separate department from the police.
I have to wonder what the motive is of people who want to ignore the fact that a man with a history of kidnapping and murdering women was in the same area as another woman who was probably kidnapped and murdered. There are witnesses whose photofits match the description on JC looking into Suzy's estate agency. It would be crazy to not consider it's probably not just a coincidence.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

All those people you say were wrongly convicted were eventually released. There are even cases such as Sion Jenkins where it's still seems more likely he did it, but after appeals he was released due to the jury not being able to decide. That's what the appeals process is about, so people wrongly convicted can have more chances.

Why do you imagine that JC can't sue? It is possible to argue that he's being seen as a worse monster than he already is, He claims the Suzy accusations are ruining his chance of parole, so would have good reason to sue.

Why do you imagine JC would have the capacity, resources, and finances, to instruct solicitors / barristers to act on his behalf from his deathbed inside a prison? The police via mainstream media have only ramped up this story since he became terminally ill - they have never investigated him or even so much as once interviewed him in the past for this case. So, there's nothing to go on. Maybe if he was well enough he certainly would challenge the story, we have no way of knowing?