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

[Crusader21]

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.

Yes the police submitted a file on JC to the CPS. And as we know the CPS saw fit not to take JC on trial for the murder of SL.

My point is however, since then various bits of info have emerged from the police, backing their claims on JC. However, how do we know that there is evidence uncoverd since then, that actually points away from JC? Evidence that the police choose not to reveal.

After all, the police are not duty bound to reveal that info to anyone but do choose to reveal various pieces which point towards JC!

The fact that HR (confirmed by his nephew), was not sure that it was SL at Shorrolds is one revelation ....

 

[Terryb808]

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 ....

The CPS know that JC’s defence team would be entitled to all the police evidence. If the case is based on purely circumstantial evidence they would have a field day in court.

The defence barrister has just one job, he’s not interested in his clients guilt, that’s not his job.
They’ll tell you that it’s the prosecutions job to prove guilt and do so better than they can undermine their case.

When a CPS case fails it embarrassing and costly, as @Whitehall1212 has pointed out, the prosecution case must be watertight before they’ll proceed.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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?

That would be for a court to decide.

The veracity of HR's credibility as a witness will have been tested when he originally provided his evidential statement.

There were at least two other witnesses in Shorrolds Road, who corroborated relevant activity/individuals in Shorrolds Road, who provide far more detail, which we know to be credible.

You'd also have to assess the motivation for HR's nephew to say this now. Don't take anything at face value.

** P.S. I now see the info from HR's son comes via DV after he got his claws into him.....so entirely reliable then! **

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes the police submitted a file on JC to the CPS. And as we know the CPS saw fit not to take JC on trial for the murder of SL.

My point is however, since then various bits of info have emerged from the police, backing their claims on JC. However, how do we know that there is evidence uncoverd since then, that actually points away from JC? Evidence that the police choose not to reveal.

After all, the police are not duty bound to reveal that info to anyone but do choose to reveal various pieces which point towards JC!

The fact that HR (confirmed by his nephew), was not sure that it was SL at Shorrolds is one revelation ....

The police don't reveal anything unless it supports their investigation or is necessary for a greater risk concerning public safety or genuine concerns.

They won't ever give a running commentary.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

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

JC sounds pretty convincing in that video. How much evidence would need to be lacking before the CPS refuse to prosecute a case? If the police put forward their case to CPS they must have thought they have enough or they wouldn't have done so.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

With respect, you have no idea what the information was or its source.

Therefore how can you possibly make any assessment as to it's credibility.

Intelligence is graded based on the known reliability of the source and any information being corroborated from external sources.

It's not as straightforward as "SJL is buried under there"!

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they ignored a reliable source who provided information, which could be corroborated, no doubt folk would be up in arms about that!

The same could be said of MI5 assessing terrorist threats and deciding where to direct their resources. It's not an exact science and there are no guarantees.

These are real life decisions in the real world!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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?

Your post is somewhat confusing.

Who have the police never investigated or interviewed?

 

[WiseOwl]

DBM

 

[WiseOwl]

With respect, you have no idea what the information was or its source.

Therefore how can you possibly make any assessment as to it's credibility.

Intelligence is graded based on the known reliability of the source and any information being corroborated from external sources.

It's not as straightforward as "SJL is buried under there"!

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they ignored a reliable source who provided information, which could be corroborated, no doubt you would be up in arms about that too!

The same could be said of MI5 assessing terrorist threats and deciding where to direct their resources. It's not an exact science and there are no guarantees.

These are real life decisions in the real world!

With repect, you have no idea what the information was either.

If the information passed on to the police was credible or reliable, then something would have been found at least at one of the sites.

Eight searches, five different places - nothing. At all.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

With repect, you have no idea what the information was either.

If the information passed on to the police was credible or reliable, then something would have been found at least at one of the sites.

Eight searches, five different places - nothing. At all.

I must be dreaming then.

I am very well versed in intelligence assessment and how such decisions to search are made.

I also know that what may be evaluated as reliable and credible can often result in a negative outcome when acted upon.....but it is better to act than not.

For some context and to aid better understanding I would urge you to read the reports on the reasons why police have recently carried out searches for the body of Keith Bennett on Saddleworth Moor.

The source was deemed reliable and the information credible.

** Nothing found **

Then again that's the real world for you!

 

[Crusader21]

Please forgive me for going (slightly) off-topic, but any one know if there is a PR type department within British policing?

Where employees work to put a positive spin on unsolved cases in the press etc, possibly even using social media, chat forums etc towards this goal?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Please forgive me for going (slightly) off-topic, but any one know if there is a PR type department within British policing?

Where employees work to put a positive spin on unsolved cases in the press etc, possibly even using social media, chat forums etc towards this goal?

Each force will have a communications department.

Their role is not to spin but to provide the link between the force and the media.

The press officers in the force will often have a background in journalism, communicatiions and media etc., so they understand how the media operate and can therefore advise senior officers in their dealings with the news organisations.

P.S. The communications team will also manage the force social media accounts.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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

JC sounds pretty convincing in that video. How much evidence would need to be lacking before the CPS refuse to prosecute a case? If the police put forward their case to CPS they must have thought they have enough or they wouldn't have done so.

Watch the ITV drama 'Manhunt' about serial killer Levi Bellfeild.

It shows perfectly the relationship between the SIO and the CPS Chief Prosecutor in terms of the evidential standard being reached for a charge to be authorised.

 

[WiseOwl]

I must be dreaming then.

I am very well versed in intelligence assessment and how such decisions to search are made.

I also know that what may be evaluated as reliable and credible can often result in a negative outcome when acted upon.....but it is better to act than not.

For some context and to aid better understanding I would urge you to read the reports on the reasons why police have recently carried out searches for the body of Keith Bennett on Saddleworth Moor.

The information was deemed reliable and the information credible.

** Nothing found **

Then again that's the real world for you!

I would urge you to read the views of Keith's brother, Alan Bennett, on what he thought of the 'credible' information given to the police by the author, amateur sleuth and conman Russell Edwards.

Why did the GMP accept his evidence - on what basis did they believe he was providing them with reliable information?

Just a couple of days into the GMP's dig for Keith's remains, Alan had already called Edwards' bluff. The GMP did not say anything until Friday, when they admitted nothing had been found.

Alan Bennett was way ahead of them.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I would urge you to read the views of Keith's brother, Alan Bennett, on what he thought of the 'credible' information given to the police by the author, amateur sleuth and conman Russell Edwards.

Why did the GMP accept his evidence - on what basis did they believe he was providing them with reliable information?

Just a couple of days into the GMP's dig for Keith's remains, Alan had already called Edwards' bluff. The GMP did not say anything until Friday, when they admitted nothing had been found.

Alan Bennett was way ahead of them.

And you post supports my point entirely.

That the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

In reality what other option did they have other than to act on the information?

It's easy to throw mud when you're not the one dealing with a families, communities or countries expectations.

Have you worked in public service?

 

[RichardKimble]

And you post supports my point entirely.

That the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

In reality what other option did they have other than to act on the information?

It's easy to throw mud when you're not the one dealing with a families, communities or countries expectations.

Have you worked in public service?

But who's interest were being served ,not Alan Bennetts it would seem.

 

[RichardKimble]

With repect, you have no idea what the information was either.

If the information passed on to the police was credible or reliable, then something would have been found at least at one of the sites.

Eight searches, five different places - nothing. At all.

Coupled with JC and Sl can't be placed together, does not lack of evidence point away from JC.

 

[WiseOwl]

And you post supports my point entirely.

That the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

In reality what other option did they have other than to act on the information?

It's easy to throw mud when you're not the one dealing with a families, communities or countries expectations.

No it doesn't support your point at all.

Alan Bennett knew Edwards was a conman, he smelt him a mile off.

Why didn't the GMP?

Also, Edwards had shown the GMP a photograph of the site where he had said he had found a jawbone, as well as other items. When the police arrived at the site Edwards had pointed out, none of the items in the photograph were there, yet they decided to carry on with the dig. Why did they not contact Edwards and ask him what had happened to the items he had shown them in the photograph before they carried on?

Edwards still hasn't given an explanation of what happened to these items.

 

[WestLondoner]

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 ....

This. If the case for this being JC is what's out there in the public domain it's pitiful. If the police have more, better information, how are we to know what else isn't being disclosed (about other leads, for example) and why don't the CPS buy it?

 

[WestLondoner]

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?

It was actually the police who said she had been there.

"Suzy left her office at about 12.45 yesterday lunchtime. And in her diary is an appointment to meet a client outside number 37 Shorrolds Road. We have a witness who says that he saw a fair-haired lady and this man leaving the property at about ten past one. And that is the last time she has been seen." - Det. Supt Nick Carter, senior investigating officer, press conference 29/7/1986

Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 16). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

HR only mentioned a fair-haired woman. It's an assumption that he saw SJL.