UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

[susie sixpence]

We need to get back on the Suzy thread now. If you want to talk about Claudia please join the main Claudia thread

 

[RichardKimble]

We need to get back on the Suzy thread now. If you want to talk about Claudia please join the main Claudia thread

Indeed, but it goes to show , many suspects or just one with out a damning piece of evidence it can't proceed to court.

 

[StillDiggin]

Not good news.

Sex killer suspected of murdering missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh making appeal for freedom next week

A SEX killer suspected of murdering missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh is making an appeal for freedom next week. Evil John Cannan, 68, will appear before a Parole Board panel on Monday at Full Sut…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[RichardKimble]

Not good news.

Sex killer suspected of murdering missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh making appeal for freedom next week

A SEX killer suspected of murdering missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh is making an appeal for freedom next week. Evil John Cannan, 68, will appear before a Parole Board panel on Monday at Full Sut…

www.thesun.co.uk

It'll be interesting to hear after being named suspect in Suzi case whether they take the view he's involved .Granting a hearing must show some doubt into it imo.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Well it'll move the situation forward instead of the police saying he did it when they don't have anything to go on.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It'll be interesting to hear after being named suspect in Suzi case whether they take the view he's involved .Granting a hearing must show some doubt into it imo.

Alleged offences have no bearing on the Parole Boards decision. They are only concerned with sentence imposed for the offences for which he was found guilty.

The decision will be based around his:

1. Conduct whilst in prison
2. Acceptance of guilt/remorse
3. Addressing his offending behaviour through attendance at sexual/violent offender workshops
4. Risk of re-offending with support from psychiatric/psychological reporting

I would be extremely concerned and very surprised if JC's application for transfer to an open prison is granted. No doubt Cruella Braverman and Dominic 'karate kid' Raab will have made their feelings clear!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well it'll move the situation forward instead of the police saying he did it when they don't have anything to go on.

Come now.....we all know the case is not as black and/or white as you assert....it is significantly more nuanced.....with much of what is known not in the public domain.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Indeed, but it goes to show , many suspects or just one with out a damning piece of evidence it can't proceed to court.

Many, in fact most cases proceed to court and secure guilty verdicts without 'damning'/smoking gun evidence being presented.

The reality of a Crown Court trial is how small details stack up to to persuade the jury of the defendants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.....i.e. certainty

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Come now.....we all know the case is not as black and/or white as you assert....it is significantly more nuanced.....with much of what is known not in the public domain.

What do you mean 'what is known not in the public domain'?

 

[WestLondoner]

We have heard a lot of pure wind from various armchairs to the effect that searching the PoW was neither necessary or possible. Oddly enough, it turns out the actual police don't agree, and have searched it anyway, albeit 36 years late.

The fact that the police have done this shows that privately, even they're not actually all that convinced it was Cannan after all. He's the only suspect mainly because thanks to the quality of the 1986 investigation they've no others. Meanwhile, however, they haven't persuaded the CPS he did it, and if they're tacitly prepared to admit that it might have been someone at the PoW, they clearly aren't too persuaded by their decades-ex-post circumstantial case. Cannan's parole hearing only needs to consider balance-of-probabilities evidence of other crimes, but TBF, the evidence against him on this one appears unlikely to reach even that standard. It's negligible.

I'm not sure which of the spurious "sightings" is my personal favourite. The woman whose brother watched the Shirley Banks trial in 1989, remembered that he'd seen the accused three years before and also the day, date, time, and location, claimed he saw him dropping a suitcase into four feet of water and the police now have no record of it - she is a strong contender. The one who "remembered", fifteen years later, that he saw Cannan staring in Sturgis' window on Sunday 27th July is also a doozie, and in either case you just gag to ask them what other details they can remember about what they saw in 1986.

But perhaps the best of all is HR himself, who never identified SJL at all and had no idea whom he saw or when.

 

[RichardKimble]

Many, in fact most cases proceed to court and secure guilty verdicts without 'damning'/smoking gun evidence being presented.

The reality of a Crown Court trial is how small details stack up to to persuade the jury of the defendants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.....i.e. certainty

The recent case of the killing from 30 yrs ago was only solved because of the smoking gun of his DNA, no such thing exist's in the SLP case .

 

[RichardKimble]

Come now.....we all know the case is not as black and/or white as you assert....it is significantly more nuanced.....with much of what is known not in the public domain.

Yet those nuances haven't convinced the CPS .

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What do you mean 'what is known not in the public domain'?

As it says.

As with any investigation, the police only share externally what is absolutely necessary to engender assistance from the public.

The vast majority of the investigative material will not have been disclosed beyond those with a need to know.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We have heard a lot of pure wind from various armchairs to the effect that searching the PoW was neither necessary or possible. Oddly enough, it turns out the actual police don't agree, and have searched it anyway, albeit 36 years late.

The fact that the police have done this shows that privately, even they're not actually all that convinced it was Cannan after all. He's the only suspect mainly because thanks to the quality of the 1986 investigation they've no others. Meanwhile, however, they haven't persuaded the CPS he did it, and if they're tacitly prepared to admit that it might have been someone at the PoW, they clearly aren't too persuaded by their decades-ex-post circumstantial case. Cannan's parole hearing only needs to consider balance-of-probabilities evidence of other crimes, but TBF, the evidence against him on this one appears unlikely to reach even that standard. It's negligible.

I'm not sure which of the spurious "sightings" is my personal favourite. The woman whose brother watched the Shirley Banks trial in 1989, remembered that he'd seen the accused three years before and also the day, date, time, and location, claimed he saw him dropping a suitcase into four feet of water and the police now have no record of it - she is a strong contender. The one who "remembered", fifteen years later, that he saw Cannan staring in Sturgis' window on Sunday 27th July is also a doozie, and in either case you just gag to ask them what other details they can remember about what they saw in 1986.

But perhaps the best of all is HR himself, who never identified SJL at all and had no idea whom he saw or when.

I doubt if the police had grounds to apply for a search warrant to undertake a search.

It is more likely that permission was given by the owners of the property and that the search was entirely voluntary. In this instance the police could have been asked to leave at any stage.

I suspect that DV's antics were somewhat infuriating the pub owners and they wanted the speculation put to bed.

Voluntary search and using lawful power to search are chalk and cheese!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yet those nuances haven't convinced the CPS .

Your assertion that 'damning evidence' is a requirement is incorrect.

Many murder cases result in convictions when no smoking gun exists (conclusive DNA, crime scene etc). As an example check out the murder of Lindsay Birbeck.

 

[shadwell]

I doubt if the police had grounds to apply for a search warrant to undertake a search.

It is more likely that permission was given by the owners of the property and that the search was entirely voluntary. In this instance the police could have been asked to leave at any stage.

I suspect that DV's antics were somewhat infuriating the pub owners and they wanted the speculation put to bed.

Voluntary search and using lawful power to search are chalk and cheese!

Are we sure the PoW has actually been searched? The only source is a blog - any mention of which is apparently guaranteed to get a WS post removed (not considered a valid source). I’ve certainly seen no mention from DV.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Are we sure the PoW has actually been searched? The only source is a blog - any mention of which is apparently guaranteed to get a WS post removed (not considered a valid source). I’ve certainly seen no mention from DV.

Quite correct. No conclusive proof had been provided and the press haven't latched onto it either.....maybe a red herring to silence DV.

 

[WestLondoner]

Interestingly, the blog's own source was a researcher who works with the blog who made a personal visit to the PoW. So s/he had it from the horse's mouth that the pub has been searched. It's good enough for me.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I doubt if the police had grounds to apply for a search warrant to undertake a search.

It is more likely that permission was given by the owners of the property and that the search was entirely voluntary. In this instance the police could have been asked to leave at any stage.

I suspect that DV's antics were somewhat infuriating the pub owners and they wanted the speculation put to bed.

Voluntary search and using lawful power to search are chalk and cheese!

I sincerely doubt the police go around searching places on the request of private premises just checking there's no dead bodies lying around. Do they?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Interestingly, the blog's own source was a researcher who works with the blog who made a personal visit to the PoW. So s/he had it from the horse's mouth that the pub has been searched. It's good enough for me.

There are too many uncertainties and no verifiable proof that police have undertaken any recent activity at the PoW.

In any event the term 'search' has a multitude of possibilities in respect of its authority, nature and extent.

The whole nature of this thread revolves around doubt and veracity of information.

Unless credible, reliable and verifiable information concerning a search at the PoW is produced then common sense tells me to treat it with significant reservation.