UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #8

[RichardKimble]

Point 1 - I understand. ‘Trial by media’.

Point 2 - The only way an investigation can progress is if it can be proven an earlier one didn’t make mistakes or lose clues?

What’s your interpretation here on point 2?

Thank you for posting this.

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored or didn't use clues from the first investigation, why? This is from JD himself , not another detective.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored evidence from the first investigation, why?

Thank you. JD in TMWKSL doc seemingly shows he’s unfamiliar with the 86 case, he gets details wrong. It seems the 86 case wasn’t reviewed in detailed & objective way? Did anyone re-scrutinise SL’s contact book. Why no effort or mention to find key joint purchaser? JD did computerise all early index cards.

JD has said he thinks first investigation poor & exhibits lost. Also there seems to be shock JC not noted as suspect from off & it feels almost as if SB abduction happened in parallel or before SL going missing. There’s a timeline confusion. Ofc JC should have come up as someone of interest from off but not so easy then.

I almost thought on point 2 JD was saying because of all ups first investigation made they couldn’t prosecute JC?

 

[RichardKimble]

Thank you. JD in TMWKSL doc seemingly shows he’s unfamiliar with the 86 case, he gets details wrong. It seems the 86 case wasn’t reviewed in detailed & objective way? Did anyone re-scrutinise SL’s contact book. Why no effort or mention to find key joint purchaser? JD did computerise all early index cards.

JD has said he thinks first investigation poor & exhibits lost. Also there seems to be shock JC not noted as suspect from off & it feels almost as if SB abduction happened in parallel or before SL going missing. There’s a timeline confusion. Ofc JC should have come up as someone of interest from off but not so easy then.

I almost thought on point 2 JD was saying because of all ups first investigation made they couldn’t prosecute JC?

It's the order he says it, point two being what the judge told them.What I take from that is, the CPS had presented both investigations to the judge and no doubt after much scrutiny the judge concluded his/ her findings that the second investigation hadn't considered some clues, quite possibly deciding a good defence would soon pick up on it, especially if said clues led elsewhere or not directly to JC.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored or didn't use clues from the first investigation, why? This is from JD himself , not another detective.

There’s a letter shown that points out the errors of ‘first’ (?) investigation but it’s not in July 86 days of Barley, Carter, Johnstone. Etc.

All the good information there & some leads feel lost to winds of time (?) Scrutinise contacts etc. BW.

It’s post JC arrest for SB…Hackett’s time (?)

Failure to interview JC under caution whilst in custody of Avon & Somerset Police.

Failure to stand JC on an identification parade.

Failure to debrief witness GP

Failure to search Norton Barracks

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It's the order he says it, point two being what the judge told them.What I take from that is, the CPS had presented both investigations to the judge and no doubt after much scrutiny the judge concluded his/ her findings that the second investigation hadn't considered some clues, quite possibly deciding a good defence would soon pick up on it, especially if said clues led elsewhere or not directly to JC.

It looks like in main too many procedural errors to bring to court? NB: above.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@WestLondoner Peabody Estate FPR from memory close to Hammersmith. Where BW saw fiesta headed (?)