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.
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.
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.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
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.
It looks like in main too many procedural errors to bring to court? NB: above.
I'm curious about where the Fiesta was heading. Let's assume BW was right and that was SL. She claims she recognised her, not just the car.
BW said she seen SL at 2.45pm with mystery man/mr kipper driving up FPR, this is 2 hrs after viewing 37SR. if mr kipper set a trap for SL to walk into he would have his own schedule to meet. he would not be driving around with her 2 hrs later, and risk being seen by a witness like BW.
SL driving to stevenage rd after leaving the office does not make sense. to me her car was ditched there later on that day, possibly early evening. why else would it be parked in a hurry. because time is getting on. he then picks up his own vehicle around the corner from stevenage rd, and back tracks to the location where he has SL held captive.
it was more difficult to pin down JC movements because it was the 1980s. no cctv, cell towers, etc. if cctv did exist back then, what would it have shown. what route was SL taken on.
The issue being that the car was seen parked there for quite some time throughout the day, and as early at 12.30pm IIRC?
yes, i agree about car being ditched on stevenage rd. it was facing the large yellow sturgis for sale sign. across the road from the sturgis sign. this location was chosen in advance by mr kipper which means he knew 123 stevenage rd was for sale, and the sturgis for sale sign was already up outside the property.
it was badly parked, but it was not blocking mr mahon from getting in.
True. Although I think the tech there to do some forensic type accounting.
original investigation does not mention SL wearing any hat that day. i doubt she would wear a hat for a viewing. it would be distracting to the client in my opinion. the reconstruction showing SL wearing a hat was aired 14 yrs later, so i dont buy it.
Interesting article.Fulham Palace Road. If ‘Sue’ lived here likely not affluent. It’s interesting that JC told the police he didn’t know Fulham at all & had never been. That does make me suspicious.
Ah, just noted this ‘Sue’ from Peabody - ‘helping’ JC buy a house.
Technically, it’s more Hammersmith re: Peabody.
In the doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ all evidence seems to be twisted to favour JC although it’s very title suggests not objective!Have you seen it?
Ali L, in it, from SuperHire infers this ‘Su Su’ or ‘Sue’ was SL. She wasn’t as the police presumably knew.
www.peabodygroup.org.uk
Hi LSWFulham Palace Road. If ‘Sue’ lived here likely not affluent. It’s interesting that JC told the police he didn’t know Fulham at all & had never been. That does make me suspicious.
Ah, just noted this ‘Sue’ from Peabody - ‘helping’ JC buy a house.
Technically, it’s more Hammersmith re: Peabody.
In the doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ all evidence seems to be twisted to favour JC although it’s very title suggests not objective!
Ali L, in it, from SuperHire infers this ‘Su Su’ or ‘Sue’ was SL. She wasn’t as the police presumably knew.
