UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Whitehall 1212]

It might have taken a week after Suzy disappeared for BW to give a statement, but for all we know she could have contacted the police the day after she went missing.

Didn't they interview something like 1,600 people during the investigation? I doubt very much that if you contacted the police with any information about Suzy at the time that they would be able to speak to you straight away - it could well take a week before they got round to taking a statement or before it was released to the public.

And police would have taken the statement straight away as she knew SJL and that would potentially be a significant lead.

It would jump to the top of the queue.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It’s also extremely difficult to make a statement to the police if they’re not interested in what you have to say.

In general, not specific to this case ~ a situation that has been vastly improved by the age of the internet and more people knowing their rights and being informed of correct channels and also online police contact forms.

You cannot make an evidential statement via the internet. It has to be taken in person by someone who is trained to do so.

 

[WiseOwl]

And police would have taken the statement straight away as she knew SJL and that would potentially be a significant lead.

It would jump to the top of the queue.

There could be many reasons why it took a week for BW's sighting to become public, we have no way of knowing exactly when she first contacted the police.

IMO it would not have been the very same day that the police spoke to her.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IMO it would not have been the very same day that the police spoke to her

BW went into the police station and the statement was taken then! See post #1205!

If BW had phoned police instead and said she knew SJL personally and saw her in a car with a man that day, then it would have been treated as a priority.....no delay......as it could be a significant lead in the investigation.

As each call comes into an incident room it is prioritised by an experienced Detective Sergeant and then allocated to a detective for action.

Because of impact of witness recall over time, such witnesses are seen within hours, not days.

 

[Crusader21]

Unfortunately there are often differences in what should happen and what actually does happen, we are all human ...

 

[Whitehall 1212]

How do we know HR saw anyone at all?

Because his sighting was corroborated and the diary supports a meeting there.

Such a question could be applied to any witness if one is running out of ideas to challenge the evidence.

It's akin to the analogy that those who can't compete will endeavour to play the man not the ball. i.e. it's a cheap shot

Hopefully an analogy that even non-sporting types will understand.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Unfortunately there are often differences in what should happen and what actually does happen, we are all human ...

Organsiations which manage major operations are aware of this, which is why they have systems in place to prevent individuals from having sole oversight, a system of checks and balances and continuous learning from experience.

The airline industry is just such an example.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Isn't the point that the timing might be off due to the witness being a little unreliable or mistaken?

The times given by HR will have been explored by the detective during the taking of the statement to understand HR's reasoning for his timings.

This is standard practice and I'm sure you would be surprised how we as individuals can identify a time period that something occurred by working backwards and forwards through our day and what took place around the time in question.

Many witnesses can be very precise as they have specific reasons to remember what time an incident occurred.

Establishing this accuracy and the reasons for such confidence in the statement is critical for a court trial. Otherwise the defence may endeavour to demonstrate that the witness cannot be sure of the time and that alone may make them appear to be an unreliable witness.

 

[WiseOwl]

BW went into the police station and the statement was taken then! See post #1205!

If BW had phoned police instead and said she knew SJL personally and saw her in a car with a man that day, then it would have been treated as a priority.....no delay......as it could be a significant lead in the investigation.

As each call comes into an incident room it is prioritised by an experienced Detective Sergeant and then allocated to a detective for action.

Because of impact of witness recall over time, such witnesses are seen within hours, not days.

Where does it say on post #1205 what day BW went into the police station?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Where does it say on post #1205 what day BW went into the police station?

The quote from AS p.52

 

[Cherwell]

The point is that BW knew SJL.....so why wait a week with all the publicity? Would you....if you were in that situation?

What's your source for the statement that she waited a week?
AS refers to "the previous Monday" but that doesn't tell us how many days had elapsed. She could have spoken to the police later in the same week or even the day after, and Monday of that week would still have been "previous".

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What's your source for the statement that she waited a week?
AS refers to "the previous Monday" but that doesn't tell us how many days had elapsed. She could have spoken to the police later in the same week or even the day after, and Monday of that week would still have been "previous".

Better to wait a week than 14 years like some other witness did!

It was in response to @WiseOwl's post which was in response to my post where I said WS approached police a few days days later, which I 'believed' was up to a week.

It was not stated as fact.

 

[Cherwell]

It was in response to @WiseOwl's post which was in response to my post where I said WS approached police a few days days later, which I 'believed' was up to a week.

It was not stated as fact.

OK, so the bottom line is we don't know when she approached the police. Nothing to see here then

 

[WestLondoner]

OK, so the bottom line is we don't know when she approached the police. Nothing to see here then

Yep. As we have observed before, it's important to be familiar with the facts and sources. Opinionating from a position of no knowledge doesn't generally advance many discussions whatever they happen to be about.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

OK, so the bottom line is we don't know when she approached the police. Nothing to see here then

Incorrect! I knew I had assessed previously that it was a few days and possibly a week, I just had to be certain it was in the public domain.

Having reviewed AS p. 50-53, it is clear by deduction that BW went to the police station on Friday 1st August....four days after SJL disappeared.

It was the day before the gathering at the Lamplugh's (Saturday 2nd August), of family, friends, police, which was essentially a mass brain storming session, where any nuggets of information could be passed onto the investigation team.

 

[Cherwell]

Incorrect! I knew I had assessed previously that it was a few days and possibly a week, I just couldn't recall where from.

Having reviewed AS p. 50-53, it is clear by deduction that WS went to the police station on Friday 1st August....four days after SJL disappeared.

It was the day before the gathering at the Lamplugh's (Saturday 2nd August), of family, friends, police, which was essentially a mass brain storming session, where any nuggets of information could be passed on to the investigation team.

I think we must be at cross-purposes here. I was referring to BW. Who is WS?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yep. As we have observed before, it's important to be familiar with the facts and sources. Opinionating from a position of no knowledge doesn't generally advance many discussions whatever they happen to be about.

Of course some have a far deeper knowledge and understanding that can't be disclosed. Nevertheless, they can still judge what others say based on that deeper knowledge and understanding and make a valid assessment of those who claim to have superiority.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I think we must be at cross-purposes here. I was referring to BW. Who is WS?

BW - too many initials for my liking!

 

[Cluesleuth]

The thing about the 'Kipper = MG' possibility is that if you look at what AS wrote in 1988, it was put to the police in 1987.

"When viewers of Crimewatch phoned to say that Gurdon looked similar to the photofit picture of Mr Kipper, the detectives merely laughed.' (p130)

He doesn't write that this possible misidentification was investigated and ruled out; instead, detectives just laughed and it wasn't taken seriously at all. What else was laughed at? What was not laughed at that should have been?

Men at that time followed a similar hair and clothing style particularly those in business. Photos of NH and JC never appeared in any tv or newspapers perhaps if they did then the public may have thought that they also resembled Mr Kipper.

 

[WestLondoner]

I think we must be at cross-purposes here. I was referring to BW. Who is WS?

World Series? Work Safe? Websleuths?