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

[Circulo]

Blimey! Apologies, people.. *embarrassed*

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So is there any reason why the police didn't check with the GPR in the searches at Sutton Coldfield in 2003 & 2004?

Where are we going with this? The search has ruled out that SJL is concealed at the JC's mother's former home address.

The why's are wherefores are moot.

The extent and nature of the searches were obviously dependant on the information available at the time.

The extent of the search has to be proportionate and not excessive....it can't be a fishing trip for reasons of investigative integrity and financial cost

For example, you can't execute a warrant based on information of stolen 60" TV's being stored and go rooting through someone's drawers.....as 60" TV's can't be concealed in a draw....yes it's that precise.

As a result if you find a stash of drugs in that there draw, that you had no lawful right to be searching, then it's been found unlawfully and is therefore inadmissible as evidence......and without the evidence there's no offence.....or arrest. Of course you can try it, but any decent lawyer will be on it like a dog with a bone.....and wanting compensation for unlawful arrest and detention too

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Blimey! Apologies, people.. *embarrassed*

Don't be. All learning points are good.

The best mantra is.....trust nothing, question everything.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Blimey! Apologies, people.. *embarrassed*

IMO it's the nature of this entire case - there's a narrative put out and heavily implied in so many different ways by dint of mainstream media editorial manipulation. This is a perfect example where there's nothing factual presented to substantiate the suggested claims. It raises far more questions than it solves for me personally.

 

[WiseOwl]

Where are we going with this? The search has ruled out that SJL is concealed at the JC's mother's former home address.

The why's are wherefores are moot.

The extent and nature of the searches were obviously dependant on the information available at the time.

It extent of the search has to be proportionate and not excessive....it can't be a fishing trip for reasons of investigative integrity and financial cost.

It's to do with information.

We keep hearing about how the police have information on how JC is linked with Suzy, links with Fulham, the Pow, etc. As you so rightly say, they will not tell Joe Public what their source of information is.

However, I have just read the following BBC article, dated 18 October 2018:

Suzy Lamplugh: Police search Sutton Coldfield house

A house in Birmingham is being searched in connection with the estate agent's murder in 1986.

www.bbc.co.uk

In it is information on the seven searches that have been made for Suzy's body since 2000:

2000 & 2001 - Norton Barracks

2001 - Quantock Hills

2003 & 2004 - Shipton Road, Sutton Coldfield

2010 - Drakes Broughton

2018 - Shipton Road, Sutton Coldfield.

Now the police would have, i am sure, acted on some information they had received in relation to all these searches - i'm pretty sure they would not have acted on a whim.

So why in all of the searches has their sources of information yielded nothing - no body, no items of clothing, absolutely nothing at all linking JC to the crime

Why then, would any information they may have linking JC to the crime, be any more feasible than the information they acted on when searching the above mentioned places?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IMO it's the nature of this entire case - there's a narrative put out and heavily implied in so many different ways by dint of mainstream media editorial manipulation. This is a perfect example where there's nothing factual presented to substantiate the suggested claims. It raises far more questions than it solves for me personally.

Don't listen to any narratives then!

Only take into account the evidence and objectively assess the weight of each piece of evidence in terms of its source, integrity, credibility, corroboration and its relationship to the other evidence.

The big issue here is clear.....it is what people mistakenly believe evidence must be in terms of having to stand entirely on its own merits and being flawless.

The big problem here is one of interpretation. Follow some contentious court trials and see how the evidence is presented and cross-examined, then things will become clearer, I would hope.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's to do with information.

We keep hearing about how the police have information on how JC is linked with Suzy, links with Fulham, the Pow, etc. As you so rightly say, they will not tell Joe Public what their source of information is.

However, I have just read the following BBC article, dated 18 October 2018:

Suzy Lamplugh: Police search Sutton Coldfield house

A house in Birmingham is being searched in connection with the estate agent's murder in 1986.

www.bbc.co.uk

In it is information on the seven searches that have been made for Suzy's body since 2000:

2000 & 2001 - Norton Barracks

2001 - Quantock Hills

2003 & 2004 - Shipton Road, Sutton Coldfield

2010 - Drakes Broughton

2018 - Shipton Road, Sutton Coldfield.

Now the police would have, i am sure, acted on some information they had received in relation to all these searches - i'm pretty sure they would not have acted on a whim.

So why in all of the searches has their sources of information yielded nothing - no body, no items of clothing, absolutely nothing at all linking JC to the crime

Why then, would any information they may have linking JC to the crime, be any more feasible than the information they acted on when searching the above mentioned places?

1. We know that JC had strong connections with AND opportunity to deposit SJL's body in your listed areas. He had either used or indicated the locations or there was additional supporting information.

THIS CONNECTION AND OPPORTUNITY ARE KEY FACTORS IN THE DECISION TO SEARCH.

2. Two of the locations had information regarding ground disturbance during relevant periods.....some quite specific (Drakes Broughton, and JC's mothers former home).

3. Norton Camp in Somerset was close to the SB deposition site and was an interpretation of the SLP386S number plate.

4. JC's known association with, and opportunity to use these locations together with the additional information regarding ground disturbance or 386 interpretation, additionally supported the grounds for those searches.

5. I suspect that no search warrants were required as the landowners co-operated with the requests.

So it's far more than a hunch but often less than an certainty. It is driven by relevant, factual information, with senior officers discussing the decision at length and factoring in the cost too.

Not everything is black and white. I would say that relevant investigative experience, detailed knowledge of JC and relevant National Crime Agency data is also quite critical in assessing the decisions on search.

If a magistrates search warrant is required then the grounds for search and consideration of the impact on the wider community will be tested vigorously by the Magistrate.

<modsnip>

 

[Pinkizzy]

Compare "James Galway" and John Cannan hailing a taxi in "The man who killed Suzy?" Both are carrying a plastic bag and attract the taxi with their other hand

 

[WestLondoner]

Now the police would have, i am sure, acted on some information they had received in relation to all these searches - i'm pretty sure they would not have acted on a whim.

They seem to have acted on banter from JC.

 

[RichardKimble]

Where are we going with this? The search has ruled out that SJL is concealed at the JC's mother's former home address.

The why's are wherefores are moot.

Why are they moot, obviously the intelligence that led to those searches was wrong, failure to find any evidence bears that out, they didn't come cheap either I'd surmise, point being what else about JC being the only suspect is wrong, you yourself has pointed out the CPS wouldn't prosecute because no direct link between JC and SL can be found, maybe because there's none .

 

[WestLondoner]

Why are they moot, obviously the intelligence that led to those searches was wrong, failure to find any evidence bears that out, they didn't come cheap either I'd surmise, point being what else about JC being the only suspect is wrong, you yourself has pointed out the CPS wouldn't prosecute because no direct link between JC and SL can be found, maybe because there's none .

This.

There are people who think there's a monster in Loch Ness. There is no evidence for one. At some point, most rational people conclude that the reason there's no evidence is that there's no monster.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes. Come on now WiseOwl, accept and stick to the official line and don't think for yourself. Thank you!

Hey, at least it involves evidence and lacks delusion....win/win I'd say

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Why are they moot, obviously the intelligence that led to those searches was wrong, failure to find any evidence bears that out, they didn't come cheap either I'd surmise, point being what else about JC being the only suspect is wrong, you yourself has pointed out the CPS wouldn't prosecute because no direct link between JC and SL can be found, maybe because there's none .

The intelligence was valid.

The intelligence was of sufficient strength to indicate that the body of SJL MAYBE found at the locations...NOT definitely.

ALL the evidence points towards JC, none points away. JD has confirmed this.

Direct evidence in this case would fall to a forensic link between SJL and JC. For this to be realised SJL's body needed to be found.

The delusion by many here is that police only focused on one narrative....that is totally incorrect.

Many other hypotheses were explored, many known offenders were investigated....ALL were eliminated!

The only line of enquiry remaining and where ALL the evidence pointed was JC.

Some denounce the investigation but can neither support it or undermine the case for JC, with any evidence.

The police certainly couldn't find any to rebut that JC was the 'only suspect'.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Compare "James Galway" and John Cannan hailing a taxi in "The man who killed Suzy?" Both are carrying a plastic bag and attract the taxi with their other hand

It would depend what side of the street I was stood on and what direction I was intended to travel to what hand I used to hail the taxi.
JMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This.

There are people who think there's a monster in Loch Ness. There is no evidence for one. At some point, most rational people conclude that the reason there's no evidence is that there's no monster.

You mean in the same way that there is no evidence of anyone other than JC, being the 'only suspect'....even after police explored many other hypotheses and offenders and eliminated them all?

AND YET

we still have those poor deluded Nessie hunters who just cannot let go, inspite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Oh dear, oh dear

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Compare "James Galway" and John Cannan hailing a taxi in "The man who killed Suzy?" Both are carrying a plastic bag and attract the taxi with their other hand

Why are you asserting that screenplay in a documentary is factually correct?

It is just a reconstruction with licence to interpret for effect. It is NOT fact and should never be treated as such.

This is why errors creep into the evidential picture.

 

[EddietheEagle]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Hi, Whitehall 1212. A general query: I would like to know whether scope exists within the prison/parole rules for an imprisoned criminal like JC - who appears to be nearing his end - to be granted privileges or supervised freedom in exchange for revealing his secrets? Presumably a Home Secretary could order such an approach.

I'm a very basic student of this case, having the same access to sources as, I guess, most of us here: the AS and Berry-Dee books; documentaries; blogs etc. I haven't read DV's book yet because of its aliens-are-here approach, but I've gone back into some newspaper archives and copied the more informative articles, from the Evening Standard particularly, durng the ensuing 2-3 year period after July 1986. You get closer e.g. to what Harry Riglin actually saw and said at the time. Beyond that, I don't know what else there is to usefully uncover. It seems we're near the end of discoverable information now. Some forum speculation now appears rooted in imagination more than fact and the discussion flies off at tangents accordingly. My question is, how can a case be sensibly progressed given the absence of fresh information, definitively solved in some way ideally, without the assistance of the perpetrator himself?

 

[EddietheEagle]

Why are you asserting that screenplay in a documentary is factually correct?

It is just a reconstruction with licence to interpret for effect. It is NOT fact and should never be treated as such.

This is why errors creep into the evidential picture.

I think some of the reconstructions become regarded as factually true partly because of the cameo appearances of the actual persons involved e.g. Nick Bryant, DCI Saunders acting themselves.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Why are you asserting that screenplay in a documentary is factually correct?

It is just a reconstruction with licence to interpret for effect. It is NOT fact and should never be treated as such.

This is why errors creep into the evidential picture.

The taxi driver confirmed that JC was "James Gallway"...

 

[Cluesleuth]

The taxi driver confirmed that JC was "James Gallway"...

Could you post the link to this please