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

Status
Not open for further replies.

EddietheEagle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
176
I agree with you when you say it would have been critical in the timeline as to when MG first went to Shorrolds Road. However, MG would have told them that he didn't have a key to the property, so why did the police not visit Shorrolds Road that evening? Instead, they broke into Suzy's flat.

MG would also have told them about her diary entry for 37SR that day, and that she hadn't been seen since the so-called viewing that lunchtime. I don't understand why they left it to the following morning to visit the property, It should have been their first port of call.
Detectives went to Shorrolds Rd within minutes of her disappearance being reported at 6.45 pm, acting under an order to "enter and search" (Andrew Stephen page 10). A police guard was put on the door.
 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
7,145
Detectives went to Shorrolds Rd within minutes of her disappearance being reported at 6.45 pm, acting under an order to "enter and search" (Andrew Stephen page 10). A police guard was put on the door.

A power of entry afforded to every police officer, whether on or off duty, to "save life and limb or prevent serious damage to property".

Power from Section 17 (1(e)) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
 

asyousay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
6,182
Reaction score
18,926
Even if Suzy did go to Shorrolds Rd then if the witnesses are correct she left alive and well. So how does this man get her to go somewhere else?


My original thinking was he wanted to see more properties but then she wouldn’t have the keys to those deeds on her so that doesn’t work.
 

EddietheEagle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
176
It wasn't though. If it hadn't have been for JC being charged and remanded in custody for the attempted robbery in Leamington Spa in 29th October 1987, then JC would have been released on bail for the Shirley Banks murder as the evidence was all circumstantial.

It took until 23rd December until JC was charged with SB's abduction and murder as a result of SB's thumb print being found on a document in JC's flat.....a place he always denied she had been.

JMO
It's not "if" though, is it? He was caught and remanded. The Bristol police found a literal treasure trove of evidence, sufficient to convict Cannan for murder, including the fingerprint.

Cannan couldn't have been more clumsy. He left clues all over the place and, as I said, virtually handing the case to police on a plate.

The discovery of the tax disc and re-painted car alone would have been more than enough to keep Cannan temporarily locked away.
 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
7,145
It's not "if" though, is it? He was caught and remanded. The Bristol police found a literal treasure trove of evidence, sufficient to convict Cannan for murder, including the fingerprint.

Cannan couldn't have been more clumsy. He left clues all over the place and, as I said, virtually handing the case to police on a plate.

The discovery of the tax disc and re-painted car alone would have been more than enough to keep Cannan temporarily locked away.

You are fundamentally wrong in understanding the relevance of the evidence and how the arrest/charge/remand process operates.

Everything before the fingerprint was circumstantial evidence (the tax disc and the car in JC's garage).

It was not enough for the CPS to charge.

There is no temporarily locked away after the police custody time limit has expired, unless there is a charge and subsequent remand into prison custody.

If it hadn't been for the remand for the robbery in Warwickshire then JC would have been free to wander.

Only the later fingerprint of SB found in JC's flat provided the evidence required for JC to be brought from prison, re-interviewed about the fingerprint and then charged with the abduction and murder of SB.
 
Last edited:

Cherwell

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
6,337
Reaction score
15,606
It took until 23rd December until JC was charged with SB's abduction and murder as a result of SB's thumb print being found on a document in JC's flat.....a place he always denied she had been.

Just wondering about this. A document is a portable item, so how does it prove she was in his flat? Theoretically she could have handled it elsewhere.
 

EddietheEagle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
176
The crucial part of that would be around the time that SL was last seen, 24 hrs in a day so what is timeline he was seen there .
The "Real Crime" documentary from 2001 is well worth a re-visit, the contributions of Jim Dickie and Stewart Ault particularly revealing. Stewart Ault had Cannan well sussed having researched Cannan's interview behaviour from older videos. Note too, the likeness of Harry Riglin's photofit portraiture to Cannan in the dating agency video. It is uncanny in its accuracy.

Jim Dickie at 45.50: "We have evidence that can put John Cannan in the Fulham area the day Suzy Lamplugh went missing, the day prior to her going missing and in the Fulham area generally".

Cannan himself denies ever having been to Fulham. Why lie about something you don't need to?
 

Crusader21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
421
Reaction score
793
The crucial element circumstantially is that JC was known to be in Fulham.....which somewhat counters his assertion that he has never been to Fulham.

The police are unlikely to reveal how and why they know or the detail, to protect the confidentiality of the source and the investigation.
Yes Jim Dickey revealed that info in various media pieces.

I wonder what else can be revealed though to the public? Information which doesn't necessarily support the police hypothesis even but gives a fuller picture of what we know went on that day.

Of course, as long as it protects the confidentiality of the source and the investigation ....
 

EddietheEagle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
176
Just wondering about this. A document is a portable item, so how does it prove she was in his flat? Theoretically she could have handled it elsewhere.
He was trapped in the interview, admitting the document came from his flat before the fingerprint evidence was revealed to him.
 

Crusader21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
421
Reaction score
793
Note too, the likeness of Harry Riglin's photofit portraiture to Cannan in the dating agency video. It is uncanny in its accuracy.
I disagree.

Much has been made from victims of JCs 'piercing eyes'. Look at JCs eyebrows too for example.

But these stand out features aren't replicated in the photofit ...
 

Attachments

  • photo.jpg
    photo.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 21

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
7,145
Just wondering about this. A document is a portable item, so how does it prove she was in his flat? Theoretically she could have handled it elsewhere.

An excellent point. That's just why effective interview preparation and questioning technique is so vital.

Police identied a document from JC's flat that had a thumb print other than JC's. Police needed to see if it was SB's thumb print.

As SB's fingerprints were not in police records they had to build up a composite set, using items from her home and possibly work.

JC was asked about the ownership of the document. The questions were put in such a way that JC ultimately confirmed that the document was from his flat and had been there from a time that pre-dated the abduction of SB.

Then police dropped the bombshell that they had found SB's thumb print on the document, which proved that she must have been in JC's flat at the time of the abduction. JC had previously denied that she had ever been there before. That's enough for a charge!
 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
7,145
I disagree.

Much has been made from victims of JCs 'piercing eyes'. Look at JCs eyebrows too for example.

But these stand out features aren't replicated in the photofit ...

A photofit is just like a statement, one person's observation/recollection of the events.

A photo fit is used to prompt others to come forward with possible names, or prompt memory from others who may have seen a similar looking male in the same area at the same time.

What it is not is evidential identification evidence. Discrepancies are perfectly legitimate as they are with witness statements.
 

Whitehall 1212

Verified Law Enforcement and SAR (UK)
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
1,886
Reaction score
7,145
He was trapped in the interview, admitting the document came from his flat before the fingerprint evidence was revealed to him.

Not so much trapped.....more led into a cul-de-sac gently by the hand.....from which there was no escape.
 

Crusader21

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2021
Messages
421
Reaction score
793
Police identied a document from JC's flat that had a thumb print other than JC's. Police needed to see if it was SB's thumb print.

As SB's fingerprints were not in police records they had to build up a composite set, using items from her home and possibly work.

JC was asked about the ownership of the document. The questions were put in such a way that JC ultimately confirmed that the document was from his flat and had been there from a time that pre-dated the abduction of SB.

Then police dropped the bombshell that they had found SB's thumb print on the document, which proved that she must have been in JC's flat at the time of the abduction. JC had previously denied that she had ever been there before. That's enough for a charge!
How can you possibly know all that to be exactly what happened?
 

EddietheEagle

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
88
Reaction score
176
You are fundamentally wrong in understanding the relevance of the evidence and how the arrest/charge/remand process operates.

Everything before the fingerprint was circumstantial evidence (the tax disc and the car in JC's garage).

It was not enough for the CPS to charge.

There is no temporarily locked away after the police custody time limit has expired, unless there is a charge and subsequent remand into prison custody.

If it hadn't been for the remand for the robbery in Warwickshire then JC would have been free to wander.

Only the later fingerprint of SB found in JC's flat provided the evidence required for JC to be brought from prison, re-interviewed about the fingerprint and then charged with the abduction and murder of SB.
I disagree. He was also charged with thieving Shirley Banks car. That was done, clearly, as a tactic to hold him. Whether the Leamington charges were necessary on top of that is a matter of conjecture and opinion on your part. This was a serious murder case and the police were closing in. There was no question of Cannan getting bail at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top