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

[WestLondoner]

The pub being busy or not is checkable, but checkable =/= checked.

I can think of three ways of doing so. One is ask CV. Another is drop in unannounced the next Monday and see how empty or busy the place is.

The best way to check though would be to ask to see the takings.

I worked in pubs at that time and a recently refitted pub like the PoW would have had an up to date till system. With those I used, you loaded it with a cash float at the start of the shift and typically you had a swipe key to log in. When you sold a pint you rang it up and took the money - almost always cash in 1986, the odd cheque, credit cards rare - and at the end of the evening the till told you how much money should be in it. If it was down it was usually a small amount, because if you shortchanged a customer, they always challenged you whereas if you overchanged them they always said nothing and kept it. If a till was down a lot, management investigated because it could be theft, and they knew who'd logged in. The more usual form of theft as a result was to take the money but not ring up the sale, so a dishonest barman would steal the takings. It would only be noticed come the periodic stocktake, when more stock would be found to have gone than the till records showed had been sold.

Soooo, it would be simple to establish conclusively if the pub had been busy the day before. Given there was a handover we can be pretty sure the Sunday takings were counted in the stocktaking, so whatever more than that was still on the premises or went to the bank on Monday was lunchtime's takings - if any.

This of course is also why CV would have explainably left the pub that afternoon: takings to be got off the premises.

I wonder if anyone did that, or if CV was just asked if they were open and his answer accepted.

 

[WestLondoner]

There is zero evidence she went shopping though. There was never a question of Suzy simply getting up and leaving work to go off and run personal errands. From the little we know she was a model employee. Plus the evidence points towards her being at her appointment with eyewitnesses placing her there.


Has anybody ever come forward to place her at the POW?

Moo

No eyewitness placed her there. It was the police who did that and who then solicited confirmatory sightings. These were duly provided but still managed to contradict each other - broken nose scruffy suit, bottle of champagne. These were inconvenient so were explained away, as were all other sightings that contradicted the pet theory. It's not terribly persuasive.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, @WestLondoner ~ that’s the crux of my argument, checkable doesn’t mean checked.

Stating that one believes the police ’would have’ checked is simply a declaration of faith. Taking that one further to declare one’s belief and faith in them IS PROOF itself of the checking is logical fallacy.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

CV could have left the pub on numerous grounds ~ back in those days managers weren’t behind the bar much of a daytime. They start early to unlock for cleaners and staff arriving, had other stuff to do and left day time serving to staff.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes, @WestLondoner ~ that’s the crux of my argument, checkable doesn’t mean checked.

Stating that one believes the police ’would have’ checked is simply a declaration of faith. Taking that one further to declare one’s belief and faith in them IS PROOF itself of the checking is logical fallacy.

Not so.

The argument that the police didn't check properly because they haven't made public their checks and balances is preposterous.

It was a line of enquiry. It had to have been checked properly to rule it out. It had to have been updated in the SIO decision log, which will have been subject to inspection by the SIO's senior officers.

The CPS stated that no stone had been left unturned in the investigation. The CPS were a tertiary line of defence in all legitimate lines of enquiry being followed to exhaustion. They CPS very much do this in major enquiries and are very direct about unsatisfactory investigation.

What you are acknowledging is that you don't understand how the police investigate serious crime. For this reason you are totally misunderstanding the steps taken.

The PoW is akin to the Dodo.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

No eyewitness placed her there. It was the police who did that and who then solicited confirmatory sightings. These were duly provided but still managed to contradict each other - broken nose scruffy suit, bottle of champagne. These were inconvenient so were explained away, as were all other sightings that contradicted the pet theory. It's not terribly persuasive.

Far from the contradictions being explained away. To have variation in eye witness statements is perfectly natural and to be expected.

HR's first account provided a description of the smartly dressed male and appropriate timings.

The second witness described SJL standing by herself at the material times at the door to 37 SR and facing the street.

The third witness described the suited male with the champagne O/S 37 SR i/c with a female matching SJL's description.

These three sightings support the Sturgis diary and a fourth witness who saw two double parked white Ford Fiesta's in Shorrolds Road near to 37.

When it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

And then we have the PoW.....a location where there were no sightings of SJL or her car. Where she was due to attend sometime after 18:00, when the PoW opened and where detectives attended the morning after her disappearance and ruled out that SJL had been there.

So on the one hand we have a diary entry and witnesses in SR and on the other we have nothing to support SLJ going to the PoW.

I can smell the coffee.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes, @WestLondoner ~ that’s the crux of my argument, checkable doesn’t mean checked.

Stating that one believes the police ’would have’ checked is simply a declaration of faith. Taking that one further to declare one’s belief and faith in them IS PROOF itself of the checking is logical fallacy.

Line of enquiry 'eliminated', means checked double checked and triple checked with bells on.

Please understand that it does not mean a couple of suited and booted detectives having a five minute chinwag with CV and feeling suitably confident that all is well.

Such doubts are as a consequence of unfamiliarity with investigative procedures.

Familiarity with major crime investigation is acknowledging the attention to detail and how witnesses evidence is not taken at face value.

 

[WestLondoner]

CV could have left the pub on numerous grounds ~ back in those days managers weren’t behind the bar much of a daytime. They start early to unlock for cleaners and staff arriving, had other stuff to do and left day time serving to staff.

Yes, and the most obvious reason to leave the premises is to take the cash and cheques to the bank. You wanted cash off the premises altogether - this is why businesses are so keen now to give you cashback when you pay with a debit card - and the sooner you paid cheques in the sooner you were credited. Between this and the strong liklihood that the tills would record what was taken it would be straightforward on Tuesday 29/7/86 to prove if the pub had taken any money the previous lunchtime.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, and the most obvious reason to leave the premises is to take the cash and cheques to the bank. You wanted cash off the premises altogether - this is why businesses are so keen now to give you cashback when you pay with a debit card - and the sooner you paid cheques in the sooner you were credited. Between this and the strong liklihood that the tills would record what was taken it would be straightforward on Tuesday 29/7/86 to prove if the pub had taken any money the previous lunchtime.

In some pubs on a Monday the bank deposit run was very important as it had the whole of the weekend takings.

 

[Crusader21]

Something new and interesting on Sandra Court ...

Sandra Court Unsolved Murder

An Update from an informant

lolly-truecrime.medium.com

 

[WestLondoner]

Interesting, this always struck me as more JC's style. I liked the remark about JC being the go-to suspect in these cases. To paraphrase Voltaire, if JC didn't exist, the police would have to invent him.

 

[Cherwell]

He does seem to be rather inept for someone who has allegedly got away with so many crimes. He was caught for the Shirley Banks murder, another abduction and rape in Reading, plus another botched abduction attempt. Previously he had served a sentence for robbery and rape. He left semen stains at the Reading rape, and was identified by the victim of the failed attempt. So as for the series of house viewing rapes attributed to him, I find it hard to believe that he was the culprit. There would have been evidence.

I just can't see him being capable of pulling off a high-profile crime that would still be unsolved after 36 years.

 

[WestLondoner]

He does seem to be rather inept for someone who has allegedly got away with so many crimes. He was caught for the Shirley Banks murder, another abduction and rape in Reading, plus another botched abduction attempt. Previously he had served a sentence for robbery and rape. He left semen stains at the Reading rape, and was identified by the victim of the failed attempt. So as for the series of house viewing rapes attributed to him, I find it hard to believe that he was the culprit. There would have been evidence.

I just can't see him being capable of pulling off a high-profile crime that would still be unsolved after 36 years.

The series of house viewing rapes were so numerous that there had to have been some sightings of the perp, given how many victims there were. These are insinuated to point further at JC, but of course none has ever been hung on JC. I suspect it is known perfectly well roughly what this rapist looked like and he didn't look like JC.

The suggestion that there are other crimes he did and has got away with comes from JC himself, which seems like predictable psychopath banter.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The series of house viewing rapes were so numerous that there had to have been some sightings of the perp, given how many victims there were. These are insinuated to point further at JC, but of course none has ever been hung on JC. I suspect it is known perfectly well roughly what this rapist looked like and he didn't look like JC.

The suggestion that there are other crimes he did and has got away with comes from JC himself, which seems like predictable psychopath banter.

Do you know how many there were?

 

[Cherwell]

However many there were, the rapist posed as a bona fide house buyer, so his face must have been clearly seen by the victims. He could hardly turn up at the door in a balaclava or mask. Did they put Cannan in an ID parade? If they did, he can't have been picked out.

 

[WestLondoner]

C

However many there were, the rapist posed as a bona fide house buyer, so his face must have been clearly seen by the victims. He could hardly turn up at the door in a balaclava or mask. Did they put Cannan in an ID parade? If they did, he can't have been picked out.

Correct it is pretty clear that whoever this was cannot have been Cannan.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

However many there were, the rapist posed as a bona fide house buyer, so his face must have been clearly seen by the victims. He could hardly turn up at the door in a balaclava or mask. Did they put Cannan in an ID parade? If they did, he can't have been picked out.

I posted about a week ago on this very issue.

The key factors:

1. Poor witness recall of traumatic rape
2. Atrocious police attitude towards rape victims in 1970s
3. Poor evidence gathering (intimate exam and victim clothing)
4. No DNA forensic technology
5. Poor statement taking
6. Style of ID parade in 1970's (face-to-face), further traumatised victims/refused
7. Failure to identify at ID parade could destroy case - last resort and only if witness good

The key one is that the victims are often severely traumatised.

The 1970's were very different in terms of reporting and investigation.

All we can say is that investigation or rape and forensics was of such a poor standard in the 1970's that JC could have got away with the house-to-house rapes.

 

[Cherwell]

I posted about a week ago on this very issue.

The key factors:

1. Witness recall of traumatic rape
2. Atrocious police attitude towards rape victims in 1970s
3. Poor evidence gathering (intimate exam)
4. No DNA forensic technology
5. Poor statement taking
6. Style of ID parade in 1970's (face-to-face), further traumatised victims/refused
7. Failure to identify at ID parade could destroy case - last resort and only if witness good

The key one is that the victims are often severely traumatised.

The 1970's were very different in terms of reporting and investigation.

Point taken, but according to Wikipedia (yes, I know!) this was a series of 20 offences, and it seems unlikely that not one of them yielded any ID evidence.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Point taken, but according to Wikipedia (yes, I know!) this was a series of 20 offence and it seems unlikely that not one of them yielded any ID evidence.

Believe me it is very likely, rape investigation was so shocking then. If you don't believe me read this and if you can find the documentary watch it.....it's shameful.

Watching the detectives

A 1982 rape interview shamed the British police. No wonder they don't want it shown again.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Konstantin]

Point taken, but according to Wikipedia (yes, I know!) this was a series of 20 offences, and it seems unlikely that not one of them yielded any ID evidence.

After a quick look at Google there seems to be nothing on this series of rapes apart from the paragraph in Wikipedia, in the page on JC, whose only sourcing is a documentary about SJL (that I have not seen and so can't evaluate, in other words I don't know what the sourcing in the documentary is. Always look at the primary source, i.e. where the actual source information came from. Who made the claims about the series of rapes? Was this a well known set of cases at the time and where is the evidence that the police believed them to be linked? What geographical area were they carried out in).

Without further detail in the form of newspaper reports that discuss the cases and explain why they are thought to be linked, all this seems to be a bit of an urban myth.

On serial rapists--if you want to read about how hard they are to capture then I would really recommend the Night Stalker book about the horrific serial rapist who targeted very elderly women--and men.