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

[RichardKimble]

OCG strategy has been known to include corrupting police, the judicial process, HM prison service as well as using the influence within the Freemasons.

This will always be a real threat where serious and organised crime groups are involved.

The police departments that deal with offences involving OGC's, together with the NCA now have rigorous measures in place to prevent such compromise.

There is no indication that SJL was involved with OCG's and nothing to suggest that the SJL enquiry was corrupt.

I agree but it must be noted that the officers did and do belong to the same MET which as been described as corrupt and racist, Dick left because she was not up to the task of sorting it, we're off tangent here so back to the SL case.

 

[RichardKimble]

If there are serious, interested and capable bodies outside the police, happy to investigate a case gone cold, then why shouldn't they be given full rein?

That would set the cat among the pigeons!

I dare say a lot of the case information could be released without compromising any continuing police investigation. Predictably, the police would be highly resistant. It would require political intervention.

Worth a watch is the Ricky Neave case, the Mother was charged and found not guilty, the case was basically closed, only to be reopened last year I think it was , it emerged when the true murderer was found guilty ,the first case admitted to suspect bias. Maybe a complete new investigation should be needed but as long as JC is still alive that'll never happen.

 

[WiseOwl]

The Crimewatch Oct 1986 programme featuring the reconstruction was introduced by the presenter by saying that a lot of the facts had become obsurred by rumour and gossip.
The reconstruction being shown is based on entirely what is known.
The keys to 37 Shorrolds with its distinctive yellow key tag that Suzy had taken with her when she left the office was still missing.

I agree WiseOwl MG did not have the key when he visited 37SR that afternoon he knocked the door and looked through the window.

MOO

So if MG did not have the keys to 37SR then it seems logical that Suzy must have taken them.

The reconstruction took place in October 1986, do we know if the filming was actually done at 37SR? There is an indoor shot of MG peering through the letterbox, but the house looks lived in as there is a picture hanging on the wall.

 

[asyousay]

Agree. If we don’t have any evidence to support our theories no matter what we lean towards believing (which is ultimately a form of bias on all our behalves), how do we move forwards?

No sarcasm intended, genuine question.

We do a DV and decide to write a book?

 

[EddietheEagle]

The fallacy around the keys is a fatal flaw in Videcette's hypothesis.

You have Cannan acting alone and firmly in the frame for all the reasons given. Beyond that, there's a case imo, for arguing two accomplices carried out this crime. The known facts, particularly with the cars, become easier to squeeze into a single picture.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Worth a watch is the Ricky Neave case, the Mother was charged and found not guilty, the case was basically closed, only to be reopened last year I think it was , it emerged when the true murderer was found guilty ,the first case admitted to suspect bias. Maybe a complete new investigation should be needed but as long as JC is still alive that'll never happen.

Uncannily, I'm watching it now and was just about to make the observation about unconscious bias leading to tunnel vision and the need for hypotheses of every conceivable possibility to avoid the tunnel vision.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Worth a watch is the Ricky Neave case, the Mother was charged and found not guilty, the case was basically closed, only to be reopened last year I think it was , it emerged when the true murderer was found guilty ,the first case admitted to suspect bias. Maybe a complete new investigation should be needed but as long as JC is still alive that'll never happen.

As he is formally named as the only suspect, then what happens when he is deceased? Does anyone know?

 

[asyousay]

As he is formally named as the only suspect, then what happens when he is deceased? Does anyone know?

This is a good point. Does the case become closed?

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

This is a good point. Does the case become closed?

And will LE release more info?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

As he is formally named as the only suspect, then what happens when he is deceased? Does anyone know?

Good question.

The SJL case is unsolved without a conviction. Hence it will remain open.

New evidence may come to light which points away from JC. By releasing investigative detail then any future active investigation could be undermined.

This link may be of interest. The evidence was generally circumstantial but the defendant was found 'not guilty'

The unsolved murder of woman who is still unidentified after 40 years

An extensive murder inquiry brought one suspect to trial but a not guilty verdict - meaning the case remains unsolved

www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk

 

[asyousay]

So if they don’t close it’s a way to keep the evidence hidden from the public in simplistic terms?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So if they don’t close it’s a way to keep the evidence hidden from the public in simplistic terms?

When seeking a simplistic answer the essential detail is omitted. There is no simplistic in crime investigation.

Unsolved crimes always remain open to further investigation.

There is no right of access to police investigation material.

A Subject Access Request may be made by someone involved in the investigation, but only so far as their personal data is concerned. However, the police may refuse in certain instances and the enquirer could then apply for a court order for the information to be released. They may not succeed

The original subjects of the investigation, suspects, witnesses, experts etc all have personal lives, families, relations and friends.

The nature of a police investigation may include material on these people, which they would not wish to be in the public domain.....even for future generations.

Apart from the investigation still being open this is a secondary reason why the detail is kept confidential.

Although, trusted reputable journalists/writers may be afforded some access to the material, as we have seen with AS's book.

 

[Cluesleuth]

A lot of signs of stalking in this case as well: anonymous 'phone calls to Suzy at her flat and place of work, some answered by her flatmate (he reports on these in a Sunday Magazine article from 1988 which I have yet to unearth); flower bouquets delivered to the office and flat; someone staring in at her through the shop window.

It also can be interrupted as someone who is trying to perhaps manipulate her in some way 'beware the charmer' someone who injects himself into her life in a personal way flowers, dining out, grooming her for a specific reason, Im not thinking of JC here but more someone with an interest in property/finance maybe they did have connections to Bristol.

There was obviously someone around her at the time that she became uncomfortable with she confided in her Unlce that someone was leaning on her in a way she thought was wrong he said she was quite angry about it.
She told DL about someone who had become quite scary.

In my opinion this points to something connected to property and whatever she was being asked to do she was dead against and said no to. Could the conversation she had with people at the Sat nite party about £3,000 been a clue?
Had someone been trying to bribe her?
JMO

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is a good point. Does the case become closed?

Not necessarily.

 

[Cluesleuth]

So if they don’t close it’s a way to keep the evidence hidden from the public in simplistic terms?

Even if its closed it doesnt mean you can have access to case details.

 

[WiseOwl]

It also can be interrupted as someone who is trying to perhaps manipulate her in some way 'beware the charmer' someone who injects himself into her life in a personal way flowers, dining out, grooming her for a specific reason, Im not thinking of JC here but more someone with an interest in the property/finance maybe they did have connections to Bristol.

There was obviously someone around her at the time that she became uncomfortable with she confided in her Unlce that someone was leaning on her in a way she thought was wrong he said she was quite angry about it.
She told DL about someone who had become quite scary.

In my opinion this points to something connected to property and whatever she was being asked to do she was dead against and said no to. Could the conversation she had with people at the Sat nite party about £3,000 been a clue?
Had someone been trying to bribe her?
JMO

Continuing on the same theme, another possibiity is that maybe Suzy had got into some financial arrangement and had ended up owing money to someone - possibly more than one person?

Perhaps she put her flat up for sale because she needed the money to pay someone off?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

research the back ground of the witnesses, this will confirm if their eye witness statements can be relied upon as genuine and true.
MOO

This would be done. The rear of the initial statement page (Form MG11) has sections for the personal information of the witness.

The witness is checked against the police databases for anything that may indicate they may not be a 'witness of truth'.

The same is done of police officers/staff members, who are witnesses. This includes a requirement to reveal all police discipline history to the prosecution team, as it could be used by the defence to call into question the integrity of the officer.

 

[asyousay]

Even if its closed it doesnt mean you can have access to case details.

Well AS certainly was given access back in the day to a lot of stuff.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well AS certainly was given access back in the day to a lot of stuff.

He was given restricted access to the police investigation. It is not unusual for selected respected journalists who are researching for books to be afforded such access.

I don't recall any great revelations courtesy of the police, just some additional material on the information already in the public domain.

He didn't have access to the diary, postcard or cheque book. Other eiminated lines of enquiry/possible suspects were not discussed.

 

[asyousay]

He was given restricted access to the police investigation. It is not unusual for selected respected journalists who are researching for books to be afforded such access.

I don't recall any great revelations courtesy of the police, just some additional material on the information already in the public domain.

He didn't have access to the diary, postcard or cheque book. Other eiminated lines of enquiry/possible suspects were not discussed.

He was certainly given a lot more than DV it seems who they won’t even listen to or look into what he is saying.