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

[asyousay]

Hmm...i remember now. He blocked me on twitter after I enquired about the PoW

Which is ironic as that’s his theory.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Was this sarcasm as it was in July?

No. He backdates his tweets - SJL died in July 1986 and I want to reveal this ...

 

[EddietheEagle]

I'll refer back to the Red Sierra, DNA evidence suggest's that both JC and SL were in that car, CPS say it cannot be established that they were both in it at the same time, meaning IMO that both had access to the car, JC's DNA was not found in the Estates Fiesta, suggestive that he was not in it, yet the very one which they were both in , is not sufficient along with other evidence supposedly linking JC , whats missing here ? What threshold was not met to charge JC ?

I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.

Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.

The authors of Prime Suspect refer to AS's book as their source in their story of the mysterious policeman who called the pub (hardback 2007, epilogue). However, their version has added detail in that they report the caller was specifically enquiring of SL's missing diary and chequebook. AS's book doesn't carry that detail. If that additional information is true (is it?) then this may have been part of a ruse by SL's abductor to help himself to SL's money. JC had form as a petty thief. The earlier call by the woman enquiring of SL may have been part of the same ruse. If the abductor was after money, he overlooked the opportunity of stealing £15 that was found in SL's purse in her abandoned car, suggesting a less than casual getaway.

 

[NorthParade]

Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.

The authors of Prime Suspect refer to AS's book as their source in their story of the mysterious policeman who called the pub (hardback 2007, epilogue). However, their version has added detail in that they report the caller was specifically enquiring of SL's missing diary and chequebook. AS's book doesn't carry that detail. If that additional information is true (is it?) then this may have been part of a ruse by SL's abductor to help himself to SL's money. JC had form as a petty thief. The earlier call by the woman enquiring of SL may have been part of the same ruse. If the abductor was after money, he overlooked the opportunity of stealing £15 that was found in SL's purse in her abandoned car, suggesting a less than casual getaway.

I’d like to know more detail on the DNA match from the Sierra, tbh. The MSM articles all rely entirely on Berry-Dee’s say-so that it is actually “a match to Suzy” or proof that she was ever in the car.

@WestLondoner posted in the previous thread (#3, post #273) that the match was something like 60%, which I assume wouldn’t meet the evidential threshold. I’m not sure how close to the threshold it is, though - ie the likelihood of it being SJL/a relative/a random.

 

[NorthParade]

No mention of percentages that I’ve seen yet, but this gives some good background on DNA evidence.

DNA-17 Profiling | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[Pinkizzy]

I realise CBD was in touch with JC through a series of letters, however I find CBDs books a bit muddled with timings and dates.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Must be a sore point with DV then.

I guess the Met told him his fortune then!

 

[Pinkizzy]

I guess the Met told him his fortune then!

"The new measures mean that the Met will be placed under increased scrutiny. In a statement, the Inspectorate said: “We can confirm that we are now monitoring the Met Police Service through our engagement process which provides additional scrutiny and support to help it make improvements.” Standard Aug 2022

 

[Whitehall 1212]

"The new measures mean that the Met will be placed under increased scrutiny. In a statement, the Inspectorate said: “We can confirm that we are now monitoring the Met Police Service through our engagement process which provides additional scrutiny and support to help it make improvements.” Standard Aug 2022

Yes, that is the statement HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMCICFRS) released when the Metropolitan Police were placed into a form of special measures in June.

What's it got to do with DV and his wee fable?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I'll refer back to the Red Sierra, DNA evidence suggest's that both JC and SL were in that car, CPS say it cannot be established that they were both in it at the same time, meaning IMO that both had access to the car, JC's DNA was not found in the Estates Fiesta, suggestive that he was not in it, yet the very one which they were both in , is not sufficient along with other evidence supposedly linking JC , whats missing here ? What threshold was not met to charge JC ?

I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.

OK, I was pretty certain I was clear about the red Ford Sierra but I went back to check to make sure I wasn't giving you duff information. My understanding was correct.

the MSM surrounding the red Ford Sierra and the DNA is notoriously unreliable. I've seen newspaper articles purportedly emanating from CBD that the red Ford Sierra had number plates of SLP 386 and that SJL's DNA was found in it.

THIS IS WRONG

SLP 386S were false number plates that JC had made up for SB's mini. There were no such cryptic number plates found on the red Ford Sierra.

Two hairs found in the red Ford Sierra, 'may' have been from Sandra Court, who was murdered in May 1986. JC was a person of interest in her murder, but was never charged.

Detective Chief Inspector Stuart Ault was one of the investigators on the re-investigation of SJL's disappearance in 2000 (Operation Pheobus). Ault interviewed JC at length when he was arrested on suspicion of SJL's abduction and murder and brought from HMP Full Sutton, Yorkshire, to Hammersmith Police Station. The interviews took place over three days with further interviews at a police station in Yorkshire.

For the definitive explanation of the red Ford Sierra and the DNA evidence recovered, spoken by DCI Stuart Ault, watch the Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh (Channel 5 player).

It's really worth watching the whole programme, as it will clear up many misunderstandings. The section on the red Ford Sierra starts at approximately 42 mins 20 secs

No access outside UK

Shockingly 18 hours of VHS tapes of the interviews of JC were found on a rubbish tip in Sutton, south west London in 2018.

They were handed to the Sun by a member of the public. Three copies of each tape were made at the time, with one of the three made available to JC's legal team. A somewhat serious security breach. So speak to the Sun if you want the low down on the evidence that was put to JC

Moment Suzy Lamplugh suspect asked 'what have you done with her body'

SUZY Lamplugh murder suspect John Cannan was asked point blank “what have you done with her body” in bombshell police interview tapes. But the arrogant sex killer, behind bars for rape and murder o…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I realise we are not party to all that is known, but what we do know is that what the LE have, the CPS thinks there is reasonable doubt a jury would convict.

When the CPS received all the evidence they assessed it based on what is called the Full Code Test. It has two stages:

1. Does the evidence presented provide a realistic prospect of conviction (it's a high bar)?

ONLY IF YES, GO TO 2

2. Is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?

N.B. You mention 'reasonable doubt'. The burden of proof for a criminal trial is that 'on the evidence presented to the court is the defendants guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt', i.e. satisfied so that you are sure of the defendants guilt.

These definitions, their relevance and meaning are important and need to be understood to avoid confusion.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Regarding the DNA evidence, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they were either both in the red Fiesta together or at least, JC, the borrower, was the vector by which SL came be in the Fiesta. The car associated on the day of SL's disappearance was a dark BMW, indicating she and JC were in the red Fiesta before 28th July and were therefore already known to one another by the day she vanished.

The red car referred to with the DNA was a Ford Sierra, not a Fiesta. The DNA may have related to Sandra Court, whose body was found in May 1986. JC was a person of interest.

No trace of SJL's DNA was found in the red Ford Sierra.

Watch this for the low down from the investigating officers themselves

No access outside UK

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I’d like to know more detail on the DNA match from the Sierra, tbh. The MSM articles all rely entirely on Berry-Dee’s say-so that it is actually “a match to Suzy” or proof that she was ever in the car.

@WestLondoner posted in the previous thread (#3, post #273) that the match was something like 60%, which I assume wouldn’t meet the evidential threshold. I’m not sure how close to the threshold it is, though - ie the likelihood of it being SJL/a relative/a random.

Click the link for the correct information

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

Hmm...i remember now. He blocked me on twitter after I enquired about the PoW Which is ironic as that’s his theory.

www.websleuths.com

 

[EddietheEagle]

The red Ford Sierra has therefore, no connection with Suzy Lamplugh's disappearance. The Berry-Dee book information is simply inaccurate and misleading in this regard. There is the possibility that JC may have used the Sierra when visiting the Fulham area but no direct evidence links this car to the SL case.

The Sierra does have a connection, however, to the Sandra Court case. JC has confirmed to Berry-Dee in correspondence that he had use of the car. He acknowledges visits to Bournemouth/Poole on two occasions but denies ever being there on the May bank holiday weekend when Sandra Court was killed. A pay and display ticket for a Poole car park found later in his possession, disproves this claim. He was there that weekend. The later DNA hair evidence is indicative that Sandra Court herself may have been in the red Sierra but the evidence isn't sufficiently robust to establish that as fact. It is significant to note, perhaps, that of all presumed parking tickets he must have had over the course of time, he has hung onto this particular one. A memento of murder possibly?

I think the evidence all round points to the possibility of JC being a serial killer. The evidence around Sandra Court's murder strengthens the case against him as the likely killer of Suzy Lamplugh given everything else that is known.

 

[WestLondoner]

I realise CBD was in touch with JC through a series of letters, however I find CBDs books a bit muddled with timings and dates.

The thing that irritated me most about his Cannan book is the way he calls him "John" all the way through, like he's our mate or something as opposed to being a killer and serial rapist. There are inaccuracies too, such as JC's time at Superhire, which make you wonder about other stuff.

The surprise to me is that the Met have never tried to dig up the floors at Superhire, a place JC actually was in early 1986. Superhire would have lawyers though so probably not as simple as digging up his mother's kitchen.

 

[WestLondoner]

The red Ford Sierra has therefore, no connection with Suzy Lamplugh's disappearance. The Berry-Dee book information is simply inaccurate and misleading in this regard. There is the possibility that JC may have used the Sierra when visiting the Fulham area but no direct evidence links this car to the SL case.

The Sierra does have a connection, however, to the Sandra Court case. JC has confirmed to Berry-Dee in correspondence that he had use of the car. He acknowledges visits to Bournemouth/Poole on two occasions but denies ever being there on the May bank holiday weekend when Sandra Court was killed. A pay and display ticket for a Poole car park found later in his possession, disproves this claim. He was there that weekend. The later DNA hair evidence is indicative that Sandra Court herself may have been in the red Sierra but the evidence isn't sufficiently robust to establish that as fact. It is significant to note, perhaps, that of all presumed parking tickets he must have had over the course of time, he has hung onto this particular one. A memento of murder possibly?

I think the evidence all round points to the possibility of JC being a serial killer. The evidence around Sandra Court's murder strengthens the case against him as the likely killer of Suzy Lamplugh given everything else that is known.

As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.

That aside, the case against JC re Sandra Court is actually stronger than that against him for SJL. The police can't show he'd ever met SJL, he is too short to have driven her car with its seat in that position, and they don't know where he was the day she disappeared. They do know he was in Southampton the day SC was killed, that she'd been in that car and that her personal effects were dumped out of it along the route you'd take to drive back to London. Cannan is quite dim enough to leave a trail like that pointing to himself.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.

That aside, the case against JC re Sandra Court is actually stronger than that against him for SJL. The police can't show he'd ever met SJL, he is too short to have driven her car with its seat in that position, and they don't know where he was the day she disappeared. They do know he was in Southampton the day SC was killed, that she'd been in that car and that her personal effects were dumped out of it along the route you'd take to drive back to London. Cannan is quite dim enough to leave a trail like that pointing to himself.

<modsnip>

1. No DNA from SJL, trace or otherwise, was found in the red Ford Sierra.

2. The DNA probability that the two hairs found in the red Ford Sierra came from Sandra Court was too low to be used as evidence. They could have come from others.

No access outside UK

3. JC is known to have been in Fulham on the day that SJL disappeared.

John Cannan 'firmly in frame' over Lamplugh

Former detective Jim Dickie led a review of the estate agent's disappearance.

www.bbc.co.uk

4. If the two hairs found in the red Ford Sierra were from Sandra Court then it doesn't prove in and of itself that SC had been in the car. Forensic material can be easily transferred by a third parties, particularly in small quantities....this is known as cross-contamination.

Cross-contamination may be entirely innocent. We all do it a multitude of times each day.

Cross-contamination is something that the police protect against vigorously, by ensuring that officers/forensic scene examiners and others don't move between crime scenes, between the suspect and crime scenes or between each other and to different crime scenes/suspect.

It has happened in forensic laboratories when procedures have not been followed.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

As I recall, the red Sierra only ever contained a partial match to SJL in the sense that it was a partial match to several million other people too. So highly inconclusive. In the Sandra Court case I would think the hair evidence would be pretty persuasive to a jury because how else did it get there; however, the problem would surely be who do you charge? Because, as Cannan shared the use of that car, you would have to show that it was he and not the other user who drove it to Southampton. If his defence counsel can cast doubt on who was actually driving it that day, that's going to be enough to get him off.

That aside, the case against JC re Sandra Court is actually stronger than that against him for SJL. The police can't show he'd ever met SJL, he is too short to have driven her car with its seat in that position, and they don't know where he was the day she disappeared. They do know he was in Southampton the day SC was killed, that she'd been in that car and that her personal effects were dumped out of it along the route you'd take to drive back to London. Cannan is quite dim enough to leave a trail like that pointing to himself.

Please provide MSM for the following assertions that you have made:

1. That there was 'partial' match to SJL in the red Ford Sierra used by JC.

2. That JC was too short to have driven SJL's car.

3. That the police don't know where JC was the day SJL disappeared.

4. That the police know JC was in Southampton the day Sandra Court disappeared.

5. That Sandra Court had been in the red Ford Sierra used by JC.

 

[Cherwell]

When the CPS received all the evidence they assessed it based on what is called the Full Code Test. It has two stages:
1. Does the evidence presented provide a realistic prospect of conviction (it's a high bar)?
ONLY IF YES, GO TO 2
2. Is it in the public interest for the CPS to bring the case to court?
N.B. You mention 'reasonable doubt'. The burden of proof for a criminal trial is that 'on the evidence presented to the court is the defendants guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt', i.e. satisfied so that you are sure of the defendants guilt.
These definitions, their relevance and meaning are important and need to be understood to avoid confusion.

So to quote the CPS in 2002

"[The police] found a considerable amount of evidence which hadn't been found in the earlier investigations ....
.... The problem still was there was no direct evidence linking the suspect [Cannan] with the victim."

- Stuart Sampson, Special Casework Lawyer, Crown Prosecution Service

No access outside UK

 

[WestLondoner]

So to quote the CPS in 2002

"[The police] found a considerable amount of evidence which hadn't been found in the earlier investigations ....
.... The problem still was there was no direct evidence linking the suspect [Cannan] with the victim."

- Stuart Sampson, Special Casework Lawyer, Crown Prosecution Service

No access outside UK

The earlier investigations inexplicably didn't consider recently released sex offenders, even though there must have been about 30 such released from the Scrubs so far that year. You can roughly work out the number by taking 1.2% of the annual convictions - the Scrubs holding that percentage of the UK jail population. The annual number of rape convictions has varied between 2500 and 4000 over the last few decades but the release rate and conviction rates must roughly match for obvious reasons. Ergo, the Scrubs released between 30 and 48 rapists a year. July 28th is week 30 of 52, so assuming these releases are more or less rateable, they would probably have let out between 17 and 28 rapists. It could be more or fewer but it isn't likely to have been one.

According to Jim Dickie the suspects in the 2000 reinvestigation were the 1986 suspects plus JC. The 1986 suspects were people who knew SJL and were in Fulham that day. Relief barmen in Putney who didn't know her would never have been on the suspect list. After re-eliminating all the 1986 suspects that just left JC, therefore he did it. The new evidence would therefore largely be about JC.

The obvious problem with this is that if you haven't eliminated all the other recently released offenders as well, you don't know whether any of them did it, and you also don't know whether a similar circumstantial case could be assembled equally well against any of them. If your case amounts to "he's a wrong 'un and he'd just got out", well, the same is true of another 26 people which calls into question why you seized on one of them.