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

[Pinkizzy]

Anita Bruchner reckons the items were lost on the Sunday

*Brookner

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I'm lost. What's the significance of Indian food in this case?

It was suggested that CV may have liked a curry based on the fact he's northern and I posted that I don't recall curry being a 'thing' up north (where I was raised at least) in the 80s. However, seems I was mistaken. The idea was that perhaps CV himself had crossed paths with SJL in a local eaterie.

 

[Sabex]

It was suggested that CV may have liked a curry based on the fact he's northern and I posted that I don't recall curry being a 'thing' up north (where I was raised at least) in the 80s. However, seems I was mistaken. The idea was that perhaps CV himself had crossed paths with SJL in a local eaterie.

It wasn't a Northener thing as far as I know. It was a Midlander thing.

Please don't get us confused.

 

[Cherwell]

It wasn't a Northener thing as far as I know. It was a Midlander thing.
Please don't get us confused.

And there were plenty of Indian restaurants in the south of England where I lived in the 80s. And in the 1970s too.
It's completely irrelevant.

 

[WestLondoner]

Paul Lamplugh on Claudia Lawrence
Though old (2009), I thought this was quite interesting.

There is also some interesting stuff in there about missing persons, which I have posted about in the past.

Geoff Newiss is a former Home Office senior researcher and a criminologist and now runs the charity Missing People...Although more than 210,000 people are reported missing every year in the UK, three quarters turn up within 48 hours. Of the total number, it is estimated that only one in 7,400 results in a homicide. But Newiss thinks that, once those 75% who are found are factored out of the statistics, it actually leaves more people, most of them adult women, at risk of coming to harm than we might think.

"We are still not sure how high the figures are. The whole area is difficult because we have no national statistics collated. The fundamental problem with missing people is that they are not served well by data. But the longer someone is missing, clearly the higher the risk...Everyone thinks that children are most at risk in relation to coming to harm, but actually adult women face five times the risk of becoming victims of homicide...."

This chimes with my own thinking. The police clear-up rate for crime overall is about 6%, but for murder it's supposedly a lot higher, at 80% or something. Probably there are aspects of murders that do indeed make them easier to solve, notably that it's often the partner who does it, and the partner is usually quite easily found. Nonetheless, this is such a huge disparity that you wonder if that explains all of it. One thing that could is if the number of murders is actually far higher than supposed. What if there are a lot of unreported murders, among missing persons who may themselves not have been reported as missing? That could mean that the police don't solve 600 of 750 murders, but rather, 600 out of, say, 3,000. It's entirely possible for 2,000 people a year to disappear, and in fact it happens now. That's roughly how many missing persons don't turn up within a year.

The relevance to this case is, simply, that SJL could easily have been taken by someone who does this a lot, but who made sure afterwards never to do this to anyone whose disappearance would attract so much attention.

 

[Terryb808]

Paul Lamplugh on Claudia Lawrence
Though old (2009), I thought this was quite interesting.

There is also some interesting stuff in there about missing persons, which I have posted about in the past.

Geoff Newiss is a former Home Office senior researcher and a criminologist and now runs the charity Missing People...Although more than 210,000 people are reported missing every year in the UK, three quarters turn up within 48 hours. Of the total number, it is estimated that only one in 7,400 results in a homicide. But Newiss thinks that, once those 75% who are found are factored out of the statistics, it actually leaves more people, most of them adult women, at risk of coming to harm than we might think.

"We are still not sure how high the figures are. The whole area is difficult because we have no national statistics collated. The fundamental problem with missing people is that they are not served well by data. But the longer someone is missing, clearly the higher the risk...Everyone thinks that children are most at risk in relation to coming to harm, but actually adult women face five times the risk of becoming victims of homicide...."

This chimes with my own thinking. The police clear-up rate for crime overall is about 6%, but for murder it's supposedly a lot higher, at 80% or something. Probably there are aspects of murders that do indeed make them easier to solve, notably that it's often the partner who does it, and the partner is usually quite easily found. Nonetheless, this is such a huge disparity that you wonder if that explains all of it. One thing that could is if the number of murders is actually far higher than supposed. What if there are a lot of unreported murders, among missing persons who may themselves not have been reported as missing? That could mean that the police don't solve 600 of 750 murders, but rather, 600 out of, say, 3,000. It's entirely possible for 2,000 people a year to disappear, and in fact it happens now. That's roughly how many missing persons don't turn up within a year.

The relevance to this case is, simply, that SJL could easily have been taken by someone who does this a lot, but who made sure afterwards never to do this to anyone whose disappearance would attract so much attention.

DV’s prime suspect could possibly fit into your conclusion.
JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Also other factors - all the deaths of women that are probably actually murder but get called 'manslaughter' or 'death by misadventure' or if the woman was an alcoholic / drug user / prostitute or had any type of difficulties it wasn't even bothered to be looked into unless there was blood and weapons all over the place and that person is just declared dead.

When the Camden Ripper, Antony Hardy, was first found with a murdered woman posed in pornographic poses locked inside his bedroom, despite the situation and the fact he lied to police that the locked room was his imaginary flatmate's who was out, and that she showed signs of a violent struggle and appeared to have been strangled and raped, the pathologist stated she died of heart attack. It was decided that poor Antony was a vulnerable man who didn't have the capacity to tell anyone she had passed away of natural causes and had become overly fond of her corpse. He was sent on vacation to his local mental health ward (not locked and not forensic) and joined some local wellbeing support groups which had vulnerable women in them. Obviously he went on to confidently murder more women and didn't really bother much to cover it up, tipping their body parts in the bin at the side of his flat or in the canal on the other side of the street from his flat.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

As for 'crimes of passion', JMO but if you murdered someone in a fit of blazing temper and without prior intention because they deeply hurt your feelings, betrayed, or enraged you, and then you got away with it, you'd be pretty damn careful to never ever do it again. A half decent thoughtful person would take some anger management courses or relationship counselling or take up a spiritual practice or stop drinking or drugging or whatever any factors may be and then keep on the very straight and narrow. At least that's what I would do, whilst also losing my mind with anxiety for ever more.

 

[WestLondoner]

Broadly it seems there are two hypotheses about what happened to SJL, i.e. she was opportunistically killed at the PoW; or, she was abducted either en route there, en route elsewhere or at 37SR, by A N Other.

The main arguments against the former are how unlikely it sounds, and also its practicability, given that this was presumably an open, working pub. The main argument against the latter is that it seems remarkably unlikely you would get away with it as comprehensively as has happened. The witnesses are dubious, there's no body, no forensics, nothing. This suggests either a professional job, or astonishing luck, or that the police were looking all along in the wrong places. Doesn't mean it's not possible, of course.

Identifying whodunnit in the second case seems to be entirely a matter of opinion.

 

[WestLondoner]

As for 'crimes of passion', JMO but if you murdered someone in a fit of blazing temper and without prior intention because they deeply hurt your feelings, betrayed, or enraged you, and then you got away with it, you'd be pretty damn careful to never ever do it again. A half decent thoughtful person would take some anger management courses or relationship counselling or take up a spiritual practice or stop drinking or drugging or whatever any factors may be and then keep on the very straight and narrow. At least that's what I would do, whilst also losing my mind with anxiety for ever more.

You would do all that because you are a decent thoughtful person. If you weren't, and you killed someone and got away with it, you might do as you say - or you might resolve to do a better job of it next time.

It's a good argument against DV to question what motive a barman would have for just spontaneously killing an attractive woman who walks into his pub. I can't fathom that at all. But at the same time, I also can't fathom why you'd organise an abduction so you could kill her. One of the challenges with this case is that it's so hard to put myself into people's shoes and figure out what they were thinking, and hence what they'd do.

 

[Cherwell]

Of course there may not have been an abduction as such. She might have gone willingly with someone (likely someone she knew) to a private location and whatever happened, happened there. Murder may not have been the intention.

 

[Terryb808]

You would do all that because you are a decent thoughtful person. If you weren't, and you killed someone and got away with it, you might do as you say - or you might resolve to do a better job of it next time.

It's a good argument against DV to question what motive a barman would have for just spontaneously killing an attractive woman who walks into his pub. I can't fathom that at all. But at the same time, I also can't fathom why you'd organise an abduction so you could kill her. One of the challenges with this case is that it's so hard to put myself into people's shoes and figure out what they were thinking, and hence what they'd do.

Agreed it’s a difficult one, criminologists put themselves in the place of the criminal. However, a normal rational person finds this very difficult.
I personally would never be able to understand why rapists and killers like “The Railway Killers” did what they did.
My thought processes couldn’t be more diametrically opposed to those two awful individuals.
DV must be placing CV with the same mindset as those two. Maybe this is why CV’s partner of the time is made out to be in fear of him.
Like the Mets case against JC, the evidence in DV’s file can’t be enough to result in an arrest.
You need to be objective and ask yourself is it just another JC did it scenario?

 

[RichardKimble]

Broadly it seems there are two hypotheses about what happened to SJL, i.e. she was opportunistically killed at the PoW; or, she was abducted either en route there, en route elsewhere or at 37SR, by A N Other.

The main arguments against the former are how unlikely it sounds, and also its practicability, given that this was presumably an open, working pub. The main argument against the latter is that it seems remarkably unlikely you would get away with it as comprehensively as has happened. The witnesses are dubious, there's no body, no forensics, nothing. This suggests either a professional job, or astonishing luck, or that the police were looking all along in the wrong places. Doesn't mean it's not possible, of course.

Identifying whodunnit in the second case seems to be entirely a matter of opinion.

I guess the first one would depend on where she would have met her killer, did the POW have a cellar and the opening was on the street or around the back for the draymen to deliver , easy to push some down this opening out of sight .Then I guess you need motive for both of the above. .

 

[Cherwell]

I guess the first one would depend on where she would have met her killer, did the POW have a cellar and the opening was on the street or around the back for the draymen to deliver , easy to push some down this opening out of sight .Then I guess you need motive for both of the above. .

Cellar access is to the side of the pub in Oxford Road. You can see the hatch in the pavement.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

 

[Terryb808]

Cellar access is to the side of the pub in Oxford Road. You can see the hatch in the pavement.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

Can’t see CV opening this and popping up saying come down here for your lost items .
There’s a second door in Oxford Road, the one past the entrance door, this is interesting.

 

[RichardKimble]

Cellar access is to the side of the pub in Oxford Road. You can see the hatch in the pavement.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

goo.gl

That would take that out the equation then.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Can’t see CV opening this and popping up saying come down here for your lost items .
There’s a second door in Oxford Road, the one past the entrance door, this is interesting.

Hatch in the pavement is where the dray men roll barrels down into the cellar off their wagon. There's always another access for the pub staff as they have to change the barrel when a beer runs out. It's all different nowadays probably, I imagine barrels get wheeled around on pallets or something but that's how it was then.

 

[RichardKimble]

Hatch in the pavement is where the dray men roll barrels down into the cellar off their wagon. There's always another access for the pub staff as they have to change the barrel when a beer runs out. It's all different nowadays probably, I imagine barrels get wheeled around on pallets or something but that's how it was then.

That would rule out two areas then, so where is this area DV is suspicious of .

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That would rule out two areas then, so where is this area DV is suspicious of .

dunno, would need to know more about it but there could be many access ways to a cellar and many nooks and crannies inside a cellar. I suppose pubs could have more than one access hatch that the pub no longer uses. Some pubs have inside ones in the floor behind the bar with steps going down for the staff to go down and change a barrel. Those ones terrify me as the likelihood of an accident is quite high.

I suppose if a pub manager was seen lumping around heavy items to or from a barrel hatch then nobody would notice. It could in theory be used to take delivery of crates, barrels, sacks, boxes of anything from alcohol, coal, foodstuffs - snacks and vegetables, cleaning products and likewise the other way around to remove empties and sacks of rubbish.

 

[RichardKimble]

dunno, would need to know more about it but there could be many access ways to a cellar and many nooks and crannies inside a cellar. I suppose pubs could have more than one access hatch that the pub no longer uses. Some pubs have inside ones in the floor behind the bar with steps going down for the staff to go down and change a barrel. Those ones terrify me as the likelihood of an accident is quite high.

I suppose if a pub manager was seen lumping around heavy items to or from a barrel hatch then nobody would notice. It could in theory be used to take delivery of crates, barrels, sacks, boxes of anything from alcohol, coal, foodstuffs - snacks and vegetables, cleaning products and likewise the other way around to remove empties and sacks of rubbish.

Yeah, you occasionally see videos of staff falling down them.