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

[Whitehall 1212]

The public were directed by the police, to provide witness statements from Shorrolds Road, not Putney.

So of course there was no reported sightings around the Pow that day ....

When police ask for sightings, irrespective of any locale they highlight, they receive sightings from Tower Hamlets to Timbuktu and beyond.

It's incorrect to assume that people would have only reported sightings in SR.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Criminality by police officers reflects a tiny minority, but is always disturbing, as it undermines what the vast majority of brave, diligent and committed officers give to their communities.

Police identification of rogue officers is generally because other officers report them, rather than turning a blind eye as in other professions. This results in robust investigation and action, which often leads to dismissal. This is a good thing.

Ask yourself how many individuals in other professions would be identified, investigated and dealt with robustly, if the same systems and ethical standards, as in the police, were followed?

I like many other officers put myself in significant physical danger and a number of times in mortal danger, e.g. IRA bomb activation, male attacking a woman with a machete, chasing a suspect armed with a gun.....to protect others who I did not know from Adam, because it was my duty, not just as a police officer but as an individual who seeks to uphold the right values.

Before slating police officers ask, would you be prepared to do the same?

 

[Terryb808]

Despite what LE might think there are a lot of well informed people who are up to speed with this case, and if given access to all the information would find that golden thread.

They are above all objective and would not try to make the facts fit a particular theory.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Despite what LE might think there are a lot of well informed people who are up to speed with this case, and if given access to all the information would find that golden thread.

They are above all objective and would not try to make the facts fit a particular theory.

1. I don't understand how those external to the investigation can make an accurate assessment, when they are not privy to all that is known?

2. Police investigation methodology and capability has improved greatly over time, through learning, technical and forensic support

3. The police have to operate within the legislation, which relates to investigation and police powers.

4. An investigation has to operate within its allocated budget.

5. This case is still a live criminal investigation

6. There is a very good reason that a cadre of 'well-informed' people are not given access to all the information.....that being they are not experienced detectives and are unlikely to have a grasp of or any responsibility for the above.....it would be pandemonium.

7. Realistically, police are not going to release the investigation detail. They have made their informed assessment and are in a far better position than any of us to do so. They have their only suspect in JC.....no doubt after eliminating all other possibilities. JC is unlikely to talk. In the event of SJL's remains and/or property being found it may be that the additional evidence can put the matter to bed for the majority.....although no doubt the naysayers will linger,

 

[Crusader21]

In the event of SJL's remains and/or property being found it may be that the additional evidence can put the matter to bed for the majority.....although no doubt the naysayers will linger,

Makes me wonder that if one day SLs remains were uncovered on the railway embankment, behind the PoW Putney. Then would the police narrative evolve with the bottom line being, 'Ah! So that's where JC deposited the body!' ?

 

[Crusader21]

Before slating police officers ask, would you be prepared to do the same?

Although never a police officer, in a different role, I have done the same.

I think it's too broad to say 'slate' police officers, IMO the very nature of policing requires more stringent scrutiny from other relevant authorities, as well as ordinary members of the British public ....

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Makes me wonder that if one day SLs remains were uncovered on the railway embankment, behind the PoW Putney. Then would the police narrative evolve with the bottom line being, 'Ah! So that's where JC deposited the body!' ?

The key point is that if there was any credible information indicating a possible deposition site then the police will have acted on it.....as they have done at other locations.

Go back to the events of Monday 28th July 1986. There is no credible information that SJL went to or was seen in the vicinity of the PoW. To reach that assumption a whole raft of other information and witnesses have to be dismissed as incorrect, with nothing tangible to rebut the collective weight of this information and the witnesses.

So from SJL leaving Sturgis some folk jump to the PoW as the place where SJL met her doom and that she is either concealed there or on the adjacent embankment. It's a hypothesis of convenient antithesis to the official police investigation and re-investigation, which has nothing credible to support it.

What leaves me amazed it that this flawed hypothesis still has support.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Although never a police officer, in a different role, I have done the same.

I think it's too broad to say 'slate' police officers, IMO the very nature of policing requires more stringent scrutiny from other relevant authorities, as well as ordinary members of the British public ....

Policing does require scrutiny and rightly so.....there is always work to be done. However, there are many professions where honesty, integrity and impartiality are equally important, e.g. the NHS, the Prison Service, national and local government, the judiciary.

Police officer's these days are very likely to report other officer's misconduct, because the standards required are front and centre. The ones that fall short come to notice, which is one of the reasons that we now hear of such instances.

 

[Crusader21]

Go back to the events of Monday 28th July 1986. There is no credible information that SJL went to or was seen in the vicinity of the PoW.

So do the facts that she -

1. Had items personal items at the PoW which she (obviously), wished to have returned
2. Had communictaions to her at her office that morning, orginating from the Pow.
3. The acting barman stated that she was due at the PoW ...

... all count for nothing?

 

[RichardKimble]

What leaves me amazed it that this flawed hypothesis still has support.

A solid working hypothesis supporting JC as the crim entails what exactly, from what is known ?

 

[Cherwell]

So do the facts that she -

1. Had items personal items at the PoW which she (obviously), wished to have returned
2. Had communictaions to her at her office that morning, orginating from the Pow.
3. The acting barman stated that she was due at the PoW ...

... all count for nothing?

She intended to go there after work but disappeared several hours before. So there's unlikely to be a connection IMO.

 

[WestLondoner]

She intended to go there after work

How do we know this?

 

[Cherwell]

How do we know this?

Wasn't that the subject of the phone calls at the office?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So do the facts that she -

1. Had items personal items at the PoW which she (obviously), wished to have returned
2. Had communictaions to her at her office that morning, orginating from the Pow.
3. The acting barman stated that she was due at the PoW ...

... all count for nothing?

The circumstances you quote gave rise to a line of enquiry. Detectives followed it up and ruled out that the circumstances featured in SJL's disappearance.

If there was any indication that SJL had been to the PoW that day or staff were being less than up front in their discussions with the police, then this line of enquiry would have been developed.

The two scenarios are chalk and cheese.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

A solid working hypothesis supporting JC as the crim entails what exactly, from what is known ?

I guess it all depends on whether one needs to see a smoking gun or if the more nuanced assessment of weighing the available evidence collectively satisfies the palate.

Rarely is the smoking gun to be seen.

 

[Terryb808]

Wasn't that the subject of the phone calls at the office?

According to CV, but then he would say that wouldn’t he. And that would be his answer guilty or innocent.

What is odd is the change of story when he was questioned one year later. Isn’t it the purpose of re-interviewing people one year later to see who changes their story?

If DV is right, the police missed an opportunity by not searching the PoW in 1986, now 36 years on its just a little too late.

 

[Cherwell]

According to CV, but then he would say that wouldn’t he. And that would be his answer guilty or innocent.

What is odd is the change of story when he was questioned one year later. Isn’t it the purpose of re-interviewing people one year later to see who changes their story?

If DV is right, the police missed an opportunity by not searching the PoW in 1986, now 36 years on its just a little too late.

Remind me, what was the "change of story"? Was it to do with the timing of the visit?

I still can't see any logical reason why Suzy would arrange to go there during office hours. It was about 200 yards from her home and open all evening.

 

[WestLondoner]

Possibly she needed the diary immediately.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

According to CV, but then he would say that wouldn’t he. And that would be his answer guilty or innocent.

What is odd is the change of story when he was questioned one year later. Isn’t it the purpose of re-interviewing people one year later to see who changes their story?

If DV is right, the police missed an opportunity by not searching the PoW in 1986, now 36 years on its just a little too late.

Experienced AMIP detectives visited the PoW and spoke with CV the very next day. They will have asked the right questions in the right order and satisfied themselves that nothing untoward had occurred there or involving CV. They may well have asked to look around, just to gauge the reaction....I certainly would.

Re-interviewing a year later is to establish if there is any further recall that may have been triggered. It's done to identify if there is any further information which may assist the investigation.....not to trap folk. If someone is a suspect or a possible suspect, then 'reviewing' them will be ongoing.

It is absolutely essential to understand that police need to satisfy certain criteria before a premises, either partly or wholly, can be searched. That the PoW has not been searched by police using their lawful powers shows that these criteria have not been satisfied.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Possibly she needed the diary immediately.

Possibly, SJL got caught short on the way to wherever she was going, popped into a pub she was passing (not the PoW) and met her doom there.

There are a multitude of possibilities, but the art of investigation is to go where the evidence leads and making up possibilities when there is no evidence for it just leads to a world of pain.....not to mention wasted time and resources.

Detectives visited the PoW and satisfied themselves that there was no connection to SJL's disappearance. It will have been an objective assessment based on good questioning and relevant experience. if there had been any doubts then they would have been reported back.