UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5

[Cluesleuth]

Maybe it's just me but, going by the photos I've seen, I would never have described the car as partly blocking the garage. There's a slight overhang, no more than that. It wouldn't have impeded access.

One article mentioned the overhang was 12 inches.

I dont have it to hand but if someone has please post the link
JMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes, and also, the vehicle showed no signs of having been wiped down. This suggests that whoever drove it either wore gloves (odd things to have about you at the end of July); or, wasn't worried about having to explain the presence of his fingerprints inside the car, because they could be innocently explained.

Which says someone she knew, or someone who would have had a reason to have previously been inside or at the wheel of her car. Friends, workmates, work contacts.

A big issue with so much of what is posted on this thread is the clearly apparent lack of understanding of the investigation process, police procedures and powers. Incorrect assumptions are consistently being made, which only serve to mis-inform others.

In this instance we have comment on fingerprint evidence.

1. Fingerprints are most successfully lifted from clean, smooth, hard, non-porous surfaces.

2. Clean, dry glass is invariably the perfect medium.

3. Plastic with a graining effect, which was often found in vehicles, circa 1986, is not a surface conducive to obtaining fingerprint evidence.

4. High traffic areas will often have multiple fingerprints overlain and consequently smudged. Even if the surface is a suitable medium then the likelihood of an individual print, that can be lifted and provide sufficient distinguishing features, is minimal.

5. Any fingerprint evidence from a publicly accessible area, including unlocked vehicles, is evidentially contaminated.

6. Fingerprint procedures can identify if marks left are from a gloved finger/palm if it partially overlays surrounding fingerprint marks.

7. It is much more likely to be the case that either no suitable fingerprint evidence could be recovered or that those recovered were satisfactorily eliminated.

8. It would be wrong to assume from any absence of suspect fingerprints, if indeed the offender had contact with the vehicle, that they either wore gloves or 'wiped down' the vehicle. It is far more nuanced than that.

9. Fingerprints can be be aged, therefore their relevance to the investigation can be established.

 

[Cherwell]

But would the perpetrator have known all of the above?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But would the perpetrator have known all of the above?

If he had just spent five years locked up in a university of crime......quite likely.....and a great deal more bedsides!

Without a doubt offenders learn a great deal about forensic awareness during a term of imprisonment.

Ultimately their over inflated ego's give rise to carelessness and advances in science and investigation play on their ignorance.

Although, JC was sent down for SB's abduction and murder because her thumb print was found on a paper document in his flat, that he confirmed had never left its four walls and that he had not previously met SB.

 

[Crusader21]

Maybe it's just me but, going by the photos I've seen, I would never have described the car as partly blocking the garage. There's a slight overhang, no more than that. It wouldn't have impeded access.

For me Mike Barley described it best, saying along the lines of - it was as if the fiesta parked up behind another car, a slight overhang, noticeable but still allowing access to the garage ....

 

[WestLondoner]

My original assumption, which persisted until DV's book came out, was that SJL either followed someone to Stevenage Road or met him there, pulling up nose to nose or nose to tail next to this person's vehicle. The parking was sloppy because she expected to be there for a sub-1-minute conversation about something, then drive off. I.e. she didn't so much park, as just stop. This is why the passenger door was locked (it always would be unless she was letting a passenger in) and also why her purse etc were left in the door pocket. She stepped out, reflexively taking the car keys as you did, with no intention of leaving the car unattended. She was then taken or perhaps bundled into some other vehicle; something like a transit van would work. Her car was left as she had left it.

Refamiliarising myself with the case over the last year or so, it seems unlikely this happened. The seat's having been moved, a detail I'd forgotten, points to the car having been driven by someone else. We could infer that driver's height if we knew how far back the seats on a 1984 Fiesta go. If there was another driver, then the car was being dumped, not used normally. It follows that it would be dumped well away from the scene of whatever happened to her.

You can see how this circumstantially supports DV's thinking about the pub. If that's where she died, you have to get rid of the car. You put a psychological barrier between it and you by driving it over the river. Once there, you get off the main drag to dump the car. You thus take almost the first left you can. Left turns are easy because you don't have to wait to cross a line of traffic. If you know she's a Fulham estate agent from the key fob, you want to be out of Fulham again as fast as you can before the car's seen by someone who will recognise it. You've also got a body to deal with nearby, so time is precious.

On balance I don't think she drove it there. I don't think it was there at 12.50 either - that has to have been a different car. Ford had sold half a million Fiestas in the UK since it launched, and a quarter of a million of the facelifted model SJL drove, so they were not exactly rare.

 

[RichardKimble]

My original assumption, which persisted until DV's book came out, was that SJL either followed someone to Stevenage Road or met him there, pulling up nose to nose or nose to tail next to this person's vehicle. The parking was sloppy because she expected to be there for a sub-1-minute conversation about something, then drive off. I.e. she didn't so much park, as just stop. This is why the passenger door was locked (it always would be unless she was letting a passenger in) and also why her purse etc were left in the door pocket. She stepped out, reflexively taking the car keys as you did, with no intention of leaving the car unattended. She was then taken or perhaps bundled into some other vehicle; something like a transit van would work. Her car was left as she had left it.

Refamiliarising myself with the case over the last year or so, it seems unlikely this happened. The seat's having been moved, a detail I'd forgotten, points to the car having been driven by someone else. We could infer that driver's height if we knew how far back the seats on a 1984 Fiesta go. If there was another driver, then the car was being dumped, not used normally. It follows that it would be dumped well away from the scene of whatever happened to her.

You can see how this circumstantially supports DV's thinking about the pub. If that's where she died, you have to get rid of the car. You put a psychological barrier between it and you by driving it over the river. Once there, you get off the main drag to dump the car. You thus take almost the first left you can. Left turns are easy because you don't have to wait to cross a line of traffic. If you know she's a Fulham estate agent from the key fob, you want to be out of Fulham again as fast as you can before the car's seen by someone who will recognise it. You've also got a body to deal with nearby, so time is precious.

On balance I don't think she drove it there. I don't think it was there at 12.50 either - that has to have been a different car. Ford had sold half a million Fiestas in the UK since it launched, and a quarter of a million of the facelifted model SJL drove, so they were not exactly rare.

What is the police theory is it known ? they wanted to charge so they must have one .

 

[WestLondoner]

I think the police think Cannan took her to a property nearby to which he had access. He then dumped her car. At some point he murdered her and permanently hid her body. If he did so that day, he moved her between these places undetected in daylight. This property has never been identified.

Fourteen years later people started coming forward claiming they had seen a black BMW. No such car has ever been identified. It does raise the question of where this car was while the abduction was going on; even master criminal Cannan couldn't drive two cars at the same time.

 

[Crusader21]

What is the police theory is it known ? they wanted to charge so they must have one .

That's a good question - What actually IS the police theory? The official one that has their Prime Suspect - Mr Kippper - JC responsible? What do they think happened?

I always thought it interesting that police dectetives who worked on the case always gave slightly different explanations on tv docs. 'She was abducted in Shorrolds Rd after attending the house viewing appt', 'WJ is a very reliable witness, SL had to have driven to Stevenage Rd first', etc.

Makes you wonder if those who worked on the case, knowing things too that haven't been made public, etc - themselves cannot agree .....

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Fourteen years later people started coming forward claiming they had seen a black BMW. No such car has ever been identified.

What makes you so certain that JC didn't have access to a dark coloured BMW at the material time?

 

[WestLondoner]

The police idée fixe that it was Cannan falls apart for me at pretty well every step. Most obviously, it appears AFAICT to rest mainly on the premise that Mr Kipper looks like Cannan and it's the kind of thing he'd have done. Kipper also looks like Shakin' Stevens, however, and it's the kind of thing dozens of sex offenders would have done.

It doesn't get any better when you delve into the mechanics of exactly what's supposed to have happened. Cannan and his supposed LHD BMW go to Shorrolds, he meets SJL, she's seen (by witnesses who don't come forward for 14 years) yelling or laughing in this car, yet by 2pm-ish her car's at 123SR and she's completely disappeared. So he's managed to get a fully-alerted SJL out of his car, into somewhere, subdue her, and then go back (how?) and move her car.

It just makes no sense, and none of these cars or places has ever been identified, nor has it been explained where a lag on day release gets the money to organise such things, or why - if he begged favours - that's never come out.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The police idée fixe that it was Cannan falls apart for me at pretty well every step.

The only 'idée fixe' is one of unmitigated antipathy, which is not one that lies with the police. It clouds sound judgement and promotes false narrative.

It just makes no sense, and none of these cars or places has ever been identified, nor has it been explained where a lag on day release gets the money to organise such things, or why - if he begged favours - that's never come out.

Many facts have not been placed in the public domain and nor should they be. They remain confidential for good reason.....c'est la vie!

 

[Cherwell]

The only 'idée fixe' is one of unmitigated antipathy, which is not one that lies with the police. It clouds sound judgement and promotes false narrative.

There's no "antipathy" - no hostility or dislike.

Many facts have not been placed in the public domain and nor should they be. They remain confidential for good reason.....c'est la vie!

We are just not convinced by the evidence that has been made available.

 

[Cluesleuth]

The POW

Did the POW have live music nights at the time SL went missing?
Were doormen employed at anytime at the pub?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There's no "antipathy" - no hostility or dislike.

I beg to differ. It is in the minority. Nevertheless it is overly strident, sensationalist and inaccurate, and only serves to undermine objective and reasonable discussion.

We are just not convinced by the evidence that has been made available.

The same applies to any UK police investigation, where the evidence has not been tested in court. The hoi polloi are rightly kept in the dark.....as due legal process takes its course.

It is essential to understand that invariably, information disclosed by police is no more than is required to facilitate the assistance of the general public and only when there is no other option. Running commentary is never provided.

In this case JC became the media focus as a suspect for SJL's disappearance, following his trial and conviction for the abduction/murder of SB, and other serious sexual offences towards other women.

The decision by the Met to name JC as the only suspect would not have been taken lightly.....it was a major diversion from usual procedure. The police knew the depth and breadth of their investigation and the majority detail, which remains confidential.

SJL's disappearance was/is so significant in the British memory and particularly in the psyche of Londoner's, that it was important for the Met to announce the conclusion of their overarching investigation and provide a degree of reassurance to the relevant communities.

Additionally, the announcement also provided a degree of closure for DL and PL and their family, and it was made with their full agreement. Of course they were privy to the wider evidence.

 

[RichardKimble]

SJL's disappearance was/is so significant in the British memory and particularly in the psyche of Londoner's, that it was important for the Met to announce the conclusion of their overarching investigation and provide a degree of reassurance to the relevant communities.

Additionally, the announcement also provided a degree of closure for DL and PL and their family, and it was made with their full agreement. Of course they were privy to the wider evidence.

We know the police produced a file to the CPS in the hope/expectation it would lead to charges, we know the CPS said it was not enough least of all JC and SJL could not be placed together, therefore I'd venture the police were told to gather more evidence , that has obviously failed. How is that a degree of closure where obviously the evidence would not lead to a BARD to proceed to court. Like it or not Cannan is no more guilty than the scarlet pimpernel is in the disappearance of SJL.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Prudential plc - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Prudential purchased Chesterton's Residential (Sturgis) in August 1986 and this may provide a reason why SJL had a secret meeting with Mr Kipper. The meeting with Mr Kipper was probably an interview with her new boss when the Sturgis job was terminated IMO

(Credit @Cluesleuth for the Prudential photo)

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Like it or not Cannan is no more guilty than the scarlet pimpernel is in the disappearance of SJL.

<modsnip>

The reality is that the overwhelming weight of circumstantial evidence, firmly demonstrates that JC is the ONLY suspect.

I suggest that had JC not already been safely serving a life sentence, but still walking the streets, then the CPS would have proffered charges for the abduction and murder of SJL and he would have been dealt with by means of trial.

The CPS assessed that a reasonable prospect of conviction on circumstantial evidence alone was insufficient, even though it carries significant weight.

If tried and found 'not guilty' or the jury/juries could not reach a verdict then JC could not have been tried for a second time without new and compelling evidence.

Whilst JC was locked away there was no need for the Crown to pursue a criminal trial, thereby necessitating them to disclose the evidence. There was hope of a later event which would take the likelihood of persuading a jury of his guilt to the next level.

Things are very often not quite what they seem.....but have different degrees of opaqueness and nuance.

 

[Cherwell]

Prudential purchased Chesterton's Residential (Sturgis) in August 1986 and this may provide a reason why SJL had a secret meeting with Mr Kipper. The meeting with Mr Kipper was probably an interview with her new boss when the Sturgis job was terminated IMO

Were the Sturgis staff made redundant though? From the info on Wikipedia in the link, it seems that estate agency was a new venture for Prudential. Wouldn't they have just kept the existing staff on?

 

[NorthParade]

The POW

Did the POW have live music nights at the time SL went missing?
Were doormen employed at anytime at the pub?

Interesting question. Annoyingly, as I’ve said long ago in previous threads, this is a decade before I lived down the road in Wandsworth and hung out at pretty much every pub between Putney and Clapham, including the PoW. I could give you chapter and verse on the culture and events of local pubs in the 90s. I will rack my brains and see if I can think of anyone I’m in touch with who might be able to help here.

From what we know already: the PoW had not long previously been made over, to get more up to speed with the era? My gut instinct is that it wouldn’t really have hosted events needing bouncers. There were actual nightclubs and rock pubs (like the Half Moon on Lower Richmond Road, to name just one) within walking distance.

That doesn’t mean that bouncers weren’t in the vicinity, though. Forgive me if I’m being presumptuous, but are you thinking about Bellfield, or dubious “security firms” more generally?