UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 July 1986

[Crusader21]

I think you might have just solved the mystery of how the missing items came to be found outside the PoW pub on the Friday night (I say Friday as opposed to Sunday as I'm going with AS's book on this one).

Who was Suzy out with that night? Someone who might be jealous of a new man in her life? Someone who might have wanted a nose in her diary to see what she had been up to with this new bloke.

Maybe they took their chance and took these items out of Suzy's bag while she went to the loo? And later on chucked these things outside the pub after leaving, making it look like the items had fallen out of her bag?

Has the answer been under our noses all the time?

Hmm. Very interesting ....

Could well have been AL, and you can understand perfectly why he took her items behind her back.

If he admits to 'stealing' her items the spotlight goes right on to him. If he says nothing, plays the boyfriend and portrays SL in a postive light then that sits well with family and police.

Also if that's the case it suggests SL wasn't 'lured' as such to the PoW. She was just going to get her property back.

 

[Terryb808]

I find some of this quite confusing.

If there was a second house viewing that day, then which house? Were more keys missing? Without evidence she took more keys or forensic evidence of her presence in another Sturgis property on Stevenage Road then how can this assumption even be made?

The state of SJLs abandoned car suggests it was driven there by a male after somethign happened to SJL not that she and AN Other Kipper drove together and somehow in broad daylight she was moved to another vehicle in front of witnesses and her car just left like that.

When did MG say his assumption at the time was that hte key was missing? I dont remember that being in the AS book.

DId the police accept DV is right about the key? I don't see how you can prove that either way 30 years on to be honest unless there is actual documentation in the form of statements in the oroginal police file.

The police read her diary, they went to the pub to collect it to see what it contained so they KNOW what it contains and that would be on record, i doubt the diary, which is a piece of evidence would be returned to her family.

I like your summary, it’s absolutely on the money. Problem with this case is that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of the various theories.

We don’t know when the Mr Kipper appointment was put in her desk diary (Saturday or Monday)?
Did SJL actually go to Shorrolds or not?
Was SJL car jacked in Whittingstall Road?
Did SJL ever make it to the PoW?
Was SJL involved in under the table property dealing?
Was Mr Kipper her business partner?
According AS the police cherry picked tracing SJL’s boyfriends, did they miss Mr Kipper because she just had too many?
Was one of those boyfriends JC?

The list goes on, in all cases we have no actual evidence, which seems to suggest a well planned (or just plain lucky) abduction & disposal.

DV’s narrative is by far the most simple explanation.

 

[WiseOwl]

Hmm. Very interesting ....

Could well have been AL, and you can understand perfectly why he took her items behind her back.

If he admits to 'stealing' her items the spotlight goes right on to him. If he says nothing, plays the boyfriend and portrays SL in a postive light then that sits well with family and police.

Also if that's the case it suggests SL wasn't 'lured' as such to the PoW. She was just going to get her property back.

Also when he's interviewed in DV's book he is on the defensive almost immediately; he denies that he has ever been to the PoW pub, says Suzy's items disappearing from her bag never happened and promptly storms out of the interview.

Methinks DV definitely touched a nerve.

 

[Terryb808]

The Keys

This is an important point, and one DV identified immediately, Sturgis routinely only ever held a single set of keys to each property. As none went missing, it’s reasonable to conclude that SJL never took the single set belonging to 37 Shorrolds Road.

Additionally, if no other property’s keys were missing, then there was no second house viewing in the area around Stevenage Road.

You can also reasonably conclude that the police did not force the door to 37 Shorrolds Road, I say this because they did force the door to SJL’s flat. On this basis it seems that burglary is not one of the police of the period had experience in.

So if Mr Kipper was a genuine client, either looking at a Sturgis property or one SJL was looking to sell and a knockdown price, she’d have taken sets of keys.

It’s reasonable to conclude SJL never went to 37 Shorrolds Road, or any other Sturgis property. I’d say DV got this spot on.

 

[Terryb808]

Also when he's interviewed in DV's book he is on the defensive almost immediately; he denies that he has ever been to the PoW pub, says Suzy's items disappearing from her bag never happened and promptly storms out of the interview.

Methinks DV definitely touched a nerve.

I agree, I’ve (since reading DV’s book) thought AL’s reaction was strange & suspicious, it indicates that he knows something more than he’s ever said in the past. Doesn’t make him the perpetrator, but wouldn’t look good if he came clean now and his silence resulted in the police going off on completely the wrong path.

 

[WiseOwl]

I like your summary, it’s absolutely on the money. Problem with this case is that there is absolutely no evidence to support any of the various theories.

We don’t know when the Mr Kipper appointment was put in her desk diary (Saturday or Monday)?
Did SJL actually go to Shorrolds or not?
Was SJL car jacked in Whittingstall Road?
Did SJL ever make it to the PoW?
Was SJL involved in under the table property dealing?
Was Mr Kipper her business partner?
According AS the police cherry picked tracing SJL’s boyfriends, did they miss Mr Kipper because she just had too many?
Was one of those boyfriends JC?

The list goes on, in all cases we have no actual evidence, which seems to suggest a well planned (or just plain lucky) abduction & disposal.

DV’s narrative is by far the most simple explanation.

Agree with what you say @Terryb808.

Even today, 35 years later, we still don't know for sure if Suzy actually went to Shorrolds Road or not. There seems to be too much misinformation from the original enquiry and it fails to establish any of the really important facts.

We know that the police investigation wasn't, shall we say, the Met's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination. In 2002 they even apologised to Suzy's family for 'missed opportunities during the original inquiry.'

In his book, AS was said to have got his information about the case from having access to the police files from the original investigation. It does make you wonder exactly what information AS was looking at - how much of it was factual and how much of it was police speculation? And did AS just believe everything he read in the investigation without asking people himself so he could form his own opinion?

For instance, did he actually speak to any of the Sturgis staff at all? Did he ask MG to confirm what he had read about him seeing Suzy take the key to the property and also going to the property himself twice that afternoon? As well as allegedly going inside it?

IMO AS has just taken the information from the police files and published this as fact. At the time it was probably believable but now we know the investigation was nowhere near as thorough as it should of been so it does make you look at the info from his book in a different light.

At least DV in his book has tried to back up the facts by interviewing people who were around at the time (with one or two noticeable exceptions), he did put a lot of time and effort into his research.

 

[Terryb808]

Agree with what you say @Terryb808.

Even today, 35 years later, we still don't know for sure if Suzy actually went to Shorrolds Road or not. There seems to be too much misinformation from the original enquiry and it fails to establish any of the really important facts.

We know that the police investigation wasn't, shall we say, the Met's finest hour by any stretch of the imagination. In 2002 they even apologised to Suzy's family for 'missed opportunities during the original inquiry.'

In his book, AS was said to have got his information about the case from having access to the police files from the original investigation. It does make you wonder exactly what information AS was looking at - how much of it was factual and how much of it was police speculation? And did AS just believe everything he read in the investigation without asking people himself so he could form his own opinion?

For instance, did he actually speak to any of the Sturgis staff at all? Did he ask MG to confirm what he had read about him seeing Suzy take the key to the property and also going to the property himself twice that afternoon? As well as allegedly going inside it?

IMO AS has just taken the information from the police files and published this as fact. At the time it was probably believable but now we know the investigation was nowhere near as thorough as it should of been so it does make you look at the info from his book in a different light.

At least DV in his book has tried to back up the facts by interviewing people who were around at the time (with one or two noticeable exceptions), he did put a lot of time and effort into his research.

I couldn’t agree more, I’m a bit of a doubting Thomas, I’ve learned to question everything and double check anything I’m told.
I trusted a report I’d received from a colleague and had to admit it contained serious errors to the judge in court, it was very costly.
I’d have thought AS would do this as well, he’s putting a book into the public domain and wouldn’t want to risk liable.
I do think DV has the issue of the keys right.

 

[WestLondoner]

I guess it's possible that AL would have filched SJL's diary, in order perhaps to find out what she'd been up to with whom - but the detail of his doing it seems complicated. He could hardly have pinched her diary and read it while she was sitting there with him. If she left the table to get a round in, make the mysterious phone call, etc, he could have read the diary then - but he'd have had to put it back before she came back. If he could do that, why nick it at all?

So let's suppose for argument's sake that he sneaked a flick through and decided to take it away for a longer read. OK, but why does he take the cheque book and postcard as well?! Having done so, he then apparently returned to the general area at a later time after he's had a read, and returns the items by leaving them where there'll be found. Why would he bother to do that? Why not just let his faithless ex SJL think she's lost them for good?

Finally, it still doesn't really move us very far forward - even if he did all the above, it doesn't tell us who intercepted SJL at the PoW (if that is what happened). There's no evidence he knew where or when her diary had been lost or found, or when or where she was going to retrieve it. We are thus still stuck trying to work out who SJL actually ran into that day even if AL did rip off her diary, because as her apparent boyfriend he was the first person to be eliminated from the inquiry and it therefore wasn't him.

 

[WestLondoner]

It does make you wonder exactly what information AS was looking at - how much of it was factual and how much of it was police speculation?

Yes, I think this is important. If AS' info was culled from the police files, and was of the same quality as the police view then that SJL had taken one of several sets of keys and their view now that there was a second viewing elsewhere, there's a fair chance it's complete nonsense.

It is exceedingly hard to reconcile MG's accounts of his day then versus now unless we assume the keys error was so embarrassing he didn't feel able to own up.

 

[WestLondoner]

You'd think the family would co-operate to a certain degree, with almost anyone who is genuinely trying to locate SLs remains.

Yes and no.

The family appear entirely bought into the narrative they originated that JC did it. Unfortunately DV's contribution has been to debunk this by pointing out that

1/ there's literally no evidence against JC beyond his supposed resemblance to "Mr Kipper", which was never tested via an identity parade, so it's just somebody's opinion that there's a resemblance;
2/ the police made some very elementary mistakes that wrecked the investigation on day 1, not limited to not being sure how many sets of keys there were; and
3/ there are clearly several other potentially fruitful lines of inquiry the police failed properly to consider.

Taken together, any rational person would agree with the CPS - there is no case for JC to answer.

The police at the moment can take comfort from the fact that they know who did it and it's just those bureaucrats at the CPS who disagree. We've been here before with the police - they can't proceed with a prosecution, but they announce to the world anyway that they know who did it, so public opinion agrees they've solved it really. DV's contribution leaves the police with an unsolved crime once more - not unsolved in the sense that they know but can't prove who did it, but completely unsolved in the sense that they have been wrong for 35 years, they haven't a clue who did it, and they never have done.

This leaves the police looking stupid and pigheaded and leaves the family with no support for their theory. So it's in nobody's interest - except perhaps JC's - for DV to be vindicated.

As the police insist there's nothing to be found at (or close by) the PoW DV's best bet is probably to search the site himself if he can organise this. He has contemplated doing so according to the book:

I was certain that we could have searched the void underneath the dining-room floor at the Prince of Wales ourselves by now. We could simply have employed exactly the same forensic archaeological team that the Met outsourced their specialist searches to. But with Suzy’s sister asking that we share the information we had uncovered with the police, we wanted to respect these wishes.​

My guess is that this will happen next, although as we've discussed above, it's not really in anyone's interest to co-operate.

 

[Crusader21]

Lolly True Crime World ~ The investigation:

'Yes we have received messages and emails "warning us off" but we remain unpeturbed and determined'

I wonder who is behind these threats?

 

[Terryb808]

Lolly True Crime World ~ The investigation:

'Yes we have received messages and emails "warning us off" but we remain unpeturbed and determined'

I wonder who is behind these threats?

Don’t know, but it’s some who doesn’t want JC released.

 

[Crusader21]

Don’t know, but it’s some who doesn’t want JC released.

So in 2021, could the SL Mystery be more a case now of ensuring that JC remains behind bars as opposed to actually finding SLs remains and (possibly) bringing to justise her murderer(s)?

If so, you'd imagine all JCs victims, the police, most of media would play to that narrative. It will be interesting to see how things play out in 2022 when he is eligible for release ....

 

[WestLondoner]

Quite likely. Between the lines, I think the plod gave up trying to find SJL in 1986. It was just too difficult for them. So they seized, with delight, on JC when he appeared in 1989. Ever since, whenever the case comes back into the public eye, the bill go and dig up somewhere JC's connected to - his mother's garden, a map reference etc - to remind everyone that he did it. They never find anything, of course.

If they follow DV's thinking, dig up the pub floor or the railway embankment, and find her, that means JC's going to get out next year. So there's a downside to finding her if finding her shows JC didn't do it.

 

[Terryb808]

Quite likely. Between the lines, I think the plod gave up trying to find SJL in 1986. It was just too difficult for them. So they seized, with delight, on JC when he appeared in 1989. Ever since, whenever the case comes back into the public eye, the bill go and dig up somewhere JC's connected to - his mother's garden, a map reference etc - to remind everyone that he did it. They never find anything, of course.

If they follow DV's thinking, dig up the pub floor or the railway embankment, and find her, that means JC's going to get out next year. So there's a downside to finding her if finding her shows JC didn't do it.

Well if it follows on from the Daniel Morgan case from 1987 and the report which said the Met where institutionally corrupt when it comes to covering up their mistakes, they’re not going to be digging up the PoW in any form.
It’s a shame because the team back in 1986 had some good officers and if they had been allowed some slack they might just have found what happened to SJL.

 

[Crusader21]

Prelude for tomorrow evening

 

[Henry B]

1. Mr Kipper. Cannan was nicknamed “Kipper” by others at a bail hostel where he lived at the time — due to his fondness for the fish and a habit of having a kip. Funny, supposedly this was also because he wore kipper ties. Which was it? And anyway, this claim came from another criminal 14 years later, after he'd been named, and has never been substantiated. Why would he anyway use an "alias" that actually identified him? It would be like Reggie Perrin disappearing and coming back as Gerry Reppin. [/QUOTE]

The 'kipper tie' thing seems to come in years later. The quote about JC requesting kippers for breakfast and kipping easily in the hostel/prison comes from the 1988 book.

 

[Henry B]

Does AS's book cover what happened in the Sturgis office that morning? Does it mention MG going for an early lunch with his boss?

I thought MG went to the Crocodile Tears wine bar and met colleagues from other branches? This was in the 1988 AS book.

 

[CrimeAway]

Prelude for tomorrow evening

I just came to mention this podcast. The host is a former Scotland Yard Detective Inspector, and he also did an episode on the Delphi murders.

 

[Henry B]

One of the things about the 1988 AS book is so much could not be revealed. Even the management of Faber and Faber said some 'incredibly difficult stuff' was left out. SJL led a complex life when it came to relationships. The 'left out' stuff might have been the key to unnerving somebody enough to give himself away - or have prompted more people to come forward with different evidence. DL hated the idea, of course. I suppose it's understandable. Many a grieving parent would want to preserve their own view of their child.