UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #2

[Terryb808]

Thank you Terryb808 I hope the recent tv exposure will bring more people to the forum.

Questions I have loads
firstly what do you know about the 'bike contract' written against the 142 Wardo entry at the top of the page?

I agree with you, the police forced her flat door, but didn’t do so with Shorrolds Road. Suggests to me that MG had already been in and the search the following day was to look for any evidence SJL had been inside.
As I understand it the bike contract refers to a courier, again this is somewhere in this thread. Others with more knowledge of the estate agents business back then said this was something that often happened.
FWIW I’ve spend over 2 years on this, and DV is (IMO) on the money and the police know this. It’s hard to swollen humble pie after 30 plus years of chasing the ghost that is Mr Kipper.

 

[Cluesleuth]

A few more questions for the forum if I may apologies for their randomness but they have been noted when reading or viewing different accounts of the day.
1. Did Dave Hodgkinson have a brother?
2. Did Sturgis estate agents ever sponser or advertise at Fulham FC.
3. Were any of Sturgis employees supporters of Fulham FC.
4. Re: cheque book do we know from the stubbs what her last purchases were?
5. The postcard. Was it a received postcard and if so who was it from - or was it a postcard she had purchased.
6. The name of the theatrical props company Cannan worked for.

 

[WestLondoner]

1: who is this again?
2 to 5: I don't think any of this is known; the postcard could have been blank.
6. Superhire.

 

[Terryb808]

A few more questions for the forum if I may apologies for their randomness but they have been noted when reading or viewing different accounts of the day.
1. Did Dave Hodgkinson have a brother?
2. Did Sturgis estate agents ever sponser or advertise at Fulham FC.
3. Were any of Sturgis employees supporters of Fulham FC.
4. Re: cheque book do we know from the stubbs what her last purchases were?
5. The postcard. Was it a received postcard and if so who was it from - or was it a postcard she had purchased.
6. The name of the theatrical props company Cannan worked for.

I don’t know about Sturgis and links to Fulham FC, but I understand that the PoW was very popular with Fulham supporters on match days.
CV would have known all about this, and as a none local Stevenage Road may have subconsciously come to mind if he was the James Galway man.

 

[Cluesleuth]

1: who is this again?
2 to 5: I don't think any of this is known; the postcard could have been blank.
6. Superhire.

Page 38 of AS book
Dave Hodgkinson was a former boyfriend (and part of the Putney Set) who SJL had never formerly broken up with he had been in Corsica after finnishing a job teaching sailing there the day before SJL disappeared no one had been able to contact him.

re postcard I agree it could have been a blank postard purchased by suzy. It would be interesting to know as I am aware that at least 2 friends Hodgkinson and Leegood had been on holiday prior to her disappearance. I noted from the details on the whiteboard in the police incidident room that that the male some refer to as Mr kipper had a tanned complexion (taken from the Vanishing of SJL tv doc -approx 20 mins in) Its possible that the person described as having a tanned complexion did have naturally olive skin I have also considered this as a possible and have added at least one other person to my list that would fit that.

 

[Terryb808]

Page 38 of AS book
Dave Hodgkinson was a former boyfriend (and part of the Putney Set) who SJL had never formerly broken up with he had been in Corsica after finnishing a job teaching sailing there the day before SJL disappeared no one had been able to contact him.

re postcard I agree it could have been a blank postard purchased by suzy. It would be interesting to know as I am aware that at least 2 friends Hodgkinson and Leegood had been on holiday prior to her disappearance. I noted from the details on the whiteboard in the police incidident room that that the male some refer to as Mr kipper had a tanned complexion (taken from the Vanishing of SJL tv doc -approx 20 mins in) Its possible that the person described as having a tanned complexion did have naturally olive skin I have also considered this as a possible and have added at least one other person to my list that would fit that.

I’m assuming that AL & DH were sun tanned, who is your other person?
I too can think of one other possible tanned male, however, he never gets a mention and was not questioned by police, plus ignored by DV.
In DV’s case he ignores people he believes had no influence on SJL’s disappearance. Given his detective background I’d say he knows about this person, but feels he had nothing to do with the case.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I don’t know about Sturgis and links to Fulham FC, but I understand that the PoW was very popular with Fulham supporters on match days.
CV would have known all about this, and as a none local Stevenage Road may have subconsciously come to mind if he was the James Galway man.

Can I ask if anyone has seen the 'Vanishing of SJL' which was screened on tv recently? As with most of the coverage on the case a lot of what is known is from decades ago. Neverthe less I have found some interesting details do emerge. I havent researched Cannan in detail as I want to keep an open mind at his point but I was surprised to hear from a female described as a female colleague who said Cannan frequented the POW this was news to me I wondered if anyone in the forum had heard or seen this documented previously and wether her statement is supported on a police file?

 

[WestLondoner]

I don’t know about Sturgis and links to Fulham FC, but I understand that the PoW was very popular with Fulham supporters on match days.
CV would have known all about this, and as a none local Stevenage Road may have subconsciously come to mind if he was the James Galway man.

I'm not so sure. Unless you're interested in football, you would have no idea or interest in where a football ground is, particularly if you're not from round there. I'm hugely uninterested in football, I've lived in Birmingham, Stafford, and The Hague, they've all got football teams, and I have not got a clue where any of their grounds are. Also, if you're trying to dump a car furtively, why would you head towards a place where you know your regulars go? Might you not be increasing the risk that you are recognised? And, if this was James Galway man, the fact he then hailed a cab for such a short ride suggests he was a bit lost - if he did not know how to get back from the football ground, would he have known how to get to it?

Looking at the map, I would say that from the PoW (if we suppose that's where her car was) the driver, after he crossed the river, simply stayed on the same road. This then bends around to the left, so once he's about a mile and a half from the PoW, he's looking to dump the car and get back. He doesn't turn right across the traffic because it's easier just to turn left, but the first available left turn that's not a dead end is a surprisingly long way from Putney Bridge, so he takes the first he sees. Any road he turns into at this point ends at Stevenage Road. He doesn't turn left, because that's back towards Putney. So he turns right, and as he gets near the football ground, he possibly figures he should dump the car now in case this is where this road starts getting busier.

He exits the car but turns and walks back along Stevenage Road, perhaps because he saw someone on foot ahead of him, who could possibly identify him later were he to walk on and walk past.

I was surprised to hear from a female described as a female colleague who said Cannan frequented the POW this was news to me I wondered if anyone in the forum had heard or seen this documented previously and wether her statement is supported on a police file?

The question with all these claims is when they surfaced, i.e. in 1986 or whether they only emerged after the police named him. The one about his prison nickname being Kipper is a classic example of this. Joshing lags called him that after the media and the plod said he was Mr Kipper, so its evidentiary value is nil. Likewise, the supposed sightings in 2000 of a woman and a man arguing in a black BMW are obviously completely unreliable. Nobody can remember the time and date of something that happened fourteen years before, and anyway, Cannan did not have a black BMW in 1986. The amount and nature of the unlikely detail provided debunks most of this supposed evidence.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I’m assuming that AL & DH were sun tanned, who is your other person?
I too can think of one other possible tanned male, however, he never gets a mention and was not questioned by police, plus ignored by DV.
In DV’s case he ignores people he believes had no influence on SJL’s disappearance. Given his detective background I’d say he knows about this person, but feels he had nothing to do with the case.

I would refer to him 'Mr L' as not to confuse him with another male.
I was encouraged to see that on the police incident room white board they also had a 'Mr.L'. It may or may not be the same person I have in mind.

re DV
Without having access to the contents of the diary I felt access to her friends in the Putney set were of utmost importance. When I read In DV's book that he had upset AL and in DV's own words in the video SJL 'Do we know the truth' said the interview with AL ended up in a big blowout and AL walking out (approx 23.47 in) I thought what a mistake there goes any chance of getting to speak to anyone in the close Putney set now.
IMO

 

[WestLondoner]

In a way, I tend to think that delving into the Putney set may be a gratuitous complication. There are several places we know SJL intended to go, and DV has established that all but one have been searched. In the case of the other one, that has never been searched, he has been inside, identified a suitable hiding place, photographed in that hiding place a body-sized heap of possibly concealing rubbish, and even dated it to no later than 1987. Before getting into difficult lines of inquiry like what do the Putney Set know, the obvious first port of call is to search the pub (and the adjoining railway embankment). If those come up empty, that's when one needs to look into the alternatives, I think.

I also doubt that Cannan has ever been credibly associated with the PoW, but if he has, it could actually be helpful towards getting it searched. Rather than saying "we searched it because we've been idiotically wrong for 36 years" the police could say "we searched it because John Cannan". Of course the trouble is that even if they did so and found SJL's remains there, they'd probably still try to pin it on JC, because he went to the PoW a lot, didn't he?

 

[Cluesleuth]

I'm not so sure. Unless you're interested in football, you would have no idea or interest in where a football ground is, particularly if you're not from round there. I'm hugely uninterested in football, I've lived in Birmingham, Stafford, and The Hague, they've all got football teams, and I have not got a clue where any of their grounds are. Also, if you're trying to dump a car furtively, why would you head towards a place where you know your regulars go? Might you not be increasing the risk that you are recognised? And, if this was James Galway man, the fact he then hailed a cab for such a short ride suggests he was a bit lost - if he did not know how to get back from the football ground, would he have known how to get to it?

Looking at the map, I would say that from the PoW (if we suppose that's where her car was) the driver, after he crossed the river, simply stayed on the same road. This then bends around to the left, so once he's about a mile and a half from the PoW, he's looking to dump the car and get back. He doesn't turn right across the traffic because it's easier just to turn left, but the first available left turn that's not a dead end is a surprisingly long way from Putney Bridge, so he takes the first he sees. Any road he turns into at this point ends at Stevenage Road. He doesn't turn left, because that's back towards Putney. So he turns right, and as he gets near the football ground, he possibly figures he should dump the car now in case this is where this road starts getting busier.

He exits the car but turns and walks back along Stevenage Road, perhaps because he saw someone on foot ahead of him, who could possibly identify him later were he to walk on and walk past.


The question with all these claims is when they surfaced, i.e. in 1986 or whether they only emerged after the police named him. The one about his prison nickname being Kipper is a classic example of this. Joshing lags called him that after the media and the plod said he was Mr Kipper, so its evidentiary value is nil. Likewise, the supposed sightings in 2000 of a woman and a man arguing in a black BMW are obviously completely unreliable. Nobody can remember the time and date of something that happened fourteen years before, and anyway, Cannan did not have a black BMW in 1986. The amount and nature of the unlikely detail provided debunks most of this supposed evidence.

re Female colleagues claim that Cannan frequently drank in POW
I completely agree with you WestLondoner over dates and times this is why I am trying to ascertain if the people making these claims have made statements and those statements are held on police file. For me its all about paring the alledged sightings and statements back to what is the actual. Given that SJL had a wide circle of friends and associates its likely that some of these sightings fit in somewhere albeit not in the order or importance that they are being presented. Its just one big jigsaw.
my opinion only

 

[Cluesleuth]

In a way, I tend to think that delving into the Putney set may be a gratuitous complication. There are several places we know SJL intended to go, and DV has established that all but one have been searched. In the case of the other one, that has never been searched, he has been inside, identified a suitable hiding place, photographed in that hiding place a body-sized heap of possibly concealing rubbish, and even dated it to no later than 1987. Before getting into difficult lines of inquiry like what do the Putney Set know, the obvious first port of call is to search the pub (and the adjoining railway embankment). If those come up empty, that's when one needs to look into the alternatives, I think.

I also doubt that Cannan has ever been credibly associated with the PoW, but if he has, it could actually be helpful towards getting it searched. Rather than saying "we searched it because we've been idiotically wrong for 36 years" the police could say "we searched it because John Cannan". Of course the trouble is that even if they did so and found SJL's remains there, they'd probably still try to pin it on JC, because he went to the PoW a lot, didn't he?

Searches are very costly of course I completely understand the police position when they say to DV provide us proof that SJL was seen at the POW that day.

re Cannan and any connection to the POW at this stage for me it would only be who he associated with there. My interest would only heighten if his name or any associated nickname appeared in SJL's Diary or if she had confided in any of her friends any details that would def identify him.
At this stage Cannan is very low on my list but like I said I have an open mind.

 

[WestLondoner]

Searches are very costly of course I completely understand the police position when they say to DV provide us proof that SJL was seen at the POW that day.

For my money the police are being completely disingenuous here. They are deliberately setting DV an impossible task, and the reason it is impossible is exactly because they made it so, by making no effort in 1986 to establish whether she went to the PoW or not.

As DV puts it

It was the police themselves, perhaps with the help of Suzy’s parents, who, within hours, decided on a narrative and the most likely scenario of Suzy’s disappearance, thus setting investigative lines of enquiry and closing their minds to anything else before they’d barely interviewed a single witness. Everyone loves a mystery after all. And ‘Mr Kipper’, the shadowy house buyer, was a much better story than Suzy placing a false entry in her desk diary to comply with the company’s policies just because the company enforcer was present that day

Telling DV 36 years later that he has to find evidence she went to the PoW reminds me of that Roman emperor who used to send people out to gather a tonne of cobwebs. It is an endless task by design.

 

[Cluesleuth]

For my money the police are being completely disingenuous here. They are deliberately setting DV an impossible task, and the reason it is impossible is exactly because they made it so, by making no effort in 1986 to establish whether she went to the PoW or not.

As DV puts it

It was the police themselves, perhaps with the help of Suzy’s parents, who, within hours, decided on a narrative and the most likely scenario of Suzy’s disappearance, thus setting investigative lines of enquiry and closing their minds to anything else before they’d barely interviewed a single witness. Everyone loves a mystery after all. And ‘Mr Kipper’, the shadowy house buyer, was a much better story than Suzy placing a false entry in her desk diary to comply with the company’s policies just because the company enforcer was present that day

Telling DV 36 years later that he has to find evidence she went to the PoW reminds me of that Roman emperor who used to send people out to gather a tonne of cobwebs. It is an endless task by design.

I am sure all the pieces of the jigsaw will come together in the end WestLondoner and everything will make perfect sense.

The most important thing is to gather as much info as possible within that info there will be vital evidence linking it together.
In my opinion to immediately link the Kipper entry in the diary with Cannan is wrong if anyone starts with that mindset they will have tunnel vision and thats not good in any investigation.
Lets talk about the diary entry for 12.45. Can I ask you why do you think the name was put out there as Kipper when the entry showed an S before the K?
The details on whiteboard in the incident room show details of suspect - Kipper/Skipper
Im not sure if you were able to reveal this in the actual diary entry? but it is in fact there I made a note of it prior to seeing the tv doc The Vanishing of SJL.
Could it be Mrs kipper? I didnt think so as the S appeared too large but for now I leave that aside and just note it
could it be Mr S Kipper?
I wondered at what stage it was decided not to make the S relevant/public?

Did the entry relate to a person SJL knew and was a nickmane. Was anyone known by the nickname Skipper?

IMO

 

[Cluesleuth]

I agree with you, the police forced her flat door, but didn’t do so with Shorrolds Road. Suggests to me that MG had already been in and the search the following day was to look for any evidence SJL had been inside.
As I understand it the bike contract refers to a courier, again this is somewhere in this thread. Others with more knowledge of the estate agents business back then said this was something that often happened.
FWIW I’ve spend over 2 years on this, and DV is (IMO) on the money and the police know this. It’s hard to swollen humble pie after 30 plus years of chasing the ghost that is Mr Kipper.

re bike contract
DH had a motorcycle do you think he ever did any courier work?

 

[Terryb808]

Some interesting discussion points, one thing DV said long before his book was published was “Just follow the timeline”.
If you do this (as he clearly has) it leads you straight to the PoW.
This is the thing the police didn’t do back in 1986 and has resulted in the failure to solve the case.
DV pointing this out is so obvious that the police now have put barriers up. If they search the PoW and find SJL the press will highlight the fact it should have happened 36 years ago.

 

[WestLondoner]

Indeed. If you follow the timeline, SJL was four-timing AL and wanted to offload him. She did this on Friday, but on Sunday he turns up at the beach anyway, perhaps to her deep irritation. She clearly needs to make the message clearer; so to scrape him off properly, after dropping her laundry at her mother's on Sunday, she has a blunt conversation with him. She does this from the payphone outside the PoW. It's on her route home, and she's not doing this from the flat in case Roger the Lodger is at home to eavesdrop. This call is sufficiently distracting that she fails to notice she's dropped her diary.

Next day she notices the loss but is called by her bank to say the stuff's been found at the pub. She arranges to go fetch it at 6, which will leave her time to get home and change for tennis at 7. Then a buyer calls and wants to do a repeat viewing at 6. Repeat viewings mean interest, means bid inbound, means commission. So she agrees to 6pm then calls the pub to bring the visit time forward to now. Then she heads for the pub and she's never seen again.

36 years later AL is instantly irritated by DV because he starts by asking him about the relationship with SJL. He doesn't want to talk about Cannan, or Kipper, or BMW drivers from Bristol; he wants to talk about SJL and how they were getting on. DV asks about the pub and AL says they never went there. Well no, if you're four-timing someone, you don't go to the same place with all of them. You might be with one and bump into one of the others. So they might never have gone there but this doesn't mean she never went there without him.

This conversation with DV is going to lead to questions about what was actually said in that last call. AL risks looking like both what these young people call a cuck but also like an unreliable witness in 1986. What if his misleading account of how it all stood between him and SJL confirmed the police in the wrong track they were on? Or maybe it's going to emerge that he knew about this other life of hers all along, but was prepared to tolerate being one of four because she was such a honey. At this point there's nothing in this conversation for AL, so he cuts it short. After all, after 34 years (or whatever it was then), it's not like with his help they'd have found her; nobody's going to find her now anyway.

It's tempting to look at SJL's remarkably busy personal and sex life, and think that this is so abnormal, it must be from where a mystery killer emerged. But frankly, from what little I know of what the personal and sex lives of exceptionally good-looking women look like, I am not convinced hers was remotely unusual. Before trying to figure who out of literally hundreds of personal contacts might have done this, it just seems simplest to follow the timeline, think about where she was actually going that day....and search the blasted pub.

 

[Terryb808]

Indeed. If you follow the timeline, SJL was four-timing AL and wanted to offload him. She did this on Friday, but on Sunday he turns up at the beach anyway, perhaps to her deep irritation. She clearly needs to make the message clearer; so to scrape him off properly, after dropping her laundry at her mother's on Sunday, she has a blunt conversation with him. She does this from the payphone outside the PoW. It's on her route home, and she's not doing this from the flat in case Roger the Lodger is at home to eavesdrop. This call is sufficiently distracting that she fails to notice she's dropped her diary.

Next day she notices the loss but is called by her bank to say the stuff's been found at the pub. She arranges to go fetch it at 6, which will leave her time to get home and change for tennis at 7. Then a buyer calls and wants to do a repeat viewing at 6. Repeat viewings mean interest, means bid inbound, means commission. So she agrees to 6pm then calls the pub to bring the visit time forward to now. Then she heads for the pub and she's never seen again.

36 years later AL is instantly irritated by DV because he starts by asking him about the relationship with SJL. He doesn't want to talk about Cannan, or Kipper, or BMW drivers from Bristol; he wants to talk about SJL and how they were getting on. DV asks about the pub and AL says they never went there. Well no, if you're four-timing someone, you don't go to the same place with all of them. You might be with one and bump into one of the others. So they might never have gone there but this doesn't mean she never went there without him.

This conversation with DV is going to lead to questions about what was actually said in that last call. AL risks looking like both what these young people call a cuck but also like an unreliable witness in 1986. What if his misleading account of how it all stood between him and SJL confirmed the police in the wrong track they were on? Or maybe it's going to emerge that he knew about this other life of hers all along, but was prepared to tolerate being one of four because she was such a honey. At this point there's nothing in this conversation for AL, so he cuts it short. After all, after 34 years (or whatever it was then), it's not like with his help they'd have found her; nobody's going to find her now anyway.

It's tempting to look at SJL's remarkably busy personal and sex life, and think that this is so abnormal, it must be from where a mystery killer emerged. But frankly, from what little I know of what the personal and sex lives of exceptionally good-looking women look like, I am not convinced hers was remotely unusual. Before trying to figure who out of literally hundreds of personal contacts might have done this, it just seems simplest to follow the timeline, think about where she was actually going that day....and search the blasted pub.

Perfect in every word, why make things complicated when the timeline is so simple.
All the parts fit together and if this was looked at 36 years ago CV & his partner would have been subjected to a serious grilling.
Now the police are just too embarrassed to admit this, so it will remain unsolved.

 

[Jenesaisquoi]

Wouldn’t the police need some kind of actual evidence then and now to search the pub?
Is it possible they have requested to search but been turned down for legal reasons?

 

[asyousay]

Wouldn’t the police need some kind of actual evidence then and now to search the pub?
Is it possible they have requested to search but been turned down for legal reasons?

Yes they need evidence and there is zero of that. It’s not LE’s fault that DV has made a lot of claims without a shred of evidence to back up what he is claiming.