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

[Pinkizzy]

Very comprehensive and clearly well researched, IMO AS, DV and CBD (Prime Suspect) are essential reading if you want to understand this case.
The latter give you an insight into JC and there’s a quote related to another murder he was questioned about just because he was passing at the time.
Much later modern DNA techniques revealed the real killer. Good example of wrong person in right place at the right time.
Time to end the fixation on JC and look at this with a truly open mind.

Who was the real killer?

 

[Terryb808]

Who was the real killer?

Can’t remember off the top of my head and am travelling at the moment. What didn’t fit with JC wad the fact she was (from memory) 13 years old. The killer lived in the same block of flats as I recall.

 

[Terryb808]

Pinkizzy you asked about places JC might have disposed of SJL in Birmingham.
Whitehall said they needed to have some kind of link to JC, I can add one place.
JC went to private school in Sutton Coldfield, the school (which is not there now) backed directly onto Sutton Park.
When he committed the rape at knifepoint for which he was jailed (1981) he disposed of the knife in Blackroot pool in Sutton Park.
The park has 7 pools, all back in 1986 accessible by car up to 10.00pm (when the gates closed). However, Wyndley pool is accessible by car 24/7 and is next to a service road into Sutton Park.
Also Wyndley pool is also directly at the rear of JC’s school, he was allegedly abused at this school.
Not all of the 7 pools are suitable because they are shallow and some are drained regularly.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if SJL was disposed of in a pool at the rear of JC’s old school.
Having said that IMO she’s not in that pool.

 

[WestLondoner]

Wouldn’t it be ironic if SJL was disposed of in a pool at the rear of JC’s old school.
Having said that IMO she’s not in that pool.

It would be quite stupid of JC, too, as it would link him to her. In the only homicide proven against him, the place the victim's body was found didn't lead back to him. That's not to say he wouldn't do this, as he is plainly rather dim. Of course whether he can be said to have an MO based on one murder is a question in itself.

The case was made based on his proven prior acquaintance with SB, having SB's stolen car in his garage, having the Mini's tax disc in his own car, his account of how he came by the car being demonstrably untruthful, and her thumbprint being found on a paper inside his flat. All that showed that he knew her, was the last person seen with her and that after she disappeared he had her car, which is pretty persuasive taken together.

 

[WestLondoner]

If the garage owner moved it you'd have thought he would have admitted this though, the garage owner would have been spoken to by the police anyway.

Yes, anyone who had innocently moved it would have said so.

Furthermore, you could look through the window and see the handbrake was off. If it were say the garage owner and the car was in his way, this detail tells him he can probably push it out of the way without needing to get into it. If it were pointing into the kerb, or were in reverse or something, he might open the door to put it in neutral and then steer and push via the A post. In any event there would be prints that needed to be eliminated and that supported what had been done.

If someone else moved it then who? Why was her purse left in the car? If the person who abducted Suzy moved it he would have risked being seen driving in it, leaving it, and walking away from a car he just abandoned.

The killer presumably. He left her purse in the car because he's covering up a killing here, and hasn't time for petty theft. He might not even have noticed it.

Yes, he risked being seen driving her car, but if he did not move it, it would be found where she left it. If that were outside the place he killed her, and that place connects to him, then he has a choice. He either moves her car and maybe gets caught, or doesn't move it and he definitely gets caught. It was probably the least-worst option.

No-one leaves a purse or handbag in a car while they run an errand. I guess the perpetrator placed the purse there in the unlocked car. moo

It was a purse that probably couldn't be seen. People perhaps do leave purses in locked cars if, say, they're crossing a pavement on a 30-second errand to retrieve a diary. They don't leave them in unlocked cars all day.

The killer could have placed it there but IMO he'd have been better advised to have disposed of it. Finding her car with something as essential as her purse in it tells you she's been killed, because it means she's without the wherewithal to do anything or go anywhere. An abandoned car OTOH just looks like a missing person, so the level of police interest would probably not rise as fast.

 

[Terryb808]

I think it’s important to try and work out the time SJL’s car was abandoned. This would give you some idea of how long after she left the office it was before she was abducted or killed.
On the basis that the Cabbie is right that gives you approximately 1 hour 15 minutes.
In this time the perpetrator has to abduct SJL, drive to his secure location, restrain her and drive back to Stevenage Road.
The question is why would you return to Fulham at all, you could abandon her car just about anywhere.
On the other hand if you were in Putney, leaving the car in Fulham tends to result in the police focusing on this area rather than anywhere else.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Everyone knew she wanted to go on a shopping trip to Putney. The police searched her house and found nothing. Its a shame they didn't search another place properly that night

 

[Cluesleuth]

I think it’s important to try and work out the time SJL’s car was abandoned. This would give you some idea of how long after she left the office it was before she was abducted or killed.
On the basis that the Cabbie is right that gives you approximately 1 hour 15 minutes.
In this time the perpetrator has to abduct SJL, drive to his secure location, restrain her and drive back to Stevenage Road.
The question is why would you return to Fulham at all, you could abandon her car just about anywhere.
On the other hand if you were in Putney, leaving the car in Fulham tends to result in the police focusing on this area rather than anywhere else.

Unless there were 2 abductors.
One would drive the abductors vehicle with her restrained in it.
The other abductor would drive her car straight to Stevenage road and abandon it.

 

[Konstantin]

Ordinarily, I would give a detailed response and provide some clarity on the multitude of errors that you have made, both factually and procedurally and provide context for those who don't have the UK LE investigation experience.

Leaving aside everything else, this debate has highlighted one important thing for me and I would appreciate your insight-- from all this and the quotes from DV's book above, it seems that in fact the police would have considered and eliminated CV from the enquiry.

I wonder if DV is selectively quoting here OR whether actually the police did not and cannot disclose to him the criteria on which suspects were considered or eliminated. I assume that if they really believed Suzy to have possibly gone to the pub that lunchtime then this would have been considered. It does seem too obvious to just overlook in the way that DV has implied.

 

[Konstantin]

The killer could have placed it there but IMO he'd have been better advised to have disposed of it. Finding her car with something as essential as her purse in it tells you she's been killed, because it means she's without the wherewithal to do anything or go anywhere. An abandoned car OTOH just looks like a missing person, so the level of police interest would probably not rise as fast.

If the killer did drive her car there and abandon it then I assume he just didn't see her purse, meaning he didn't search the car for stuff to remove but just got in and drove it there and abandoned it. That suggests to me that nothing happened in her car since there was no need for a cover up or scene setting. And also, that Suzy got out of the car expecting to be at a short appointment somewhere safe that did not require her purse. Assuming she did take house particulars and keys, that suggests she took these with her when she left the car, as well as her car keys (since the killer would not have had her keys otherwise).

The other scenario, that Suzy drove there herself and got out for a short appointment and someone else moved her car without needing the keys is plausible but I would expect that if the garage owner did that he would have admitted it in questioning.

The question is why would you return to Fulham at all, you could abandon her car just about anywhere.

Well we don't actually know where she was abducted from. And had the car been abandoned in another location we could ask the same question. The most likely explanation is to remove the car from the scene of the abduction. If the abduction happened outside of the Putney area if the killer knew she worked around there it would be a good place to dump it, near another Sturgis house for sale. And it's a dead end street isn;t it, so quieter and no through traffic meaning less chance of someone seeing him.

 

[WestLondoner]

Unless there were 2 abductors.
One would drive the abductors vehicle with her restrained in it.
The other abductor would drive her car straight to Stevenage road and abandon it.

It would then work as you outline, but is there much precedent for two abductors working together in this way?

I mean sure, if you look at gangland hits and whatnot, there are quite likely several people involved. But there's no evidence SJL was involved in anything shady of that ilk. The stuff that occasionally comes up about mortgage frauds originated with DL, and was based on nothing. Kidnapping could involve several people but there was never a ransom demand and the Lamplughs weren't rich anyway.

If we rule out involvement in crime, on the basis there's zero evidence, then the two abductors would have to be sex attackers. Are joint sex attackers actually a thing? If I were a criminal of any sort, my concern about involving anyone else would be the Prisoner's Dilemma issue: he might one day get caught for something else and dob me in.

Leaving aside everything else, this debate has highlighted one important thing for me and I would appreciate your insight-- from all this and the quotes from DV's book above, it seems that in fact the police would have considered and eliminated CV from the enquiry.

I wonder if DV is selectively quoting here OR whether actually the police did not and cannot disclose to him the criteria on which suspects were considered or eliminated. I assume that if they really believed Suzy to have possibly gone to the pub that lunchtime then this would have been considered. It does seem too obvious to just overlook in the way that DV has implied.

You can tell from how he's quoted that "Albert Clyne" is being transcribed verbatim (CV likewise). That's what he actually said. They re-eliminated the original suspects according to whether they 1/ were in Fulham that day and 2/ knew SJL. That left only Cannan, therefore he did it. That's the "case".

We know the 1986 inquiry did not look at recently-released sex offenders. Had they done so they'd have had a list, by my Fermi estimate, of about 30 of them: violent offenders against women. Even if it's not 30, it's not 0 either. If the circumstantial evidence that points to JC also points to any of those, then that's the end of the "case" against JC. This, I would guess, is what the police have had pointed out to them by the CPS. It's not good enough that circumstantial evidence fits JC; it has to not fit anyone else, and you have to put him in Fulham.

They did not eliminate anyone at pubs in Putney, nor search pubs in Putney (if they had they could have disarmed DV by simply saying so).

 

[WestLondoner]

...Suzy got out of the car expecting to be at a short appointment somewhere safe that did not require her purse.

Yes - if she did indeed go to the PoW and was able to park outside, she would walk in and out again inside a minute.

If she only did the walking in bit that's a problem for the killer because the longer the car's left outside the likelier it is that someone will remember seeing it. So he needs to move that car.

 

[Pinkizzy]

JC frequented bars along Broad Street in Birmingham and there's a reservoir (Edgbaston reservoir) where SJL may have been deposited

 

[Cluesleuth]

It would then work as you outline, but is there much precedent for two abductors working together in this way?

I mean sure, if you look at gangland hits and whatnot, there are quite likely several people involved. But there's no evidence SJL was involved in anything shady of that ilk. The stuff that occasionally comes up about mortgage frauds originated with DL, and was based on nothing. Kidnapping could involve several people but there was never a ransom demand and the Lamplughs weren't rich anyway.

If we rule out involvement in crime, on the basis there's zero evidence, then the two abductors would have to be sex attackers. Are joint sex attackers actually a thing? If I were a criminal of any sort, my concern about involving anyone else would be the Prisoner's Dilemma issue: he might one day get caught for something else and dob me in.



You can tell from how he's quoted that "Albert Clyne" is being transcribed verbatim (CV likewise). That's what he actually said. They re-eliminated the original suspects according to whether they 1/ were in Fulham that day and 2/ knew SJL. That left only Cannan, therefore he did it. That's the "case".

We know the 1986 inquiry did not look at recently-released sex offenders. Had they done so they'd have had a list, by my Fermi estimate, of about 30 of them: violent offenders against women. Even if it's not 30, it's not 0 either. If the circumstantial evidence that points to JC also points to any of those, then that's the end of the "case" against JC. This, I would guess, is what the police have had pointed out to them by the CPS. It's not good enough that circumstantial evidence fits JC; it has to not fit anyone else, and you have to put him in Fulham.

They did not eliminate anyone at pubs in Putney, nor search pubs in Putney (if they had they could have disarmed DV by simply saying so).

Oh I think they worked together and and they were sex attackers and murders.

John Duffy and David Mulcahy

Its very unusual but in my opinion that SJL was one of their victims. They were very active 27 attacks from Jan 1984 -1985 and 3 murders primarly in Hampstead but they travelled 2 attacks in Richmond Park and 1 on Barnes Common
Jan 1984 32 yr old attacked on Barnes Common
Jun 1984 23 yr old attacked West Hampstead Train Stration
July 1984 22 yr old highgate west Hill
July 1984 2 danish au pairs Hampstead Heath
Jan 1985 25 yr old German au pair Brent Cross
Jan 1985 2 more attacks on or near the Heath

Murder
Dec 1985 Alison day
April 1986 Maartje Tamboezer
May 1986 Ann Lock

2000 John Duffy confessed that here are many more.

Mulcahy was jailed 10+ after Duffy so when you look at his photo bear in mind the younger one would resemble him more

 

[Pinkizzy]

Oh I think they worked together and and they were sex attackers and murders.

John Duffy and David Mulcahy

Its very unusual but in my opinion that SJL was one of their victims. They were very active 27 attacks from Jan 1984 -1985 and 3 murders primarly in Hampstead but they travelled 2 attacks in Richmond Park and 1 on Barnes Common
Jan 1984 32 yr old attacked on Barnes Common
Jun 1984 23 yr old attacked West Hampstead Train Stration
July 1984 22 yr old highgate west Hill
July 1984 2 danish au pairs Hampstead Heath
Jan 1985 25 yr old German au pair Brent Cross
Jan 1985 2 more attacks on or near the Heath

Murder
Dec 1985 Alison day
April 1986 Maartje Tamboezer
May 1986 Ann Lock

2000 John Duffy confessed that here are many more.

Mulcahy was jailed 10+ after Duffy so when you look at his photo bear in mind the younger one would resemble him more

They are known as the Railway Killers

 

[Cluesleuth]

David Canters profiling of a Marauder or Commuter offenders

1. Marauders commits crimes around the area in which they live.
2. Commuters commit crimes they have commuted to and have some familiarity with, this may a friends house. Commuters dont need to hide there identity as they dont think they will be recognised

Duffy and Mulcahy were childhood friends they grew up around Hampstead they thought of each other as brothers.

Duffy lived in Kilburn 8.9 miles from Queens Grove where the BMW was found abandoned.

Ann Locks diary was found some 700 yards from address book.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Mulchay had taken up rollerskating and spent much of his time at at the skatepark in Hampstead.. At the end of Stevenage road is Bishops Park Concrete Skatepark & Bowl,

Bishops Park Concrete Skatepark & Bowl to Stevenage Road

www.google.com

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cluesleuth]

They are known as the Railway Killers

Correct Pinkizzy
One of their victims discribed them as having one mind and 2 bodies
Duffy practised martial arts. They both studied army style kidnap techniques and planned their abductions.
They use to play Micheal Jacksons thriller in in the car when they went out 'hunting for victims to physc themselves up

 

[Cluesleuth]

Duffy used to work as a carpenter for british rail and used his knowledge of train stations to travel.

At one stage Mulcahy worked for a cab company Crystal Cars in Dulwich

 

[Pinkizzy]

Duffy used to work as a carpenter for british rail and used his knowledge of train stations to travel.

At one stage Mulcahy worked for a cab company Crystal Cars in Dulwich

You should write a book about this theory

 

[Cluesleuth]

didnt Galway guy ask the Cabbie to take him to North End rd?

Or could it have been North End?
A sparsely populated area of Hampstead which In a leafy suburban corner of north London, 39 metres below ground, remains the abandoned tunnels of an Underground station that has lain incomplete for over a century. A non-descript surface-level building, which could easily pass as an uninteresting electrical sub-station, is actually the way down to what exists of the abandoned North End station. While this site, in between Hampstead and Golders Green, never had a life as an operational station, it did fulfil an intriguing purpose at the height of the Cold War.

North End: the hidden history of the station that never was | London Transport Museum

Read more about the abandoned tunnels of an Underground station that has lain incomplete for over a century.

www.ltmuseum.co.uk

Its Just my opinion but I think this place may be worth a look