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

[Whitehall 1212]

In my opinion by 2000 the police already had JC down for the murder, they dont appear to have put much effort into pursuing anyone else

MOO

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[WestLondoner]

In my opinion by 2000 the police already had JC down for the murder, they dont appear to have put much effort into pursuing anyone else

JD pretty much says so to DV. The focus was on re-eliminating all the previous suspects; the suspect list was people in Fulham who knew SJL; once done, that left JC.

JC was of course not a 1986 suspect, as the 1986 inquiry did not consider recently-released sex offenders. Had it done so, it would appear that statistically they'd have had a long list, depending on how they defined 'recently'. It seems vanishingly unlikely that he was the only rapist released in the previous few months.

Let's suppose, arguendo, that the police do have reliable 1986 witnesses and evidence that they won't disclose but that puts JC in that area more believably than we have seen so far. For example, they might have half a dozen mutually corroborative accounts from prison officers and other early-release lags, to the effect that the pre-release and curfew conditions were a joke and regularly flouted. JC, while supposedly still inside, actually and provably had almost complete liberty from the hostel. Maybe he used to light a warder's cigarettes with matches from a Fulham wine bar. Something like that.

It still doesn't help that much though. Millions of people were in a 4.6 mile radius of Fulham; dozens of sex offenders had recently been released from the Scrubs; and dozens of future offenders presumably lived nearby. Circumstantial evidence like this still only narrows it down to a few million people. JC started offending when he was about 14 and was in jail for 4 years between that age and the age of 32, when SJL disappeared. He didn't continuously offend whenever and wherever he was at liberty. As far as has ever been proven there were three rapes and a murder. So he did not announce his arrival in the locale by committing rapes.

Thus, even if he can be placed in Fulham, it still doesn't say he did it. He was no doubt in a lot of places where crimes went down and he didn't do all of those either.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

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

An extraordinary find! John Duffy looks so like James Galway, it's almost freakish. But surely the police weren't so incompetent as not to investigate this?! Still, how did you come across it?
But surely people on this thread are right to look at other possibilities than John Cannan since any evidence against him seems to be circumstantial at best.
Since Suzy Lamplugh was due to pick up her belongings that day from the POW obviously this is also something that needs to be investigated, but for whatever reason the police seem to have no intention of pressing further on with DV's theory.
I feel we need to take this back to absolute origins, the last time SL was knowingly seen alive was when she left her office that lunchtime. I find it extraordinary that for more than 35 years the public has been told that Suzy went to pick up her car from Whittingstall Road, and now after all this time office junior JC has informed @Tim Fisher that infact after taking Suzy Lamplugh's car to a 20-minute viewing, he actually parked up in a different road, Radipole. Do we have any corroboration for this? When SL left the office, were there any other staff present who can confirm that JC did indeed tell Suzy that her car was parked in Radipole Road? I feel it is very important to pin down for certain the location of Suzy's car because if it was somewhere relatively quiet this could afford any potential abductor(s) the opportunity to attack Suzy out of the public eye. So was the car parked in Whittingstall, Radipole or perhaps indeed somewhere else? @Tim Fisher can you help us with this?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Interesting as usual, but the content is always the same. Completely missing the point of this thread, which is to provide people with a platform to exchange ideas.
It’s not a platform to fly a flag for the Met Police Force.
You say you’ve not had access to the police evidence, therefore, how can you say that every line of enquiry has been investigated and the only conclusion left is that JC is guilty.
I’d suggest as others have that you read AS, DV & CBD’s books, then watch the documentary programs in which JD has appeared. If you are truly objective you’ll see just how inaccurate the program is and how much he gets wrong.
I know only to well how witness statements can be inaccurate and just how much they can lie or fill in the gaps in memory via the media they have consumed.
The Met does not have an untarnished reputation either now or back in the 80’s.
Try contributing instead of being confined by police procedures, the purpose here is to explore and exploration doe not comply with police procedures.

It's not a case of flying the flag for the Met.

I have full confidence in the review investigation by the Met and their findings. I also have full confidence in the CPS assessment of how comprehensive it was.

Those pursuing other narratives regarding who is responsible are conveniently ignoring the reality that the police have "all the available evidence" (CPS words). JC was and is the only suspect who could not be ruled out due to the wealth of circumstantial evidence.

I accept that trust in the police at an all time low and the desire for people to sleuth, particularly over such an emotive case, often means that inconvenient truths are be pushed to one side to make other scenarios 'fit'.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Duffy or Mulcahy's offence MO did not include abduction, vehicle hijack or attacking women in broad daylight in London streets. I accept that a rapists/murderers MO can change depending on the circumstances, but my view is that D and M attacked in quite specific locations, away from public streets, in secluded locations, often at night. I feel that this would rule them out.

They didnt always attack at night Maartje Tamboezer was attacked in the afternoon and was walked 1 mile before being murdered.

The exact circumstances of some of the attacks are not known as some women chose not to press charges and go to court against JD or DM. This was also the case for some of the foreign au pairs who chose not to return to the UK.

As some of their attacks took place in parks and commons would you not consider that her car was found parked on a road where there were 2 parks Stevenage Park and Bishops Park a good reason to make note of.

Whats interesting to me is that in the search for SJL police did search Barns Common which was also a location where an attack had taken place by 2 men 1984.(later identified as JD & DM).
Was this another reason why Det Hacket said SJL may have gone off with 2 men that day?

I respect you opinion and why you feel you would rule them out but in repsect of MO's I think a closer look at JC's crimes and how that MO changed he went from entering a shop in the day and raping a woman in the presence of her mother and child to abducting a lone woman in at night, her holding her overnight then killing her disposing of her body some miles away in a woodland ditch and concealing her car in his garage.
I struggle to see that you are reluctant to accept a change in MO in one case but dont challenge it in another.
MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

They didnt always attack at night Maartje Tamboezer was attacked in the afternoon and was walked 1 mile before being murdered.

The exact circumstances of some of the attacks are not known as some womse not to press charge and go to court against JD or DM. This was also the case for some of the foreign au pairs who chose not to return to the UK.

As some of their attacks took place in parks and commons would you not consider that her car was found parked on a road where there were 2 parks Stevenage Park and Bishops Park a good reason to make note of.

Whats interesting to me is that in the search for SJL police did search Barns Common which was also a location where an attack had taken place by 2 men 1984.(later identified as JD & DM).
Was this another reason why Det Hacket said SJL may have gone off with 2 men that day?

I respect you opinion and why you feel you would rule them out but in repsect of MO's I think a closer look at JC's crimes and how that MO changed he went from entering a shop in the day and raping a woman in the presence of her mother and child to abducting a lone woman in at night, her holding her overnight then killing her disposing of her body some miles away in a woodland ditch and concealing her car in his garage.
I struggle to see that you are reluctant to accept a change in MO in one case but dont challenge it in another.
MOO

To confirm I did say JD/DM 'often' committed offences at night (dark evenings), not always.

These low life's were offending at the time of SJL's disappearance. JD was arrested in November 1986. They will have been considered as possible suspects either during the original investigation, the 2000 review or both.

I think it is essential to recognise that many possible suspects/similar offences will have been considered during the original investigation and/or review. Only JC could not be ruled out.

Just because the police in the UK do not provide a running commentary of their investigations, should not give cause to doubt that the investigation was not thorough.

 

[Pinkizzy]

JD commited crimes on his own and may have altered his MO when he didn't have the support of DM

 

[WestLondoner]

An extraordinary find! John Duffy looks so like James Galway, it's almost freakish.

DV has said, though, that he thinks the killer has been at liberty for the last 36 years - which would tend to rule out JD. But you're right, it is pretty extraordinary. It may also shed light on something else around DV's point.

He notes that there's a lot of evidence SJL was actually heading to the PoW, and suggests she's still there. He points out that

• her diary was on the fuse box,
• the fuse box was in the cellar,
• SJL was claustrophobic,
• three strides from the fuse box is a hatchway to an underfloor space,
• the visible debris under that floor dates to before 1987,
• there's a pile of it big enough to conceal a body,
• the permanent landlord returned to an epic bluebottle infestation,
• the pub was visited but not searched by the police because the temporary landlord said SJL never came,
• the police accepted this at face value, and
• their visit happened after the Mr Kipper story had been embedded, via press conference, which may explain why the police were more than usually credulous.

DV is equivocal about what happened at the PoW. He just notes that given the above, that she's never been found, and that there is insufficient evidence against the police's preferred suspect, it could well be someone else, not necessarily a murder; hence, search the bloody cellar already.

That is not to say the temporary landlord killed her (there's a lot DV clearly can't say), nor does he mention the James Galway sighting either. It's other people's inference that CV killed her, and that James Galway was CV laying a false trail. The obvious challenge to this is Wait, what? She walks in, CV kills her off the cuff because he just does, cool as a cucumber he hides her body, dumps her car and then adds to the false trail outside 123SR by telling a cabbie he just saw a couple having a right ruck? Really?

But if that's the wrong inference, that 'James Galway' is not CV - or any off-the-cuff killer at the PoW - but someone else, who looks like that and who did meticulously plan killings, well...

I feel it is very important to pin down for certain the location of Suzy's car because if it was somewhere relatively quiet this could afford any potential abductor(s) the opportunity to attack Suzy out of the public eye.

Perhaps so, but even if that's not what happened, it's an interesting datum point in any case. It could be another factoid in support of the idea that the police compromised their investigation by not getting basic facts right at the outset.

Once again, the detailed timeline is important here. Plod were alerted at 6.45 the previous evening, at which time everyone at Sturgis would have left for the day. The police may have stayed up to work through the night, but the witnesses certainly didn't. So the 10am press conference the following morning clearly preceded the taking of any statements from the office staff. The only information the police had was the finding of her car and from speaking to MG and HR. Despite this, they announced that SJL had been seen at 37SR, when the evidence is that she had not.

To borrow a phrase, "I have full confidence" that this ex ante assumption informed the statements the police took ex post. When they spoke to the office juniors, did the police ask if they specifically remembered SJL actually taking property details, or did they ask what a negotiator going to a viewing would normally take? If they've already decided she went to a viewing, you're going to get the same answer to either question, so it doesn't matter which you ask. If the latter was the question, or was the general tenor of the questions put to staff, or is what the staff thought they were being asked, then it's a full explanation for how MG could be both having lunch next door in Crocodile Tears, while also sitting at his desk at the same time.

 

[RichardKimble]

HI guys, is the author DV you refer to ,David Videcette and the book titled

FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper'​

Thanks in advance, just looked its on kindle unlimited so will have a read,

 

[Eastend Eagle]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find it very strange that SJL would choose the name Mr Kipper to cover an against-the-rules absence from the office. Suzy may well have been heading off to the POW to collect her belongings, but if I was her big boss KP and I saw the name Mr Kipper in her diary I would have been somewhat sceptical that this was a genuine appointment. I don't know about other Sleuthers but I have never met anyone called Mr Kipper. If I'd been Suzy and I'd wanted to cover myself, I would have picked a far more convincing name like say Taylor or Walsh or some such.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Hopefully @TimFisher1965 will return to answer our questions

 

[WestLondoner]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I find it very strange that SJL would choose the name Mr Kipper to cover an against-the-rules absence from the office. Suzy may well have been heading off to the POW to collect her belongings, but if I was her big boss KP and I saw the name Mr Kipper in her diary I would have been somewhat sceptical that this was a genuine appointment. I don't know about other Sleuthers but I have never met anyone called Mr Kipper. If I'd been Suzy and I'd wanted to cover myself, I would have picked a far more convincing name like say Taylor or Walsh or some such.

What she may have been expecting is that the big boss wanders in and says Blimey, Gurdon, where is everyone?

To which MG says Well, out of four, one's on holiday, I've just been out with you, Nigel's over there and Susanna...(goes to desk, checks her diary)...Susanna is showing 37 Shorrolds to someone.

I.e. it only has to look good enough to keep MG out of trouble. When she gets back, she perhaps admits to MG that she wrote a little porky in the diary. Or perhaps she doesn't, because he said at the time thought she was going to Putney anyway.

For all we know she said Mark, I need to slip over to Putney and he said Well the Honch is in for lunch, so stick a viewing in the diary and go then, when he's not here.

 

[Cluesleuth]

DV has said, though, that he thinks the killer has been at liberty for the last 36 years - which would tend to rule out JD. But you're right, it is pretty extraordinary. It may also shed light on something else around DV's point.

He notes that there's a lot of evidence SJL was actually heading to the PoW, and suggests she's still there. He points out that

• her diary was on the fuse box,
• the fuse box was in the cellar,
• SJL was claustrophobic,
• three strides from the fuse box is a hatchway to an underfloor space,
• the visible debris under that floor dates to before 1987,
• there's a pile of it big enough to conceal a body,
• the permanent landlord returned to an epic bluebottle infestation,
• the pub was visited but not searched by the police because the temporary landlord said SJL never came,
• the police accepted this at face value, and
• their visit happened after the Mr Kipper story had been embedded, via press conference, which may explain why the police were more than usually credulous.

DV is equivocal about what happened at the PoW. He just notes that given the above, that she's never been found, and that there is insufficient evidence against the police's preferred suspect, it could well be someone else, not necessarily a murder; hence, search the bloody cellar already.

That is not to say the temporary landlord killed her (there's a lot DV clearly can't say), nor does he mention the James Galway sighting either. It's other people's inference that CV killed her, and that James Galway was CV laying a false trail. The obvious challenge to this is Wait, what? She walks in, CV kills her off the cuff because he just does, cool as a cucumber he hides her body, dumps her car and then adds to the false trail outside 123SR by telling a cabbie he just saw a couple having a right ruck? Really?

But if that's the wrong inference, that 'James Galway' is not CV - or any off-the-cuff killer at the PoW - but someone else, who looks like that and who did meticulously plan killings, well...

Perhaps so, but even if that's not what happened, it's an interesting datum point in any case. It could be another factoid in support of the idea that the police compromised their investigation by not getting basic facts right at the outset.

Once again, the detailed timeline is important here. Plod were alerted at 6.45 the previous evening, at which time everyone at Sturgis would have left for the day. The police may have stayed up to work through the night, but the witnesses certainly didn't. So the 10am press conference the following morning clearly preceded the taking of any statements from the office staff. The only information the police had was the finding of her car and from speaking to MG and HR. Despite this, they announced that SJL had been seen at 37SR, when the evidence is that she had not.

To borrow a phrase, "I have full confidence" that this ex ante assumption informed the statements the police took ex post. When they spoke to the office juniors, did the police ask if they specifically remembered SJL actually taking property details, or did they ask what a negotiator going to a viewing would normally take? If they've already decided she went to a viewing, you're going to get the same answer to either question, so it doesn't matter which you ask. If the latter was the question, or was the general tenor of the questions put to staff, or is what the staff thought they were being asked, then it's a full explanation for how MG could be both having lunch next door in Crocodile Tears, while also sitting at his desk at the same time.

But would she go down into a cellar if she suffered from claustrophobia? wouldn't she wait in the bar or hallway and wait for the landlord to bring the items to her.

 

[Cluesleuth]

HI guys, is the author DV you refer to ,David Videcette and the book titled

FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper'​

Thanks in advance, just looked its on kindle unlimited so will have a read,

Yes thats correct

Andrew Stephens Book 'The Suzy Lamplugh Story' is also a must read.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Has anyone been able to find out who the other person MG and KP were having lunch with that day and which office he was based in? .. please dont mention name in full only INITIALS thks

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Hopefully @TimFisher1965 will return to answer our questions

Maybe Tim has solved the crime but has decided to keep us out of the loop!

 

[Eastend Eagle]

What she may have been expecting is that the big boss wanders in and says Blimey, Gurdon, where is everyone?

To which MG says Well, out of four, one's on holiday, I've just been out with you, Nigel's over there and Susanna...(goes to desk, checks her diary)...Susanna is showing 37 Shorrolds to someone.

I.e. it only has to look good enough to keep MG out of trouble. When she gets back, she perhaps admits to MG that she wrote a little porky in the diary. Or perhaps she doesn't, because he said at the time thought she was going to Putney anyway.

For all we know she said Mark, I need to slip over to Putney and he said Well the Honch is in for lunch, so stick a viewing in the diary and go then, when he's not here.

I still think her choice of name is very odd though!

 

[Eastend Eagle]

What she may have been expecting is that the big boss wanders in and says Blimey, Gurdon, where is everyone?

To which MG says Well, out of four, one's on holiday, I've just been out with you, Nigel's over there and Susanna...(goes to desk, checks her diary)...Susanna is showing 37 Shorrolds to someone.

I.e. it only has to look good enough to keep MG out of trouble. When she gets back, she perhaps admits to MG that she wrote a little porky in the diary. Or perhaps she doesn't, because he said at the time thought she was going to Putney anyway.

For all we know she said Mark, I need to slip over to Putney and he said Well the Honch is in for lunch, so stick a viewing in the diary and go then, when he's not here.

I see that there were 4 people who worked in the office plus JC the office junior and SF the secretary. With 1 on holiday, SF apparently unusually out on a viewing and MG apparently at lunch at the Crocodile Tears, this would mean that when Suzy left the office there would only have been JC and Nigel left in the office. I wonder if Nigel would be able to confirm that JC told SJL that her car was parked in Radipole Road?

 

[Cluesleuth]

I see that there were 4 people who worked in the office plus JC the office junior and SF the secretary. With 1 on holiday, SF apparently unusually out on a viewing and MG apparently at lunch at the Crocodile Tears, this would mean that when Suzy left the office there would only have been JC and Nigel left in the office. I wonder if Nigel would be able to confirm that JC told SJL that her car was parked in Radipole Road?

A 22yr old temporary secretary from Australia KR was also in the offfice that day... AS book page 28

 

[Pinkizzy]

I see that there were 4 people who worked in the office plus JC the office junior and SF the secretary. With 1 on holiday, SF apparently unusually out on a viewing and MG apparently at lunch at the Crocodile Tears, this would mean that when Suzy left the office there would only have been JC and Nigel left in the office. I wonder if Nigel would be able to confirm that JC told SJL that her car was parked in Radipole Road?

Does anyone know Nigel?