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

[RichardKimble]

Delete, double post.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Sadly its not available on Kindle unlimited, does it vary much from DV's book ?

Yes it is.
Published in 1988 It covers the disappearance, background and aftermath of the story.
I highly reccomend trying to get hold of a copy. I appreciate it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a copy as they have been out of print for years which means and you will have to pay a premium but its worth every penny
MOO

 

[Cluesleuth]

Bolded bit, given the police conducted digs around likely places (to them at least) linked to JC without so much as a trace of Suzi would it not make sense to at least search the voids under the POW pub .

Is this the last place she was actually seen alive at ?

She wasnt actually seen at the POW.

 

[RichardKimble]

She wasnt actually seen at the POW.

Perhaps I misunderstood that she collected her diary from the POW, how did the Police come by it ?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Yes the jogger sighting was in 2000, but MJ saw a young woman waiting outside 123, then a suntanned man aged 40-50 carrying a briefcase approach her (AS P76 and the Real Crime doc).

Perhaps I misunderstood that she collected her diary from the POW, how did the Police come by it ?

She did not collect the diary

 

[RichardKimble]

She did not collect the diary

Ok thanks, so the tale is she was supposed to collect it .

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Im quite surprised you have not read the AS book its a must read for anyone interested in the SJL case and well worth the money

But from memory Splodge, and Biffo come to mind.

Ordered - with the price of some copies it's probably an investment!!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Bolded bit, given the police conducted digs around likely places (to them at least) linked to JC without so much as a trace of Suzi would it not make sense to at least search the voids under the POW pub .

Is this the last place she was actually seen alive at ?

The issue is that there is no reliable evidence that SJL even went there. The potential suspects for such a likelihood would be very limited. CV and his partner at the time were not suspects but witnesses in the police investigation.

Police must have good evidence to persuade a Magistrate to issue a search warrant.

The only other opportunity is for the freeholder of a property to give entirely voluntary permission for the premises to be searched by someone making the request, be that the Met Police, DV or an anyone else.

It is not a case of the police rocking up and just doing it...that's not how it works beyond the 1970's, thankfully.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Ok thanks, so the tale is she was supposed to collect it .

Yes

 

[WestLondoner]

Ok thanks, so the tale is she was supposed to collect it .

Yes. It's one of several places she could have been going, and one of only two it is known for sure she did intend to go at some time that day.

We don't know if she intended to go to 37SR, because much suggests this was not a real appointment. There's no evidence she intended to go to 123SR as there was no appointment there either. She may have gone to her parents', eg feeling ill, but they didn't see her. She did need to pick up tennis stuff from home, and she did intend to retrieve her diary from the PoW. Her tennis kit was found at her flat (and she was not) so this leaves the PoW to be eliminated.

The police went there to collect the diary - it's unclear how they knew it was there - but apparently made no attempt to verify CV's claim that she never turned up, nor did they search the pub. So it's the odd one out, as a place she intended to go that was never searched.

It's possible that this was because it was a busy pub with three fully occupied staff, so that clearly there was no way she could have come to harm. It's also possible it was completely dead because it was a Monday; or even closed; or someone hung the closed sign up when she went in. But it's also possible that someone followed her there and abducted her from there, i.e. if carjacked that needn't have happened near the office. No witnesses were sought to establish whether she had been seen arriving or going in.

The gist of AS' account of the investigation is that the police assumed there was a real Mr Kipper whom she had met, and of whom, as an acquaintance, she was unwary. They focused largely on trying to identify who this might have been from people she knew and had written down in her diaries. The only people considered as suspects were her acquaintances in Fulham that day and when they eliminated those they had nobody. They did not ascertain whether any sex offenders had recently been released nearby, nor consider people who were no acquaintances, nor consider people not in Fulham.

AS' book is interesting because it describes the thinking about the case before the speculation about JC took hold.

 

[Konstantin]

This is the problem I have - the info from the stocktaker and ZH in the DV book both suggest that it was open. The stocktaker makes the point that they would go in early so as to be finished before twelve for the pub to open as normal at lunchtime - otherwise the brewery/pubco is losing revenue.

Yes it would almost certainly have been open. It would have meant a loss of revenue to keep it closed for no reason and the stock take would have begun early morning and done by lunchtime. If it wasn't done by lunch time and Suzy had stopped by there then... the stocktake would have been in progress so even more people there.

More and more I can't believe in a scenario where Suzy died in an accident in the pub--a pub that had been busy with a stocktake, had others working there and was almost certainly open by 1pm when she would have got there had she gone there--and all this was covered up or became a conspiracy over decades to keep it quiet by several people.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

If you check out the police incident room white board (photo posted a few pages back) you will notice KIPPER/SKIPPER where someone pointed out she knew a guy that worked at the bbc in Bristol whose name was Skipper apparrently he was eliminated from enquiry.
It would be interesting to know why Skipper came to be on the board in the first place and if it was in relation to LS or had appeared somewhere else that would make it relevant.

SJL did have a fondness for giving people nicknames, and 3 entries on the diary page could have related to one person who admitted he had lived in Wardo, lived in Shorrolds at the time of her disappearance and was nicknamed KIPPER at school. DH.

MOO

K i P p e r

I don’t understand?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Agreed it’s a very odd name to use, suggests that (maybe) she was making it obvious that she was going out on a personal errand.
There’s absolutely no evidence to support this, but my methods with my team was “as long as you delivered the goods, you can take the odd hour if you needed to”.
It was never officially supported, however, you as a manager had the power to use your own judgment.
My take on this is that SJL had an appointment she wanted to keep, the 6.00pm viewing came in and she then added the Mr Kipper to the diary so she could go out lunchtime.

I agree with the motivation and also my opinion is it clearly said Kipper (and not Skipper) but regardless that is a bizarre name to use IMO bearing in mind two things ~ 1) there was a real person known to SJL who had that exact nickname and also lived there, surely too much of a coincidence ?? And 2) it’s an extremely unlikely name to come up with out of thin air bearing in mind ‘kipper‘ is not a surname I’ve ever heard of ~ why didn’t she say a regular name ?

 

[Cluesleuth]

I agree with the motivation and also my opinion is it clearly said Kipper (and not Skipper) but regardless that is a bizarre name to use IMO bearing in mind two things ~ 1) there was a real person known to SJL who had that exact nickname and also lived there, surely too much of a coincidence ?? And 2) it’s an extremely unlikely name to come up with out of thin air bearing in mind ‘kipper‘ is not a surname I’ve ever heard of ~ why didn’t she say a regular name ?

There are a lot of coincidences in this case look at the BMW abandoned in Queens Grove which was registered to Mr Kipper police went all the way to Belguim thinking they had their man.

Heres a screen shot of one side of the Police Incident room Whiteboard its been posted before you may have missed it notice Kipper/Skipper and a Mr 'L' We know of one person whose surname starts with L but JC also had a work colleague with a surname starting with the same letter, who in the Real Crime video speaks about how JC walked into a shop asked the lady serving which was the best bottle of wine and on pointing one out to her he bought 2 and gave her one as a gift next day JC returned and asked the woman for a date which was accepted. The work colleague was clearly impressed. If it worked for JC it might have worked for someone else.
MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Yes. It's one of several places she could have been going, and one of only two it is known for sure she did intend to go at some time that day.

We don't know if she intended to go to 37SR, because much suggests this was not a real appointment. There's no evidence she intended to go to 123SR as there was no appointment there either. She may have gone to her parents', eg feeling ill, but they didn't see her. She did need to pick up tennis stuff from home, and she did intend to retrieve her diary from the PoW. Her tennis kit was found at her flat (and she was not) so this leaves the PoW to be eliminated.

The police went there to collect the diary - it's unclear how they knew it was there - but apparently made no attempt to verify CV's claim that she never turned up, nor did they search the pub. So it's the odd one out, as a place she intended to go that was never searched.

It's possible that this was because it was a busy pub with three fully occupied staff, so that clearly there was no way she could have come to harm. It's also possible it was completely dead because it was a Monday; or even closed; or someone hung the closed sign up when she went in. But it's also possible that someone followed her there and abducted her from there, i.e. if carjacked that needn't have happened near the office. No witnesses were sought to establish whether she had been seen arriving or going in.

The gist of AS' account of the investigation is that the police assumed there was a real Mr Kipper whom she had met, and of whom, as an acquaintance, she was unwary. They focused largely on trying to identify who this might have been from people she knew and had written down in her diaries. The only people considered as suspects were her acquaintances in Fulham that day and when they eliminated those they had nobody. They did not ascertain whether any sex offenders had recently been released nearby, nor consider people who were no acquaintances, nor consider people not in Fulham.

AS' book is interesting because it describes the thinking about the case before the speculation about JC took hold.

The only primary evidence is the Sturgis diary entry regarding Mr Kipper and SJL's vehicle. The witness statements from Shorrolds Road provide credibility that SLJ did go there....from more than one independent witness....and that she was in the company of a smartly dressed male carrying a bottle of champagne with a ribbon around it. At the time a well known chain of off-licences were involved in such a promotion. A sketch and photofit resulted from these sightings.

What evidence do you have to disprove this? You have none! However, for some unknown reason you are wedded to an abstract idea based on nothing more than supposition with no material evidence to support it.

You make wild claims regarding the police investigation and how the police carry out their duties when you do not have the professional insight or experience to validate them.

Two clear examples of this are:

1. The only people considered as suspects were her acquaintances in Fulham that day

Everyone is treated as a witness, not a suspect, unless there is clear evidence that would give rise to suspicion. If this had been the case then the police would have arrested and interviewed them under caution, searched their cars, properties, places if work and seized items of potential evidential value etc. SJL's acquaintances were not treated in this way because they weren't suspects! This applied in 1986.

2. They did not ascertain whether any sex offenders had recently been released nearby, nor consider people who were no acquaintances, nor consider people not in Fulham

As a matter of course known offenders, whose MO of abduction, sexual offences or murder would have been identified and asked to account for their movements at the material time and provide alibi's. This is the grind of just such an investigation.

My promary concern is that some people will read what you post and believe it to be a statement of fact, which it is most certainly not. It is just the fanciful thoughts of one individual who is unable to provide any material evidence for SLJ going to the PoW, let alone coming to any harm there.

 

[Pinkizzy]

@Whitehall 1212 can you explain Mall Rv1 next to 5ft 8 on the police whiteboard?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Whitehall 1212 can you explain Mall Rv1 next to 5ft 8 on the police whiteboard?

It's the description of the suspect:

Male, RC1

RC1 was for RACE CODE 1, which was light skinned European in appearance.

For some years they have been known as Identity Codes (IC) and relate to apparent ethnicity.

IC1 - Light skinned European (North European)
IC2 - Dark skinned European (South European)
IC3 - Black African/Caribbean
IC4 - Asian (Indian Subcontinent)
IC5 - Chinese, Japanese (Southeast Asian)
IC6 - Arab, North African
IC7 - Unknown

The suspect was described as having a tanned complexion, not of being a dark skinned European.

 

[WestLondoner]

The only primary evidence is the Sturgis diary entry regarding Mr Kipper and SJL's vehicle. The witness statements from Shorrolds Road provide credibility that SLJ did go there....from more than one independent witness....and that she was in the company of a smartly dressed male carrying a bottle of champagne with a ribbon around it. At the time a well known chain of off-licences were involved in such a promotion. A sketch and photofit resulted from these sightings.

What evidence do you have to disprove this? You have none! However, for some unknown reason you are wedded to an abstract idea based on nothing more than supposition with no material evidence to support it.

You make wild claims regarding the police investigation and how the police carry out their duties when you do not have the professional insight or experience to validate them.

Two clear examples of this are:

1. The only people considered as suspects were her acquaintances in Fulham that day

Everyone is treated as a witness, not a suspect, unless there is clear evidence that would give rise to suspicion. If this had been the case then the police would have arrested and interviewed them under caution, searched their cars, properties, places if work and seized items of potential evidential value etc. SJL's acquaintances were not treated in this way because they weren't suspects! This applied in 1986.

2. They did not ascertain whether any sex offenders had recently been released nearby, nor consider people who were no acquaintances, nor consider people not in Fulham

As a matter of course known offenders, whose MO of abduction, sexual offences or murder would have been identified and asked to account for their movements at the material time and provide alibi's. This is the grind of just such an investigation.

My promary concern is that some people will read what you post and believe it to be a statement of fact, which it is most certainly not. It is just the fanciful thoughts of one individual who is unable to provide any material evidence for SLJ going to the PoW, let alone coming to any harm there.

Have you actually read DV or AS' book?

 

[Cluesleuth]

The only primary evidence is the Sturgis diary entry regarding Mr Kipper and SJL's vehicle. The witness statements from Shorrolds Road provide credibility that SLJ did go there....from more than one independent witness....and that she was in the company of a smartly dressed male carrying a bottle of champagne with a ribbon around it. At the time a well known chain of off-licences were involved in such a promotion. A sketch and photofit resulted from these sightings.

1. So are you of the opinion that SJL did take the keys to Shorrold road and they are still missing?
2. Your opinion please on WJ witness statement saying that the Fiesta was parked on Stevenage road at the same time SJL was at 37 Shorrolds road.

 

[WestLondoner]

As a matter of course known offenders, whose MO of abduction, sexual offences or murder would have been identified and asked to account for their movements at the material time and provide alibi's. This is the grind of just such an investigation.

This did not happen.

Detectives conceded yesterday that Cannan should have been a suspect from the early stages of the original inquiry.

This was launched when Lamplugh, 25, disappeared in July 1986 while showing a client, who called himself Mr Kipper, around a vacant house in Fulham, south-west London.

Three days before Lamplugh vanished Cannan had been released from a hostel at nearby Wormwood Scrubs prison, where he was finishing a six-year sentence for rape.

In prison Cannan was known by other inmates as "Kipper".

Yet police involved in the original inquiry did not check prisons for records of recently released sex offenders.

Police spell out Lamplugh blunders

Prime suspect is named, but case cannot be taken further.

www.theguardian.com

It's important to be familiar with the facts before commenting on them on the basis of supposition and assumption. I am personally confident that once you've read the books, you'll be in a better position to do so.