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

[Cluesleuth]

Yep, much more gentrified now....SW London ££££

I'd compared that photo with Street View just to make sure....ident as far I am concerned.

If im correct on the right the modern style building is nuffield health today its still there and has a gym I wonder if it had a gym then

 

[Terryb808]

If it was JC and my belief is that it was, then I feel he used the estate agents to identify vacant properties to hold a victim for a short time, if not to squat in. Maybe he had keys, maybe he forced entry....not difficult. Fulham was not as gentrified in 1986 as it is now.....photos of SR at the time demonstrate this.

He was released from the the Scrubs half-way house on the Friday 25th July. If he intended staying in London, for even a short while he would have needed somewhere to stay.....I suspect his options were limited.

JC would most likely have got all dressed up for the court case at Birmingham when he was sent down in 1981. He would have arrived at HMP Bristol wearing it and it would have followed him to Portland and then the Scrubs. Maybe he was earning some money whilst working at the prop hire company in Acton, so he could have presented as he would wish.

If, as I believe, SLJ's abductor dumped the car after she was held somewhere, then my gut instinct is that he would not drive the car further than a mile and quite possibly a much shorter distance, just away from where SJL was being held.

The police checked vacant property in the Fulham area, they made a point of doing this in case SJL had been left in one of them.
JC (IMO) is no master criminal and would have relied on contacts he made while in the hostel.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If im correct on the right the modern style building is nuffield health today its still there and has a gym I wonder if it had a gym then

That's the one......with swanky high'ish rise flats behind

 

[Konstantin]

Confirming on Street View, Stevenage Road is not a dead end as such. There is now an access restriction about half way along Stevenage Road between Harbord Street and Inglethorpe Street, although that may not have existed in 1986.

There are still plenty of side roads to turn up and either end of Stevenage Road continues onto other roads, which meet with Fulham Palace Road, which is a main thoroughfare in the area.

The car was parked with the offside door nearest the kerb facing against the flow of traffic (facing north). Looking at Street View the available parking spaces are predominantly on the east kerb as driveway access opposite limits the available parking....lots of yellow lines there now.

SJL's car was found on Stevenage Road approximately fifty metres south of Langthorne Street, adjacent to a garage entrance directly off the pavement.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

So could have been a fairly random dumping of the car away from the abduction site, not chosen specifically then...

It really makes you aware just how much CCTV is a game changer...

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The police checked vacant property in the Fulham area, they made a point of doing this in case SJL had been left in one of them.
JC (IMO) is no master criminal and would have relied on contacts he made while in the hostel.

JC is a disorganised offender whose primary motive appears to be power and control. It is because of these traits that his documented offences have resulted him being leaving evidence, being identified and arrested.

However, if JC did abduct SJL after a brief liaison then he had opportunity to use cunning and guile to lure her into a situation from where he could overpower her.

His other identified offences, towards women whom he did not know, have been committed using the shock and awe approach from the outset, to gain immediate control.

Whichever way, it really is a terrifying thought that such people walk among us.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So could have been a fairly random dumping of the car away from the abduction site, not chosen specifically then...

It really makes you aware just how much CCTV is a game changer...

Yep, CCTV, ANPR, cell site analysis, GPS data, comms data, hard drive analysis, modern forensics and gold standard investigation teams mean that offenders of JC's ilk would soon be locked up these days.

Think of the recent terrible murders in London of Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena and others. Arrests have been made relatively quickly.

Of course the first victim of Stephen Port did not lead to an early arrest, which would have prevented other victims. It shows that there are still awful cases where the victim demographic can affect the quality of the investigation and press coverage.

 

[AfricanGrey]

Have you read any of the books on this case? Definitely a better idea than making assumptions.

In my opinion neither book can be relied upon to give a truthful version of the facts.
A particular thread in the AS book ranges from slightly inaccurate to shockingly false.
A crucial part of DV’s book is nothing more than sensationalist fiction

 

[Whitehall 1212]

In my opinion neither book can be relied upon to give a truthful version of the facts.
A particular thread in the AS book ranges from slightly inaccurate to shockingly false.
A crucial part of DV’s book is nothing more than sensationalist fiction

Useful assessment.

I'm waiting on AS's book. It will probably create more questions than it answers

I watched the long webcast with DV. I really didn't take to what he said and how he said it. He seemed to have arrived at his conclusion and was working backwards, including the evidence that suited his hypothesis, whilst discounting evidence that didn't and without giving reasons for doing so.

Any ex-detective who can upset witnesses so one walks out and the other clams up has questionable investigative abilities. If he hasn't got the interview skills then I would question the extent of his experience.

I may read if it should it appear in the library, but I'm not parting with hard earned cash for it.

 

[Terryb808]

Useful assessment.

I'm waiting on AS's book. I will probably create more questions than it answers

I watched the long webcast with DV. I really didn't take to what he said and how he said it. He seemed to have arrived at his conclusion and was working backwards, including the evidence that suited his hypothesis, whilst discounting evidence that didn't and without giving reasons for doing so.

Any ex-detective who can upset witnesses so one walks out and the other clams up has questionable investigative abilities. If he hasn't got the interview skills then I would question the extent of his experience.

I may read if it should it appear in the library, but I'm not parting with hard earned cash for it.

CBD’s book “Prime Suspects” is with a read, it profiles JC using the letter written from prison. The police were given these and kept them.
It’s not expensive as a Kindle book.

 

[AfricanGrey]

CBD’s book “Prime Suspects” is with a read, it profiles JC using the letter written from prison. The police were given these and kept them.
It’s not expensive as a Kindle book.

I’m reading it at the moment, very interesting.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Or was Kipper a red herring? Which is literally what is it

I'd like to know if other such 'interesting' names with other meanings featured in the diaries of other Sturgis staff.

I dont know that it is that much of a red herring, Im suspicious of JH & PH. JH openly admitted he was called Kip and Kipper, he had lived in Wardo and was living in Shorrolds he had a BMW and knew (had a relationship wth) SJL. His brother was on Sturgis mailing list.
If one of them was one of the interested parties in the property that NH & SJL had the argument about that morning and police missed this in their investigation it could be the missing link, and the things are all correct and been right in front us all along.
I know JH was an accountant and a BMW owner. What was PH's job did he own a white van.
This vehicle intrigues me it can be seen double parked on one of the reconstruction photos and you get a glimpse of it still double parked as one of the male witnesses walks by on the video. HR has come across as an unreliable witness because his account changed he withdrew his account of seeing SJL being bundled into a van and later his son said to DV that his father didnt actually see SJL.
Did HR get threatened or got frightened and thats why he withdrew the things he did??
MOO

 

[Konstantin]

I'm waiting on AS's book. It will probably create more questions than it answers

I watched the long webcast with DV. I really didn't take to what he said and how he said it. He seemed to have arrived at his conclusion and was working backwards, including the evidence that suited his hypothesis, whilst discounting evidence that didn't and without giving reasons for doing so.

Re AS it is definitely worth reading because it was written so close after events, it relies on material from the investigation, and he is a respected journalist. When you read it you will understand why it upset Diana L. Her influence over the investigation does come through in his book and it's both sad--she was a scared and grieving mum--and shocking--she became a media personality, tried to influence the police over her daughter's lifestyle, was getting assistance from mediums and at one stage believed in a very silly conspiracy.

Re DV, your assessment of his podcast is sadly mine for the most part about his book. HIs book is more so. He presents the information in such a way as to direct the reader towards a particular conclusion, even when in doing so he is a bit economical with the truth.

For example, at one point he interviews one of the CID policemen who were on the original investigation and asks him if he was sent to Shorrolds Road, the officer says he wasn't. DV makes a huge moment of this, as if the police were so stupid they didn't even search Shorrolds Road, with the unspoken implication being that they didn't think Suzy had gone there. In reality, this is not true and according to AS uniformed officers were sent there straight away, searched inside and out (so gained access) and an officer stationed outside to guard it that evening.

His presentation of the temp relief landlord as shifty and his ex partner as shifty and suspicious is not fair at all, and clearly designed to push towards a conclusion.

If you read his interview with Adam L, it is fairly clear why he walks out. Adam says he believes the police that Cannan was involved. DV presses him on issues around how the police treated him, that he was considered a suspect at first, what happened with his last movements with Suzy on the Friday, did he go to the pub with her. If I were Adam I would read this as "this guy thinks I might be involved and is trying to get me to say something to show that". I would certainly be annoyed and not see any point in staying. He should have been honest about why he was asking the questions and asked Adam if he was OK to discuss these issues, it's not a witness interview, it's a chat with a member of the public (DV).

 

[Cluesleuth]

That's the one......with swanky high'ish rise flats behind

DL visited those flats in disguise. She mentions 3 people in particular an African prince, an Arab and a Chinese chaffeur

 

[Cluesleuth]

Re AS it is definitely worth reading because it was written so close after events, it relies on material from the investigation, and he is a respected journalist. When you read it you will understand why it upset Diana L. Her influence over the investigation does come through in his book and it's both sad--she was a scared and grieving mum--and shocking--she became a media personality, tried to influence the police over her daughter's lifestyle, was getting assistance from mediums and at one stage believed in a very silly conspiracy.

Re DV, your assessment of his podcast is sadly mine for the most part about his book. HIs book is more so. He presents the information in such a way as to direct the reader towards a particular conclusion, even when in doing so he is a bit economical with the truth.

For example, at one point he interviews one of the CID policemen who were on the original investigation and asks him if he was sent to Shorrolds Road, the officer says he wasn't. DV makes a huge moment of this, as if the police were so stupid they didn't even search Shorrolds Road, with the unspoken implication being that they didn't think Suzy had gone there. In reality, this is not true and according to AS uniformed officers were sent there straight away, searched inside and out (so gained access) and an officer stationed outside to guard it that evening.

His presentation of the temp relief landlord as shifty and his ex partner as shifty and suspicious is not fair at all, and clearly designed to push towards a conclusion.

If you read his interview with Adam L, it is fairly clear why he walks out. Adam says he believes the police that Cannan was involved. DV presses him on issues around how the police treated him, that he was considered a suspect at first, what happened with his last movements with Suzy on the Friday, did he go to the pub with her. If I were Adam I would read this as "this guy thinks I might be involved and is trying to get me to say something to show that". I would certainly be annoyed and not see any point in staying. He should have been honest about why he was asking the questions and asked Adam if he was OK to discuss these issues, it's not a witness interview, it's a chat with a member of the public (DV).

An excellent summary of both books.
I think AS did a damn good job given the constraints laid on him from the DL & PL's lawyers.
I read it cover to cover without putting it down and its my go to book for reference.
Ive always wondered what he had to remove from the book.

 

[Cluesleuth]

So the place to start is by re-visiting the Sturgis staff at the time, and encouraging them to disclose the complete picture of office practices and what was going on at the time that SJL disappeared.

I don't believe that the abduction was by someone unknown to SJL. If SJL had been meeting a new and unknown client then there would have been a record card in the Sturgis index, irrespective of whether the given data was bogus. I suspect that Sturgis would carry out some due diligence on new clients to confirm their address and contact details.

In which case SJL's abductor was known to her and that caused her guard to be lowered and for him to abduct with little difficulty and much less risk. So the identity of her abductor most likely lies in SLP's work and/or social life.

That SJP seems to have engaged in concurrent short term flings and more established relationships and possibly some interesting business dealings, neither of which would have met the approval of her parents demographic, she was naturally very guarded in what she said to whom. This makes for a difficult and complex investigation.

Maybe the passage of time and the very sad death of her parents, will now encourage those she knew to tell what they felt unable to at the time.

MOO

Its likely the staff did give the police the complete picture, they are very experienced in interviewing people under difficult situations they dont accept everything they are being told is correct they back/cross check everything MG said he had never had a relationship with SJL and they questioned others to ascertain if this was the case. NH failed to dislose his relationship with SF they found this wasnt the case. Some would say this doesnt make NH look good but perhaps he thought it to have no revelance to SJL's disappearance so why would he need to reveal it, when police asked him he did admit it. I think police initially would have been interested if he had had a relationship with SJL and would have asked him this question and not asked him are you having a relationship with anyone else in the office. I think @Whitehall 1212 will understand what Im explaining here.
Unless police find that any person within the office would be directly involved in SJL's disappearance they wouldnt be looking to cause any staff member to loose their job for bending policy by helping out on viewings or arranging peoples lunch breaks to coincide with each other because they are in a relationship.
There are reasons why police choose not to disclose every detail of their investigation. You can imagine what the press might make of these things taken out of context they could jeopardize the whole investigation.
What police are seeking to do is find out who covered what viewing, and what viewings in SJL's diary were carried out by her.
If we accept that police investigated the office staff thoroughly the evidence would support that SJL took the keys and details and went to Shorrolds road to meet someone she entered into her diary under the name of Mr Kipper.
MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I dont know that it is that much of a red herring, Im suspicious of JH & PH. JH openly admitted he was called Kip and Kipper, he had lived in Wardo and was living in Shorrolds he had a BMW and knew (had a relationship wth) SJL. His brother was on Sturgis mailing list.
If one of them was one of the interested parties in the property that NH & SJL had the argument about that morning and police missed this in their investigation it could be the missing link, and the things are all correct and been right in front us all along.
I know JH was an accountant and a BMW owner. What was PH's job did he own a white van.
This vehicle intrigues me it can be seen double parked on one of the reconstruction photos and you get a glimpse of it still double parked as one of the male witnesses walks by on the video. HR has come across as an unreliable witness because his account changed he withdrew his account of seeing SJL being bundled into a van and later his son said to DV that his father didnt actually see SJL.
Did HR get threatened or got frightened and thats why he withdrew the things he did??
MOO

Too many coincidences not to be worthy of further investigation.

I understand that JH had a bullet proof alibi though. I would hope that with such coincidences the police double and triple checked before ruling out this connection.

Although if SJL chose Kipper based on what was already written in the diary, i.e. Wardo and choosing Shorrolds, realised the association with JH, who she also knew was called Kip or Kipper, then she put him in the picture inadvertently. Lots of the well heeled Yuppies drove BMW's then....hence why JC was obviously drawn to them.

I often wonder how HR first came to be providing a witness statement and when.

Was he responding to an appeal or house-to-house enquiries? How was he interviewed? Were questions put in a way to lead him? What was his motivation in coming forward?.......e.g. lived next door and desperately wanted to have seen something significant to find suzy....always concerning.

Witnesses changing statements raises likelihood that police did a bad job in providing appropriate explanation/support to bring out all the witness saw/heard/smelt/felt/tasted in their own words and without being directed.

I'd be digging down with HR to find out exact reason for changing such detail. I suspect he was just a bit daft and wanted to see a lot more than he had.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Yep, CCTV, ANPR, cell site analysis, GPS data, comms data, hard drive analysis, modern forensics and gold standard investigation teams mean that offenders of JC's ilk would soon be locked up these days.

Think of the recent terrible murders in London of Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena and others. Arrests have been made relatively quickly.

Of course the first victim of Stephen Port did not lead to an early arrest, which would have prevented other victims. It shows that there are still awful cases where the victim demographic can affect the quality of the investigation and press coverage.

Modern technology are great tools, its never been made public if these have been applied to any forensics evidence in the SJL case.
In particular Im thinking of the partial print found on the rear view mirror and touch DNA. The driver seat was adjusted for a taller person so if the car was driven then they would most likely have adjusted the rear view mirror.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

My thrust is was there any malpractice at Sturgis, which staff may not want to disclose?

If there was, what was its nature and who was involved?

If it involved tax avoidance or supporting money laundering activities etc then that could have brought organised crime into the equation.

I'm not sure that police facilitated witnesses in providing detailed and honest witness statements in 1986. The skills of cognitive interviewing were only being pushed by the police from the early-mid 90's.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Too many coincides not to be worthy of further investigation.

I understand that JH had a bullet proof alibi though. I would hope that with such coincides the police double and triple checked before ruling out this connection.

Although if SLK chose Kipper based on what was already written in the diary, i.e. Wardo and chosing Shorrold, realised the association with JH, who she also knew was called Kip or Kipper, then she put him in the picture inadvertently. Lots of the well heeled Yuppies drove BMW's then....hence why JC was obviously drawn to them.

I often wonder how HR first came to be providing a witness statement and when.

Was he responding to an appeal or house-to-house enquiries? How was he interviewed? Were questions put in a way to lead him? What was his motivation in coming forward.....e.g. lived next door and desperately wanted to have seen something significant find suzy....always concerning.

Witnesses changing statements means police did a bad job in providing appropriate explanation/support to bring out all the witness saw/heard/smelt/felt/tasted in their own words and without being directed.

I'd be digging down with HR to find out exact reason for changing such detail. I suspect he was just a bit daft and wanted to see a lot more than he had.

What was his alibi was he PH?

Could I ask you a straight yes or no question? On the whole do you think the police did a good job.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Modern technology are great tools, its never been made public if these have been applied to any forensics evidence in the SJL case.
In particular Im thinking of the partial print found on the rear view mirror and touch DNA. The driver seat was adjusted for a taller person so if the car was driven then they would most likely have adjusted the rear view mirror.

Trace DNA is very limiting. It cannot provide enough certainty that is was from a particular individual on which to support/base a prosecution.