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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #861
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.
Good point, however, the police don’t have a shred of actual evidence against JC (especially when you dismiss (Mr Kipper) and this didn’t stop them digging up his mothers former home in Sutton Coldfield.
They left the house and garden in a complete mess, it took weeks to get it put right.
It seems that if JC might have been there, or someone says he told them he buried SJL there it’s okay to go in all guns blazing.
On the other hand if he’s not involved then there’s no evidence and they can’t investigate.
According to a recent TV doc JC was a regular at the PoW, on this basis it’s enough for the police to go in and take a look.
 
  • #862
Good point, however, the police don’t have a shred of actual evidence against JC (especially when you dismiss (Mr Kipper) and this didn’t stop them digging up his mothers former home in Sutton Coldfield.
They left the house and garden in a complete mess, it took weeks to get it put right.
It seems that if JC might have been there, or someone says he told them he buried SJL there it’s okay to go in all guns blazing.
On the other hand if he’s not involved then there’s no evidence and they can’t investigate.
According to a recent TV doc JC was a regular at the PoW, on this basis it’s enough for the police to go in and take a look.


I have always assumed they have a lot more on JC than what they have revealed because they are so steadfast in his guilt.

I could be totally wrong but the family also believe he is guilty it seems as well.
 
  • #863
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.

I agree with you asyousay on the claims made by DV without the evidence to back it up.
I found the interview with DV by SK on YT streamed 15th Dec 2021 confirmed this. SK said to DV thats your conclusion that she went to the pub and never came out. DV answers yeah 1.03.23 DV continues I dont know what happened to Suzy, the way she got there,I dont know wether there was an accident, I dont know if somebody attacked her, um, I honestly dont know.

there is a a lot of 'I dont know's' there.

MOO
 
Last edited:
  • #864
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.

A few things I noticed
re telephone call
In DV meet with AL page 46 in his book. AL confirmed he spoke on the phone with SJL at around 10.15pm DV asks 'can you remember if she called you or you called her? AL replies I cant, no I just remember speaking to her on the phone.

re loss of cheque book postcard and diary
I havent found any record of SJL indicating to anyone that she had lost these items. The first conversation I find is the telephone conversation on the phone at Sturgis office.

Some solid confirmation on these points are needed I think
 
Last edited:
  • #865
I agree with you asyousay on the claims made by DV without the evidence to back it up.
I found the interview with DV by SK on YT streamed 15th Dec 2021 confirmed this. SK said to DV thats your conclusion that she went to the pub and never came out. DV answers yeah 1.03.23 DV continues I dont know what happened to Suzy, the way she got there,I dont know wether there was an accident, I dont know if somebody attacked her, um, I honestly dont know.

there is a a lot of 'I dont know's' there.

MOO
I’m not defending DV on the “don’t know” front, but let’s be honest there’s no evidence that SJL went to SR, or Stevenage Road, the PoW or anywhere else.
On this basis (and without the additional evidence the police might have on JC) it’s not possible to say what happened to SJL after she left the office at about 12.40pm.
When you look at JC’s MO he’s not known for his planning and careful execution. I just can’t see SJL being abducted in broad daylight and no one seeing it.
Whatever happened it happened indoors and afterwards she either never left, or as the “Gallows Bridge Witness” said she ended up in the Grand Union Canal.
I’m going with DV until it’s proven wrong.
 
  • #866
I am not LE, but AFAIK there are something like 175 powers that can be invoked to obtain a search warrant, and having evidence is not always a condition. The applicant just needs reasonable suspicion that a crime may have occurred, and that a search will produce evidence of it. If they needed evidence to go and search for evidence they'd never get anywhere, as it's a circular requirement.

As a case in point, the police had no evidence against any of the people smeared by Carl Beech in Operation Midland because he literally fabricated everything. They still went ahead and got search warrants of people's homes anyway. As a result of that and matters like it there is a review of SWs going on generally, as something like 80% are thought to be defective.

The basis for searching the PoW is twofold.

1/ the same reasons as in 1986. It's a place she may have been headed, and the only account the police have is from someone there who is either telling the truth or killed her.

2/ John Cannan. If the police can get permission to dig up barracks and random Midlands gardens and kitchens, they can get it to search pubs. After all, can anyone prove JC didn't intercept her at the PoW? The police ought to like this one.

While it's correct that there's no evidence in public to support the PoW hypothesis, this is because the police failed to look for any there there at the time, and have continued to fail to look there for 36 years. What is extraordinary is that despite the police's 33-year campaign to frame JC, there's also no evidence to support that hypothesis either. Despite three decades of urging the public to make stuff up to incriminate him, much of which is laughably and obviously fabricated, there's not a shred of evidence that puts him in Fulham at any time in his life. If there were more on JC than is generally known, it would certainly have been made known to the CPS, who nonetheless dismissed the police case out of hand 22 years ago.

There are two things to explain here: why the police are acting as they are - why don't they want this crime solved? And: why has JC been stringing them along if he's innocent?

I tend to like simple explanations, and for the first, the simplest explanation is that there's nothing the police in searching the PoW. If DV is wrong they're no further forward, and if he's right they look complacent, incompetent, arrogant and foolish. They don't even get the kudos of finally clearing up a murder, because they've told everybody they already have.

As to JC, well, he's even simpler to explain: he's a psychopath and he's rather dim. One of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is thrill-seeking and irresponsibility. They do stupid and risky things without thinking ahead. Dropping hints that he might know something about SJL was a harmless bit of psychopath banter to have with the police when he was on his original whole-of-life tariff. Then the law changed so that his tariff was now 32 years - but parole can be denied to people like him on the basis of other crimes he probably committed on balance of probabilities. Aghast, and I actually find this quite funny, JC went into frantic reverse and now denies everything. Being a bit of a thicko, it never occurred to him 30 years ago that stringing the plod along for a laugh might one day have a downside.
 
Last edited:
  • #867
Someone should send a cadaver dog to the deposition site
 
  • #868
I’m not defending DV on the “don’t know” front, but let’s be honest there’s no evidence that SJL went to SR, or Stevenage Road, the PoW or anywhere else.
On this basis (and without the additional evidence the police might have on JC) it’s not possible to say what happened to SJL after she left the office at about 12.40pm.
When you look at JC’s MO he’s not known for his planning and careful execution. I just can’t see SJL being abducted in broad daylight and no one seeing it.
Whatever happened it happened indoors and afterwards she either never left, or as the “Gallows Bridge Witness” said she ended up in the Grand Union Canal.
I’m going with DV until it’s proven wrong.
SL told her boss she wanted to go shopping in Putney sometime that day. At least the police searched her flat in Putney that night but found nothing. Its a shame they didn't visit the PoW that night and ask questions about her lost items
 
  • #869

“EXCLUSIVE: Main suspect in Suzy Lamplugh murder on deathbed as family plead 'tell us what you did”​



John Cannan, 68, is receiving end-of- life palliative care in prison.



 
  • #870
  • #871
At the moment I am working on the possible Bristol boyfriend (not Cannan) I would be interested to hear from forum members who through their own research have any interesting details that they are happy to share.

SJL told a relative that she was lent on in a way that was wrong and she was quite anygry about. This also interests me. Im exploring SJL's possible business interests outside of her job at Sturgis any help in that direction would be welcome too.
 
Last edited:
  • #872
Im exploring SJL's possible business interests outside of her job at Sturgis any help in that direction would be welcome too.

Has your research thrown up anything on the infamous couple in SLs life? Her 'best friend' / the minor media celeb who cannot be named on this site etc. Suzy's close friend who has not publically commented on their friendship despite her rise to fame?

It's been reported that SL pulled out of a business venture with this couple, a factor perhaps in the male being declared bankrupt a little time after she disapeared? This is the female DV refused to talk about on the you tube broadcast that you spoke about earlier.

Certainly in the AS book, this female raised a few eyebrows with her dramatic entrance at DLs 50th birthday party.

I've heard the phrase keep things simple. Worth noting that female indicated too that she herself had been down to meet SL that Monday lunchtime?! Tho that rendezvous was cancelled .....
 
  • #873
Can anyone help with
A list of team members of Barnes Cricket Team 1985 and 1986 please
 
  • #874
One of the tabloids says that Cannan has terminal cancer and he has days to live
 
  • #875
One of the tabloids says that Cannan has terminal cancer and he has days to live

Richard Lamplugh “I would like Cannan, if he does know, to tell us what happened to Suze. After all these years, I would like him to finally let us know what happened. It would mean a lot to the family.”

IMO interesting for SLs brother to say 'if he does know'. I wonder are the family coming to a realisation that JC may well not be responsible for SLs disapperance?

Also 'It would mean a lot to the family'. Let's not forget that family members are still suffering nearly 36 years on. A compelling reason for the PoW to be searched at least ....
 
  • #876
Richard Lamplugh “I would like Cannan, if he does know, to tell us what happened to Suze. After all these years, I would like him to finally let us know what happened. It would mean a lot to the family.”

IMO interesting for SLs brother to say 'if he does know'. I wonder are the family coming to a realisation that JC may well not be responsible for SLs disapperance?

Also 'It would mean a lot to the family'. Let's not forget that family members are still suffering nearly 36 years on. A compelling reason for the PoW to be searched at least ....

Its so very difficult when a case has been shrouded in mystery. Some people of course will have their minds set no matter anything he reveals.
Investing officers in the SJL case have said its a complicated case many twists and turns. Hacket was the first I heard to consider 2 people may be involved.
Its possible JC is on the fringes of really happened that day, given his jail sentences there no doubt he had met a wide variety of people whose criminal activities spanned a wide range of crimes across the country.

Its a very interesting case to unravel
 
  • #877
More likely a compelling reason for the police to close the case!

The Mirror article includes the rarely-seen photofit of "Mr Kipper", interestingly. This one looks absolutely nothing like JC, but it is a very good likeness of MG.
 
  • #878

“EXCLUSIVE: Main suspect in Suzy Lamplugh murder on deathbed as family plead 'tell us what you did”​



John Cannan, 68, is receiving end-of- life palliative care in prison.



I’m not negative by nature, but I can’t help but think if JC dies and says nothing, the police will want to close the case.
 
  • #879
Someone should send a cadaver dog to the deposition site
I am in favour of using cadaver dogs on the railway embankment due to the heavy vegetation, but inside the cellar void (if there’s enough headroom) you might be able to scan the area to see if it’s been disturbed and if it has the shape.
As others have said the new owners will not give permission, it’s not in their interests to do so.
 
  • #880
This is quite interesting:


....it was David Venables who killed her. He wanted her out of the way: he wanted to resume his long-standing affair with another woman.

“He knew about the septic tank in its secluded location. It was for him almost the perfect hiding place.

“It meant he didn’t have to travel and risk being seen making a suspicious journey around the time of her disappearance or risk being seen disposing of her body somewhere else.

“And, of course, even if someone did think to look inside the tank, her body would be hidden from view.

“And for nearly 40 years, it was the perfect place and he got away with murder.”

By 2019 Venables had sold the farm to his nephew, and it was in July that year that contractors, clearing out the septic tank, found bones including a human skull.

“DNA testing showed the remains were those of Brenda Venables,” said Mr Burrows.

The prosecution case here seems to be wholly circumstantial. They are suggesting that Venables (I'll use his name, as the press are doing so hence it's public domain; plus avoids confusion with 'our' DV) had a motive; had the opportunity; and is the only person who knew of the hiding place. They clearly have no witness who puts him at this location in 1982. The case arises because the remains of a dead woman were found actually on his property. They have worked out, and are arguing, that's there's only one possible suspect.

We don't know what his defence is going to be, of course. But it's interesting that this case gets to court, whereas no case against JC re SJL ever has, and that the Met aren't interested in searching under floors where if there's a body it can have been put there by only one person. Given what we're seeing here, it's clearly possible to mount a prosecution on the basis that "it can't have been anybody else" , so the Met's case against JC must be feeble indeed. If it was as persuasive as this, the CPS would have prosecuted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
65
Guests online
2,283
Total visitors
2,348

Forum statistics

Threads
632,804
Messages
18,631,921
Members
243,297
Latest member
InternalExile
Back
Top