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

[Terryb808]

You would think that humanity would take over though as a women is likely murdered why would they lie and risk getting in trouble with LE?

This is a big lie that sets the case off on a very bad foot from the get go if correct. It’s a complete waste of police resources and if this can be proven then it’s actually quite sinister.


Even if the person isn’t involved imagine the man hours put into whittinstall road and the searches and so on that lead from there.


MOO

I agree regarding the waste of police time, for me (and this has been said) over 30 years has passed.
Re-interviewing witnesses after all this time can’t be as reliable as reading their original witness statements.
This applies equally to DV and is one of the reasons to question what they say.
I know this was a mega event at the time, but just how important is it to those involved now. We in this thread focus on it in some detail, however, most people will have moved on.
We’re taking it that it was a deliberate lie, maybe, 30 years on they just can’t remember exactly where they parked SJL’s car that day.
In order for us all to judge how this might change things I’d ask that the new location be confirmed.
One of the roads mentioned earlier in the recent discussions is an interesting one.

 

[WestLondoner]

Re the diary and Sunday - this is CV's claim and appears credible because there is no way she lost it there on Friday and it just knocked around underfoot in front of the pub for two days unnoticed.

Re "lies" regarding the car - there is lying, which is intentional deceit, and there is mistake or error in recollection. To assert that something's a lie you'd need to show the person saying whatever it was knew it was untrue.

Someone not pointing out to the police that they have the supposedly missing keys to 37SR isn't a lie, either - it's an oversight at worst because why would the person not pointing this out be expected to know this is important.

 

[asyousay]

Re the diary and Sunday - this is CV's claim and appears credible because there is no way she lost it there on Friday and it just knocked around underfoot in front of the pub for two days unnoticed.

Re "lies" regarding the car - there is lying, which is intentional deceit, and there is mistake or error in recollection. To assert that something's a lie you'd need to show the person saying whatever it was knew it was untrue.

Someone not pointing out to the police that they have the supposedly missing keys to 37SR isn't a lie, either - it's an oversight at worst because why would the person not pointing this out be expected to know this is important.

the diary though we don’t know if somebody took it and read it over the weekend and then put it back where she has lost it. If you are a local then it’s exactly hard to drop it back and you then know at some point she has to come and pick it up.


IMO

 

[Crusader21]

Firstly a very well done to folks after all this time, who give up time, effort and spend their own money trying to find out what really happened in 1986.

But, and with the utmost respect, I find it very diffcult to accept that '90% of the narrative is wrong'.

Yes the cops (mostly justifiably) get flack, but there was good and experienced policemen working on this case who would have did anything to solve it, surely a 10% uncovering of what actually unfolded is inaccurate ....

And to that an experienced Sunday Times jurno, who spent hours with those cops and civilians directly involved in the case, would he be easily duped?

Bottom line is is there anything concretely new or 'break-through' in this new research?

Or are we still at - Search the PoW?

 

[asyousay]

Firstly a very well done to folks after all this time, who give up time, effort and spend their own money trying to find out what really happened in 1986.

But, and with the utmost respect, I find it very diffcult to accept that '90% of the narrative is wrong'.

Yes the cops (mostly justifiably) get flack, but there was good and experienced policemen working on this case who would have did anything to solve it, surely a 10% uncovering of what actually unfolded is inaccurate ....

And to that an experienced Sunday Times jurno, who spent hours with those cops and civilians directly involved in the case, would he be easily duped?

Bottom line is is there anything concretely new or 'break-through' in this new research?

Or are we still at - Search the PoW?

Yes I struggle with the car not being parked where it was stated originally. It just makes zero sense that narrative has been wrong for 35 years.

I refuse to believe the police were that ridiculously stupid and not a single witness told them the car was actually parked elsewhere.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I guess the witness was too scared to correct the police about whittingstall rd

 

[Terryb808]

I guess the witness was too scared to correct the police about whittingstall rd

IMO it’s time to say where the car was parked if not in Whittingstall Road.
Ignore for one moment the idea it was a deliberate lie, again, if it wasn’t a lie how does it influence the timeline on the day.

 

[Terryb808]

Chesilton or she goes left and crosses into Mimosa street?


The question is why did the person who parked the car lie about where they parked it. That’s the big question

Mimosa has been mentioned before (maybe in thread 1), highlighted as a very quiet road and ideal for a meet up.
I’m sure DV said SJL turned right out of the office, I took this to mean towards Putney from Whittingstall Road.
However, he could have been meaning right to collect her car.
But it he did mean this why not just say so.
I agree with you, the police can’t have been so poor they got this basic fact wrong.

 

[WestLondoner]

Except as a figure of speech, I'm not sure how confidently you can say that x% of the narrative is wrong TBH, because the narrative's not a precise quantity. I think you can say that close to 100% of parts of the narrative - the account that's out there in public - about e.g. JC is wrong. It's all either highly misleading or factually flat out wrong.

For example, it's always brought up that he was a rapist recently released from the Scrubs. This is true and makes him look bad - until you work out how misleading it is. Given the number of rapists convicted (and normally jailed) a year in the mid-80s, and the percentage of the then prison population that the Scrubs contained, it's trivial to work out that there must have been 20 to 30 other rapists besides Cannan who were released from the Scrubs between January and July 1986 as well. So why aren't they all under equal suspicion? Where are their alibis?

Then there's the misleading claim that as Cannan killed Shirley Banks, killing SJL fits his MO as a killer of women. Well, except that most sex attackers' crimes get steadily worse. In 1986 Cannan was a rapist and a thief who later killed Shirley Banks. There's no evidence he had yet killed any women. To have killed SJL, he'd have had to get abruptly worse to do that, then to have dialled it back a bit to just rape, before getting worse again and killing Shirley Banks. Does that ever actually happen? Plus, Cannan's actual MO included stealing from his victims. He stole Shirley Banks' £125 car, for example. So if this was Cannan, per his MO why didn't he steal SJL's tenner?

There's also opinion presented as fact. Supposedly he looks like Mr Kipper. Really? What witness on what identity parade says so? He liked to hang round wine bars in Fulham. Really? What witness places him in any, before it was announced that he was Mr Kipper?

And then there's the stuff that is simply factually wrong. He was not from Bristol; he did not own a black BMW; he was not known as Kipper in prison.

So that part is close to 100% wrong. It's really only correct that he was recently out of the Scrubs, but so what?

The problem as noted above is that the police went straight up the garden path instantly, so their work on other avenues of inquiry (e.g. the PoW) is demonstrably incomplete because they assumed it was irrelevant. Even AS is thereby compromised for reliability, because he seems to have relied without much question on their files and their information.

 

[Terryb808]

Except as a figure of speech, I'm not sure how confidently you can say that x% of the narrative is wrong TBH, because the narrative's not a precise quantity. I think you can say that close to 100% of parts of the narrative - the account that's out there in public - about e.g. JC is wrong. It's all either highly misleading or factually flat out wrong.

For example, it's always brought up that he was a rapist recently released from the Scrubs. This is true and makes him look bad - until you work out how misleading it is. Given the number of rapists convicted (and normally jailed) a year in the mid-80s, and the percentage of the then prison population that the Scrubs contained, it's trivial to work out that there must have been 20 to 30 other rapists besides Cannan who were released from the Scrubs between January and July 1986 as well. So why aren't they all under equal suspicion? Where are their alibis?

Then there's the misleading claim that as Cannan killed Shirley Banks, killing SJL fits his MO as a killer of women. Well, except that most sex attackers' crimes get steadily worse. In 1986 Cannan was a rapist and a thief who later killed Shirley Banks. There's no evidence he had yet killed any women. To have killed SJL, he'd have had to get abruptly worse to do that, then to have dialled it back a bit to just rape, before getting worse again and killing Shirley Banks. Does that ever actually happen? Plus, Cannan's actual MO included stealing from his victims. He stole Shirley Banks' £125 car, for example. So if this was Cannan, per his MO why didn't he steal SJL's tenner?

There's also opinion presented as fact. Supposedly he looks like Mr Kipper. Really? What witness on what identity parade says so? He liked to hang round wine bars in Fulham. Really? What witness places him in any, before it was announced that he was Mr Kipper?

And then there's the stuff that is simply factually wrong. He was not from Bristol; he did not own a black BMW; he was not known as Kipper in prison.

So that part is close to 100% wrong. It's really only correct that he was recently out of the Scrubs, but so what?

The problem as noted above is that the police went straight up the garden path instantly, so their work on other avenues of inquiry (e.g. the PoW) is demonstrably incomplete because they assumed it was irrelevant. Even AS is thereby compromised for reliability, because he seems to have relied without much question on their files and their information.

Can’t fault your logic and agree in principle, however, IMO and with zero concrete evidence I believe JC murdered Sandra Court.
The perpetrator said in a disguised letter that this was an accident. If correct JC stalked Sandra Court which is in his MO.
So why not SJL, he didn’t need to be seen in wine bars or the PoW, just stalking her during the day.
I think the crimes he refers to as “never been caught for” includes Sandra Court but not SJL.

 

[WestLondoner]

Can’t fault your logic and agree in principle, however, IMO and with zero concrete evidence I believe JC murdered Sandra Court.
The perpetrator said in a disguised letter that this was an accident. If correct JC stalked Sandra Court which is in his MO.
So why not SJL, he didn’t need to be seen in wine bars or the PoW, just stalking her during the day.
I think the crimes he refers to as “never been caught for” includes Sandra Court but not SJL.

Agree re Sandra Court, but my point really is that it's not a solid basis for suspicion to say that probably he killed SJL because probably he had already also killed Sandra Court. He probably did kill Sandra Court, but it's supposition on top of supposition, and if true, some evidence ought to have emerged. The best evidence is that his car was there earlier that day, but he co-owned the car with another lag, so even that doesn't put him there.

If you drill into the stalking narrative, it's also quite hard to visualise how it works. He was on day release and had to observe a curfew. He can't really stalk anyone in his working hours, and Acton to Fulham is a real schlepp in rush hour traffic. If he were trying to be a lounge lizard around Fulham wine bars he'd have to get back to du Cane Road to get the seconc-hand Sierra then drive to Fulham and leave again by 9pm to be sure of getting back to beat his curfew. And that would be every time he went there.

I am not persuaded these other crimes necessarily exist. He's a psychopath who has been outwitted by the police, so to assert himself, maybe he claims to have got away with other stuff. We're not talking about anyone normal here....

 

[Crusader21]

If SLs car was parked in Mimosa Street, then it may well have sat in full view of the patrons of the Crocodile Tears wine bar.

With the office manager and big Sturgis boss peering straight out at her leaving, did that itself prompt the Mr Kipper diary entry?

 

[WestLondoner]

That's an interesting idea. She's seen leaving so needs to have a pretext. Was KP ever called Kipper?

Personally BTW I doubt the suggestions we have seen sometimes that SJL would have had to take the keys to make the fake diary entry look plausible. The rationale for the entry is if the honch KP comes in and says Where the hell is everybody? To which MG replies, Well there's one on holiday and NH is over there, so it's really only Susannah..let's see: oh yes [3-second glance at her desk diary], she's got a viewing.

KP is not going to snarl I don't believe the bish! Check the key rack! Check she took the keys! Did she? Did she? He's going to say OK, good...well I'll be off...and SJL has loyally ensured her boss doesn't look a clot in front of his own.

 

[Crusader21]

That's an interesting idea. She's seen leaving so needs to have a pretext. Was KP ever called Kipper?

SL was sitting at a window desk, with the wine bar and perhaps her car directly in front of her.

Indeed, it would be a no brainer to write in that cover excuse in to the diary, should the big wigs return to the office .....

 

[WestLondoner]

Did I read that the Crocodile Tears was a basement bar?

If so it would make it hard for anyone to see into the street. Then again, estate agents are fond of saying basement flats overlook this that or the other, even though you can't really overlook somewhere from underneath it. So maybe the basement - sorry, the "lower ground floor" - of the CT overlooked the office in that sense...

 

[Pinkizzy]

The CT (660 Fulham Rd) was two doors down from Sturgis (654 Fulham Road)

 

[shadwell]

That's an interesting idea. She's seen leaving so needs to have a pretext. Was KP ever called Kipper?

Heh. Not exactly a major leap if the name given previously in this thread is his real name, but I doubt SJL would write a nickname that management would recognise in the diary if she was sloping off.

On this subject - according to DV, who exactly was MG having lunch with at the Crocodile Tears? (Yes, I know I should just buy the book)

 

[shadwell]

Did I read that the Crocodile Tears was a basement bar?

If so it would make it hard for anyone to see into the street. Then again, estate agents are fond of saying basement flats overlook this that or the other, even though you can't really overlook somewhere from underneath it. So maybe the basement - sorry, the "lower ground floor" - of the CT overlooked the office in that sense...

There’s certainly a basement area in 660 - stairs down right next to the front door, so Barring major remodelling since 1986 it’s unlikely MG and whoever would have been sitting in the front window at ground level with a view onto Fulham Road.

Google Maps

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

goo.gl

 

[asyousay]

The company car which had been allocated to Suzy had been used by a colleague earlier in the morning, and it was recalled that she turned round to ask where the car was before she left. Cars were parked in available spaces in side roads. The answer, on this occasion, was Whittingstall Road.

 

[asyousay]

Does anybody have a photo of the POW back in the mid 80’s?

I have seen one photo and the diary and cheque book left on the steps of the pub if this was the layout makes zero sense.

Punters would of been tripping over the items leaving and entering the premises.


So wondering if the pub looked like this in 1986 as it does raise more questions on how the stuff was found.


MOO