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

[shadwell]

How Im seeing it as NH and SF were working these viewings while SJL was else where.
It suited them as they wanted to spend their lunchtimes together as usual. So that accounts for a female and a male being seen at these locations.
NH had just had a birthday turning 23 so the bottle of Champagne could be something he either bought with him or SF given him on the day.
I think the sighting of a couple in the park drinking champagne is most likely them.
MOO

SF and NH at Shorrolds? Interesting idea - and a possibility along these lines is why I was previously interested to note that 37SR was apparently vacant *and* furnished - the perfect location for a bit of ‘afternoon delight’ for those in the know.

OTOH, to a wrong’un seeking a location to commit an abduction, the presence of furniture would suggest it was occupied and therefore not ideal, since the homeowner might also be around during any viewing. MOO

 

[Terryb808]

SF and NH at Shorrolds? Interesting idea - and a possibility along these lines is why I was previously interested to note that 37SR was apparently vacant *and* furnished - the perfect location for a bit of ‘afternoon delight’ for those in the know.

OTOH, to a wrong’un seeking a location to commit an abduction, the presence of furniture would suggest it was occupied and therefore not ideal, since the homeowner might also be around during any viewing. MOO

This explains a lot if true, and at this stage 30 plus years later I can’t quite understand why if this is the case they don’t just confirm it.
Also, I’d have expected DV to have found this out, it’s another reason for the Mr Kipper narrative to be completely wrong.
Isn’t it about time they all set the record straight so the Met can be forced to focus on what happened rather than what they think happened?

 

[asyousay]

Just reading up on some things so the killer took Suzy’s keys?

Left her purse but took her keys that’s a strange one.

 

[Dan Cooper]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Pinkizzy]

Prof David Wilson says that SL was abducted before she was murdered and her death was not 5 mins of madness from the killer

 

[WestLondoner]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What is jaw dropping about that video is that when asked what are the links to Cannan - DW can't cite any. It's all unsubstantiated conjecture.

"He was working in Fulham" - No he wasn't, he was working in Acton.
"That's where we think he got access to the places and the people Suzy would know" We think? What "access" did he have? How do "we" know? Which of the 30 or so rapists released from Wormwood Scrubs so far that year didn't have the same "access"?
"As a link, what do we know definitively about John Cannan? Well, he murdered Shirley Banks in circumstances that are eeerily like the circumstances in which Suzy Lamplugh was abducted" Oh yes? In what circumstances was Suzy Lamplugh abducted? Who saw it?
"386 - three murders within '86." Go on then. What three murders were there? There's Shirley Banks. What were his other two? Have you proved them?

It actually makes me quite angry to see the endless repetition of this baseless rubbish that's doing no more than protecting the real killer, who for all we know has meanwhile been happily busy elsewhere.

 

[WestLondoner]

Prof David Wilson says that SL was abducted before she was murdered and her death was not 5 mins of madness from the killer

Well, that's clever of him considering he has no proof she was either abducted or murdered.

 

[Cluesleuth]

What is jaw dropping about that video is that when asked what are the links to Cannan - DW can't cite any. It's all unsubstantiated conjecture.

"He was working in Fulham" - No he wasn't, he was working in Acton.
"That's where we think he got access to the places and the people Suzy would know" We think? What "access" did he have? How do "we" know? Which of the 30 or so rapists released from Wormwood Scrubs so far that year didn't have the same "access"?
"As a link, what do we know definitively about John Cannan? Well, he murdered Shirley Banks in circumstances that are eeerily like the circumstances in which Suzy Lamplugh was abducted" Oh yes? In what circumstances was Suzy Lamplugh abducted? Who saw it?
"386 - three murders within '86." Go on then. What three murders were there? There's Shirley Banks. What were his other two? Have you proved them?

It actually makes me quite angry to see the endless repetition of this baseless rubbish that's doing no more than protecting the real killer, who for all we know has meanwhile been happily busy elsewhere.

I groan everytime DW is wheeled out.
If Cannan is innocent of the murder of SJL some of these experts will have their reputations in tatters.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's there for all to see in that video that there is no case against Cannan. DW is specifically asked for links and he then fails to give any. Nothing he calls a "link" is anything of the kind. Not one. Literally not one.

The bit where Cannan's lawyer is quoted accurately pointing out that there's no evidence, no case but recent work pointing elsewhere is bundled in at the end, and no response to it given.

I would really like to see one of these Cannan-obsessives challenged in detail on the rubbish they spout.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Well, that's clever of him considering he has no proof she was either abducted or murdered.

Exactly for all we know someone could have killed her in self defence.

With respect noone knows the circumstances of her death, what happened or who was involved.

My mind is completely open

MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

Just reading up on some things so the killer took Suzy’s keys?

Left her purse but took her keys that’s a strange one.

The keys to her flat, do you mean? You raise a really interesting point there (I like how you keep doing that ).

IIRC her purse with £10 in it was found in her car. Her bag was not in the car, so either stolen (why?) or I think left in the office. That's where you'd think her house keys would be, right? In her bag. I wonder if anyone checked this at the time? If they weren't left in her bag at the office, then she had them with her. Now why did she take her house keys to a supposed viewing? Why did she take them unless she intended to pop home?

Another detail that tends to exclude JC: nothing appears to have been stolen. Cannan stole Shirley Banks' car. Why didn't JC steal SJL's £10? For that matter, why didn't he steal her car as well, and change its number plate?

 

[Terryb808]

I groan everytime DW is wheeled out.
If Cannan is innocent of the murder of SJL some of these experts will have their reputations in tatters.

Before this programme was aired I asked DW about the content and highlighted that Richard Lamplugh deserves an open investigation into SJL’s disappearance.
While not mentioning DV I pointed out alternatives.
I’ve seen a lot of his work in the past and he’s always followed his instincts, this time he’s followed the police line.
He gets a lot right with his cases, but occasionally he’ll get one wrong.

 

[asyousay]

The keys to her flat, do you mean? You raise a really interesting point there (I like how you keep doing that ).

IIRC her purse with £10 in it was found in her car. Her bag was not in the car, so either stolen (why?) or I think left in the office. That's where you'd think her house keys would be, right? In her bag. I wonder if anyone checked this at the time? If they weren't left in her bag at the office, then she had them with her. Now why did she take her house keys to a supposed viewing? Why did she take them unless she intended to pop home?

Another detail that tends to exclude JC: nothing appears to have been stolen. Cannan stole Shirley Banks' car. Why didn't JC steal SJL's £10? For that matter, why didn't he steal her car as well, and change its number plate?

This is on official site - I think her mum wrote it?!

taking her house and car keys and a purse with £15 and credit cards, but leaving her handbag behind.

I wonder why she left her handbag behind as with all the stuff surely easier to take your handbag? I’m guessing back then she was wearing a skirt and Not trousers being a woman so no pockets and she would of also had the print out of the property as well to hold.

 

[Dan Cooper]

I was thinking I definitely knew that guy from somewhere; the accent was very familiar but he looked different. I'm pretty sure it's the same criminologist from the Emilia Fox Ripper documentary I watched recently (though it's probably a few years old).

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is on official site - I think her mum wrote it?!




I wonder why she left her handbag behind as with all the stuff surely easier to take your handbag? I’m guessing back then she was wearing a skirt and Not trousers being a woman so no pockets and she would of also had the print out of the property as well to hold.

page 29 AS Book SF says when she left the office she was carrying a purse too, and a ring holding the keys of her car, the office and her flat.

I took from this that her car office and flat keys were on the same ring.

Personally I always keep my house keys on a seperate ring, but I know lots of people who do hold all their keys on one ring.

 

[asyousay]

page 29 AS Book SF says when she left the office she was carrying a purse too, and a ring holding the keys of her car, the office and her flat.

I took from this that her car office and car keys were on the same ring.

Personally I always keep my house keys on a seperate ring, but I know lots of people who do hold all their keys on one ring.

That’s super strange as that’s not her car and was driven by other people that morning so quite strange to keep every thing on one keyring.


Did the office print off multiple sets of car keys for the office I wonder?



- So her purse was found in the car door bit so that would indicate she got in the car at least and more than likely drove away.


If paperwork was printed out then that was missing along with her keys.

 

[Terryb808]

page 29 AS Book SF says when she left the office she was carrying a purse too, and a ring holding the keys of her car, the office and her flat.

I took from this that her car office and car keys were on the same ring.

Personally I always keep my house keys on a seperate ring, but I know lots of people who do hold all their keys on one ring.

I think we’re reading too much into this, SJL had all her keys on one key ring. The person who abandoned her car did so in a hurry, clearly not bothered about anything but getting away.
It’s natural to turn the engine off and pull out the ignition keys, he did this without thinking and walked away.
He could have dropped them just about anywhere.
Also the fact that her purse & money was still in the car doesn’t mean it wasn’t JC, but it does go his natural instincts.
Part of JC’s routine was to wipe down the interior, he carried materials for this purpose. What’s not been revealed (as far as I know) is 100% confirmation that the interior of the car was wiped clean?

 

[Cluesleuth]

That’s super strange as that’s not her car and was driven by other people that morning so quite strange to keep every thing on one keyring.


Did the office print off multiple sets of car keys for the office I wonder?



- So her purse was found in the car door bit so that would indicate she got in the car at least and more than likely drove away.


If paperwork was printed out then that was missing along with her keys.

JC had used her car for a viewing at Fosket Rd at 9.45.
Just after 12.00 midday after sharing a cigarette in the back of the office with NH and SF, SF then left for a viewing.
Theres no detail of which property she was showing who the client was and whose car she took. When speaking with DV MS said The secretary and the office junior did not do face to face viewing they were expected to man the phones which were always busy.

 

[asyousay]

I think we’re reading too much into this, SJL had all her keys on one key ring. The person who abandoned her car did so in a hurry, clearly not bothered about anything but getting away.
It’s natural to turn the engine off and pull out the ignition keys, he did this without thinking and walked away.
He could have dropped them just about anywhere.
Also the fact that her purse & money was still in the car doesn’t mean it wasn’t JC, but it does go his natural instincts.
Part of JC’s routine was to wipe down the interior, he carried materials for this purpose. What’s not been revealed (as far as I know) is 100% confirmation that the interior of the car was wiped clean?

Yes all we know I think is no unusual finger prints were found. So every print they matched to Suzy or somebody in the office we can assume.


The car seat was pushed back hence they know Suzy wouldn’t of driven the car in such fashion so unless they wore gloves then surely they had to wiped down some of the car?


Also if we assume person wore gloves to me this also points to it not being CV as I just don’t see how he does this all on the spur of the moment and yet has the foresight to wipe down a car or wear gloves. He would of been totally panicked and not thinking straight imo

 

[Terryb808]

Yes all we know I think is no unusual finger prints were found. So every print they matched to Suzy or somebody in the office we can assume.


The car seat was pushed back hence they know Suzy wouldn’t of driven the car in such fashion so unless they wore gloves then surely they had to wiped down some of the car?


Also if we assume person wore gloves to me this also points to it not being CV as I just don’t see how he does this all on the spur of the moment and yet has the foresight to wipe down a car or wear gloves. He would of been totally panicked and not thinking straight imo

Thinking about the time the car appears in Stevenage Road is important. Way back in the thread we generally settled on between 4.00 & 5.00pm.
On this basis CV after murdering SJL spent time burying her in the cellar. Then finding her car, driving to Stevenage Road (because this was the first place that came to mind) and making sure to wipe it clean.
Then hailing a cab to take him to McDonald’s and home to the PoW via the tube.
All this seems very professional for someone who accidentally killed SJL. And then improvised a cover up.
Again with the same time for the car in Stevenage Road, all the above can be almost equally applied to JC, the only difference is it’s the sort of actions that come naturally to him.
For DV to be right, CV needs to have been incredibly cool under pressure and also extremely lucky. This luck has been running for 36 years, no one found anything in the PoW when the floor was lowered and equally the railway embankment has not been disturbed. That’s one hell of a lot of luck?