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

[Cluesleuth]

Hi all, new to this.
Having spent time reading through much of this thread, I have noted that a number of Websleuthers have thought the actions of MG ( Suzy Lamplugh's boss ) peculiar on the day of her disappearance.
In addition, it seems remarkable that only now, more than 35 years later, office junior JC should say that the police were wrong to say that Suzy Lamplugh's car was parked in Whittingstall Road prior to her disappearance. Apparently, JC now says that it was parked in Radipole Road. I feel that it is vital to know for sure where the car was parked because if it was parked somewhere quiet largely out of the public eye, this may have afforded the opportunity for Suzy to be abducted at this point.
I feel it is essential that everyone in the office should come forward to fully account for their actions that day, and as Cluesleuth mentioned earlier, I am sure that they would all be very welcomed by contributers to this website if they would do so here.
One final thing, has it been fully ascertained that the Mr Kipper diary entry was definitely made by Suzy and not by someone else? Looking at it, I am not convinced that the handwriting style of it, though fairly similar, matches up with the Joanna Wright entry lower down the page. And, while not wanting to come across as sexist, I would say that the handwriting style of the Mr Kipper entry looks more typical of a male than a female.

Welcome to the thread

heres the link to Websleuths Verified Professionals and Insiders list.
They have a Forensic Handwriting Examiner listed 'Forensic Profiler'.

List of Verified Professionals and Verified Insiders

Websleuths has posters from all walks of life with a broad spectrum of expertise and/or some who may have special inside knowledge about a case. We like to ensure that anyone posting as a professional in a specific area truly is what/who they claim to be. This is not a new rule and has always...

www.websleuths.com

<modsnip>

 

[Konstantin]

I strongly suspect that the position lies in the fact that DV is not privy to the majority of the evidence, which clearly demonstrates that JC is the only suspect and that all the evidence points towards him, but not of SC disposing of SJL at the PoW!

I assume this must almost certainly be the case--at least that he is not, and cannot, be privy to all the evidence. Whether that definitively points to JC in the sense of ruling out all other avenues is uncertain, however the above post would seem to suggest that there is now evidence pointing away from JC (the Good Morning video interview snippet).

I also wonder if some of this at least has been shared with Suzy's family and that is one reason at least why AL, her former boyfriend, was so irritated in the meeting with DV. DV presented this as being somehow fishy or strange but honestly, we have no idea about the background to this interview and what AL's expectations of it were. If he thinks for whatever reason that JC is the culprit then of course he is going to not want to stick around to be asked about the pub which is not a new revelation, it has been discussed previously anyway.

We don't know what the police have done or looked at re the pub, we know that the relief landlord is not a suspect and on that basis, judging from your post (thank you for that information btw) they cannot search the POW. That would make him a suspect, which relies on having reason to do that, and I assume that there is no evidence that Suzy visited the pub (you can argue, as has DV, that this is because no evidence was looked for since the investigation focussed on Shorrolds Road).

DV presents the police reaction to his evidence in a particular way to get a particular reaction (he is being ignored or presented with an impossible task), but if the police do have additional evidence they cannot share with the public then we can read this in a slightly different way--that to overturn that evidence in favour of another line of enquiry we need to have some solid reason to do so, i.e. a motive for the person who you want us to consider as a suspect to have committed this crime, because we already looked at him and don't see him as a suspect. The only real thing there would be the diary containing something that was enough to set him off or make him want to assault/harm her, a total stranger.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Can I ask why you think the police have not been able to formally charge John Cannan he was interviewed in 1999 and named as a suspect in 2002 thats 20 years ago with detectives analysts, profilers and up to date forensics of the calibre you
Because the CPS applied the full code test and their expert assessment was that the weight of evidence would not meet the first stage, as follows:

Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

My thoughts are that the way the initial publicity was managed by the police undermined the strength of witness evidence and the opportunities to gather further evidence.

These were the days before social media, so the police had the opportunity for far more control over the information that was in the public domain and they could manage the press for the benefit of the investigation. The initial actions in any major investigation/incident have a significant influence on the outcome.
describe at their disposal why have they still not been able to obtain the evidence to prove without doubt that he is responsible for the murder of SJL?

I did contact the Met unfortunately I received a reply saying they only support academic or grant funded study enquiries.
I have challenged this but to date have not received a reply.

My response from a previous question may help, as follows:

Because the CPS applied the full code test and their expert assessment was that the weight of evidence would not meet the first stage, as follows:

Is there enough evidence against the defendant?

When deciding whether there is enough evidence to charge, Crown Prosecutors must consider whether evidence can be used in court and is reliable and credible, and there is no other material that might affect the sufficiency of evidence. Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant.

My thoughts are that the way the initial publicity was managed by the police undermined the strength of witness evidence and the opportunities to gather further evidence.

These were the days before social media, so the police had the opportunity for far more control over the information that was in the public domain and they could manage the press for the benefit of the investigation. The initial actions in any major investigation/incident have a significant influence on the outcome.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Welcome to the thread

heres the link to Websleuths Verified Professionals and Insiders list.
They have a Forensic Handwriting Examiner listed 'Forensic Profiler'.

List of Verified Professionals and Verified Insiders

Websleuths has posters from all walks of life with a broad spectrum of expertise and/or some who may have special inside knowledge about a case. We like to ensure that anyone posting as a professional in a specific area truly is what/who they claim to be. This is not a new rule and has always...

www.websleuths.com

I noticed the date of list was posted some time ago maybe worth checking when the list was last updated

Thankyou Cluesleuth.
But are we saying that the Mr Kipper diary entry has been fully proved, no doubts, to have been made by SJL? To my eye, the Kipper diary entry looks to be not quite the same style handwriting as the diary entry beneath it. In addition, it seems strange to me that if SJL was making up a diary entry to afford herself an unwarranted absence from the office that she should use such an unconvincing name as Mr Kipper. If there are any genuine Mr Kippers in this country, I would imagine they are few and far between. Also, a contributor mentioned earlier in the thread that there is no evidence of SJL making other fake entries in her diary, and no regular card was filled out for this appointment.
My question is this : Is it possible that SJL did not make the diary entry, but rather it was made by someone else in the Sturgis office after SJL left the office that lunchtime?

 

[Terryb808]

JC is clumsy criminal and I don't believe he killed SJL without leaving evidence somewhere.

Exactly and this is why it’s possible the police are just not looking at the right person
Not having an open mind and being blinkered is not the same as being right about JC.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I assume this must almost certainly be the case--at least that he is not, and cannot, be privy to all the evidence. Whether that definitively points to JC in the sense of ruling out all other avenues is uncertain, however the above post would seem to suggest that there is now evidence pointing away from JC (the Good Morning video interview snippet).

I also wonder if some of this at least has been shared with Suzy's family and that is one reason at least why AL, her former boyfriend, was so irritated in the meeting with DV. DV presented this as being somehow fishy or strange but honestly, we have no idea about the background to this interview and what AL's expectations of it were. If he thinks for whatever reason that JC is the culprit then of course he is going to not want to stick around to be asked about the pub which is not a new revelation, it has been discussed previously anyway.

We don't know what the police have done or looked at re the pub, we know that the relief landlord is not a suspect and on that basis, judging from your post (thank you for that information btw) they cannot search the POW. That would make him a suspect, which relies on having reason to do that, and I assume that there is no evidence that Suzy visited the pub (you can argue, as has DV, that this is because no evidence was looked for since the investigation focussed on Shorrolds Road).

DV presents the police reaction to his evidence in a particular way to get a particular reaction (he is being ignored or presented with an impossible task), but if the police do have additional evidence they cannot share with the public then we can read this in a slightly different way--that to overturn that evidence in favour of another line of enquiry we need to have some solid reason to do so, i.e. a motive for the person who you want us to consider as a suspect to have committed this crime, because we already looked at him and don't see him as a suspect. The only real thing there would be the diary containing something that was enough to set him off or make him want to assault/harm her, a total stranger.

My response to each of your paragraphs:

1. Only two things would point away from JC:

a) A confirmed alibi
b) An alternative identified suspect who cannot be ruled out

2. By his own admission DV interviewed AL like he was still a copper. To me that would mean the way in which a suspect is interviewed...it's quite challenging, so I'd not be surprised if AL terminated it.

I too would have considered AL a possible suspect. Certainly after JD's 2000 review I would be content that AL was eliminated as such.

Partners and ex-partners are always no.1 in the sights of detectives when investigating such cases. They seek to eliminate them first purely because statistically most murder victims are known to the offender and partners/ex-partners have the emotional involvement with the victim.

If SJL's diary did indicate that there were a number of men she had met and possibly been out with, however fleetingly, then there were a few enquiries to do and guys to eliminate.

3. Have a look again at my answer re the search authority for PoW. If police have sufficient evidence SJL is there, they could apply for a Search Warrant from a Magistrate.

4. Anyone identified with a possible motive to harm SJL will have been investigated and either eliminated or the investigation against them progressed. Many may have been eliminated with a confirmed alibi. I wonder if DV was 'interrogating' AL about his alibi?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Exactly and this is why it’s possible the police are just not looking at the right person
Not having an open mind and being blinkered is not the same as being right about JC.

I do believe the police are looking at the one person remaining after all other possible candidates identified by the police were eliminated.

Secondly, great effort was made by the police to find evidence that would disprove that JC was the offender. All the evidence they found only further supported JC's involvement.

I'd say that is far from being blinkered but going where the evidence leads, as one would expect.

 

[Cluesleuth]

My response to each of your paragraphs:

1. Only two things would point away from JC:

a) A confirmed alibi
b) An alternative identified suspect who cannot be ruled out

2. By his own admission DV interviewed AL like he was still a copper. To me that would mean the way in which a suspect is interviewed...it's quite challenging, so I'd not be surprised if AL terminated it.

I too would have considered AL a possible suspect. Certainly after JD's 2000 review I would be content that AL was eliminated as such.

Partners and ex-partners are always no.1 in the sights of detectives when investigating such cases. They seek to eliminate them first purely because statistically most murder victims are known to the offender and partners/ex-partners have the emotional involvement with the victim.

If SJL's diary did indicate that there were a number of men she had met and possibly been out with, however fleetingly, then there were a few enquiries to do and guys to eliminate.

3. Have a look again at my answer re the search authority for PoW. If police have sufficient evidence SJL is there, they could apply for a Search Warrant from a Magistrate.

4. Anyone identified with a possible motive to harm SJL will have been investigated and either eliminated or the investigation against them progressed. Many may have been eliminated with a confirmed alibi. I wonder if DV was 'interrogating' AL about his alibi?

I would like to know when AL became aware that SJL's diary was lost. Did he even know SJL had a diary?

 

[Crusader21]

Anyone identified with a possible motive to harm SJL will have been investigated and either eliminated or the investigation against them progressed. Many may have been eliminated with a confirmed alibi.

I sometimes think given the huge resources and mamoth investigation, that there may well be more to the SL disappearance than a simple 'JC is our man but we just can't pin it on him' senario ....

I accept that an individual or couple who had a identifiable motive to harm SL, could well be eliminated themselves because they had verifiable alibis for 29 July 1986.

But I wonder is the possibility of a 'hit man' / links to organised crime angle credible?

This would raise the possibilty of the SL murder being a small cog in a much wider machine. With a complex web of silence, informers, multiple crimes etc all coming in to play.

 

[Terryb808]

I do believe the police are looking at the one person remaining after all other possible candidates identified by the police were eliminated.

Secondly, great effort was made by the police to find evidence that would disprove that JC was the offender. All the evidence they found only further supported JC's involvement.

I'd say that is far from being blinkered but going where the evidence leads, as one would expect.

It’s easy to see only what you want to see, JC (righty or wrongly) is in the frame. The police have searched many locations related to JC and drawn a blank.
What evidence was there that allowed his mothers former home to be excavated in detail other than JC lived there and someone said JC told them SJL was encased in concrete with another.
Strikes me JC has been playing the police along and watching them jump when he comes up with another story.
DV doesn’t suffer from this obsession, I’d be interested to see how his conclusions may change if he had access to the complete picture (as the police have).
How much privileged information did DW the criminologist have prior to the latest TV doc.
IMO he’s a first rate criminologist and I was surprised at the result aired in the TV doc.

 

[Terryb808]

I sometimes think given the huge resources and mamoth investigation, that there may well be more to the SL disappearance than a simple 'JC is our man but we just can't pin it on him' senario ....

I accept that an individual or couple who had a identifiable motive to harm SL, could well be eliminated themselves because they had verifiable alibis for 29 July 1986.

But I wonder is the possibility of a 'hit man' / links to organised crime angle credible?

This would raise the possibilty of the SL murder being a small cog in a much wider machine. With a complex web of silence, informers, multiple crimes etc all coming in to play.

Yes, those who will not be named and in 36 years have maintained a very low profile.
They never feature in any documentary, I have always wondered why this is.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I would like to know when AL became aware that SJL's diary was lost. Did he even know SJL had a diary?

The diary is an interesting one:

AL states lost on Friday. He had dinner with Suzy in a restaurant in Putney followed by PoW.

A female friend of SJL (can't recall name) says Sunday.

JC is reported to have been in the PoW on Friday evening.....yes PoW

Sinister Theory 1.....AL wanted to find out who else SLJ was seeing. 'Removed' items when at Worthing on the Sunday (27th) and deliberately left them at PoW after all had left for landlord to find. Says lost on Friday to distance himself from taking them and creating suspicion of further involvement.

Even More Sinister Theory 2.....JC takes them on Friday evening at POW. He watches all leave PoW on Sunday evening and leaves for landlord to find.

Alternatively she may just have mislaid them which is the most realistic scenario

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It’s easy to see only what you want to see, JC (righty or wrongly) is in the frame. The police have searched many locations related to JC and drawn a blank.
What evidence was there that allowed his mothers former home to be excavated in detail other than JC lived there and someone said JC told them SJL was encased in concrete with another.
Strikes me JC has been playing the police along and watching them jump when he comes up with another story.
DV doesn’t suffer from this obsession, I’d be interested to see how his conclusions may change if he had access to the complete picture (as the police have).
How much privileged information did DW the criminologist have prior to the latest TV doc.
IMO he’s a first rate criminologist and I was surprised at the result aired in the TV doc.

As I understand it, a fellow prisoner said JC had said JSL was at the home address.

Yep, he's playing the police. It is the style of Severe Anti-Social PD and NPD killers. It's all about control.

The police had no option. Finding SJL is probably the key. He had a confirmed link to the location (home address and laid patio) so police had to act when information came from another old lag.

I don't rate DW....I find him sensationalist and he doesn't always demonstrate a grasp of the facts of the case before making his judgements.

DW will only have had the information in the public domain. This is the problem, everyone bar the police, including WebSleuthers, only have a small part of the evidence. We rely on MSM reports that may well be fundamentally wrong or incorrect (I've seen many) to make an assessment. This is why I trust the police review in 2000 that JC is their man.

 

[Pinkizzy]

The diary is an interesting one:

AL states lost on Friday. He had dinner with Suzy in a restaurant in Putney followed by PoW.

A female friend of SJL (can't recall name) says Sunday.

JC is reported to have been in the PoW on Friday evening.....yes PoW

Sinister Theory 1.....AL wanted to find out who else SLJ was seeing. 'Removed' items when at Worthing on the Sunday (27th) and deliberately left them at PoW after all had left for landlord to find. Says lost on Friday to distance himself from taking them and creating suspicion of further involvement.

Even More Sinister Theory 2.....JC takes them on Friday evening at POW. He watches all leave PoW on Sunday evening and leaves for landlord to find.

Alternatively she may just have mislaid them which is the most realistic scenario

It may have been a JC lookalike in the PoW on the Friday night. Apparently there was a certain male look around London in 1986, even that conman Joseph Hanson (abducted Sarah Lambert) had that look.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It may have been a JC lookalike in the PoW on the Friday night. Apparently there was a certain male look around London in 1986, even that conman Joseph Hanson had that look.

I'm intrigued

I was just that demographic in SW and Central London at that time.

I'm concerned that I may have got the look wrong. From what I recall it was 501's, white T-shirt, Chelsea boots and a bikers jacket, hair long on top, short at the back and shades....obviously not the crook look

 

[Cluesleuth]

The diary is an interesting one:

AL states lost on Friday. He had dinner with Suzy in a restaurant in Putney followed by PoW.

A female friend of SJL (can't recall name) says Sunday.

JC is reported to have been in the PoW on Friday evening.....yes PoW

Sinister Theory 1.....AL wanted to find out who else SLJ was seeing. 'Removed' items when at Worthing on the Sunday (27th) and deliberately left them at PoW after all had left for landlord to find. Says lost on Friday to distance himself from taking them and creating suspicion of further involvement.

Even More Sinister Theory 2.....JC takes them on Friday evening at POW. He watches all leave PoW on Sunday evening and leaves for landlord to find.

Alternatively she may just have mislaid them which is the most realistic scenario

If she lost them on Friday then surely she would have shown more concern at work on Sat morn?
From what I remember even in the eighties you were given an emergency tel number to ring to report a lost card or cheque book why didnt she do that on Friday evening?

AL was with her Fri evening when he says it was suspected the item were lost. He was supposed to be seeing her Sunday when the items were found.... hmmm

 

[Crusader21]

Yes, those who will not be named and in 36 years have maintained a very low profile.
They never feature in any documentary, I have always wondered why this is.

Perhaps, as has been stated some posts back, these people were quickly eliminated by the police because they had an alibi. But, going by what AS reported in his book and other info in the public domain, they may well have had a motive to do harm to SL.

It's been well documented here - the silence, low profile and camera shyness. Very odd indeed considering ....

I think Tim has indicated that he's spoken recently to the female about this case, perhaps he can post his findings some time?

Again, given the 'professional' nature of SLs disappearance (no witnessed struggle, no body, etc), does this point to a 'professional' job, with someone engaged to efficiently remove SL without trace? And not the result of a serial stalker / rapist who clearly made mistakes?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

I sometimes think given the huge resources and mamoth investigation, that there may well be more to the SL disappearance than a simple 'JC is our man but we just can't pin it on him' senario ....

I accept that an individual or couple who had a identifiable motive to harm SL, could well be eliminated themselves because they had verifiable alibis for 29 July 1986.

But I wonder is the possibility of a 'hit man' / links to organised crime angle credible?

This would raise the possibilty of the SL murder being a small cog in a much wider machine. With a complex web of silence, informers, multiple crimes etc all coming in to play.

Do you think there may be a connection to the murder of Jill Dando, another baffling case which occurred in the near vicinity?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If she lost them on Friday then surely she would have shown more concern at work on Sat morn?
From what I remember even in the eighties you were given an emergency tel number to ring to report a lost card or cheque book why didnt she do that on Friday evening?

AL was with her Fri evening when he says it was suspected the item were lost. He was supposed to be seeing her Sunday when the items were found.... hmmm

SJL may not have realised they were missing until the Sunday evening/Monday morning.

She worked Saturday, party in Surrey Saturday evening and from there to Worthing for windsurfing on Sunday (AL also attended). So a full on weekend which would would explain why she didn't notice early on.

 

[TimFisher1965]

You mean DV?