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

[WestLondoner]

1. So are you of the opinion that SJL did take the keys to Shorrold road and they are still missing?
2. Your opinion please on WJ witness statement saying that the Fiesta was parked on Stevenage road at the same time SJL was at 37 Shorrolds road.

Also, let's not forget the schoolboy who supposedly saw the car at 12 noon.

If he is wrong but WJ is somehow right then SJL never went to 37SR.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

1. So are you of the opinion that SJL did take the keys to Shorrold road and they are still missing?
2. Your opinion please on WJ witness statement saying that the Fiesta was parked on Stevenage road at the same time SJL was at 37 Shorrolds road.

1. I believe that SLJ was meeting a client at 37 SR, referred to as Mr Kipper, who she had previously met socially. 'Mr Kipper' had booked the viewing as a means to meet with SJL again. Either she forgot the keys in error or deliberately so because she was wary of his persistence (flowers etc) but didn't want to antagonise him and felt it best to let him down gently etc.

I think he rocked up with champagne and was on a charm offensive. At some point he overpowered her and abducted her and she was taken into a building or duped into such, where she was held. It could have been another vacant property, where the offender had forced entry, likely at the rear. This had to have gone unseen in daylight.... but if someone is put in enough fear, they will comply, if they feel it's their only way of surviving the ordeal.

In this scenario, if SJL's car was at or near the scene of where she was being held, then it could indicate where she was being held captive. The offender would need to move it quickly, just far enough to put sufficient distance from where SJL was.

SJL would eventually be moved, probably that night, in another vehicle under cover of darkness.

2. I think the first sighting of the SJL's vehicle in Stevenage Road at approximately 12:40 is quite possibly a timing/memory error by the witness.

I wonder if the householder in Stevenage Road was asked if there was any particular reason why she believes it was 12;.40 when she first saw a vehicle and if it was the same vehicle that she saw later, at approximately 15:30 I recall? If she had good reason to recall the time and the vehicle then it could be considered reliable and throw considerable doubt on SJL driving straight to Shorrolds Road. I recall reading that this witness was considered to be unreliable.

The only two multiple sightings from witnesses are of couple at near 37 Shorrolds Road and SJL's abandoned vehicle in Stevenage Road. Although witnesses get things wrong I would be confident that it was SJL in Shorrolds Road with her abductor (no innocent parties ever came forward) and that SJL's car was seen at 14:00 by the London Cabbie.....they are switched on, don't miss much!

 

[Pinkizzy]

JC used the car before Suzy, maybe he went to 123 Stevenage Rd to post something

Also, let's not forget the schoolboy who supposedly saw the car at 12 noon.

If he is wrong but WJ is somehow right then SJL never went to 37SR.

 

[Cluesleuth]

JC used the car before Suzy, maybe he went to 123 Stevenage Rd to post something

That interesting in the AS book pg 28 JC said he borrowed SJL's car around 9.45 to take a client to Fosket rd returning about 20 minutes later.
Are you saying he did another viewing after that?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This did not happen.

Detectives conceded yesterday that Cannan should have been a suspect from the early stages of the original inquiry.

This was launched when Lamplugh, 25, disappeared in July 1986 while showing a client, who called himself Mr Kipper, around a vacant house in Fulham, south-west London.

Three days before Lamplugh vanished Cannan had been released from a hostel at nearby Wormwood Scrubs prison, where he was finishing a six-year sentence for rape.

In prison Cannan was known by other inmates as "Kipper".

Yet police involved in the original inquiry did not check prisons for records of recently released sex offenders.

Police spell out Lamplugh blunders

Prime suspect is named, but case cannot be taken further.

www.theguardian.com

It's important to be familiar with the facts before commenting on them on the basis of supposition and assumption. I am personally confident that once you've read the books, you'll be in a better position to do so.

Once again you a commenting with no insight of the systems in place at the time and are thus making incorrect assumptions. This is a consistent error on your part, because you fail to acknowledge that you do not have insight into how the police operated at the time or more recently.

The admission that police did not check for recently released prisoners does NOT mean that possible suspects who lived/offended in Fulham and the surrounding areas were not identified and checked. I am certain they will have been as this would be a consistent line of enquiry in such investigations.

What may not have happened is liaison with the Wormwood Scrubs Prison Intelligence to identify recently released offenders previously living/offending outside of London (as with JC), including those resident in the pre-release scheme accommodation.

Yes an error, but NOT a complete failure to identify possible offenders.

There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Know which applies!

 

[NeverPersonal]

Once again you a commenting with no insight of the systems in place at the time and are thus making incorrect assumptions. This is a consistent error on your part, because you fail to acknowledge that you do not have insight into how the police operated at the time or more recently.

The admission that police did not check for recently released prisoners does NOT mean that possible suspects who lived/offended in Fulham and the surrounding areas were not identified and checked. I am certain they will have been as this would be a consistent line of enquiry in such investigations.

What may not have happened is liaison with the Wormwood Scrubs Prison Intelligence to identify recently released offenders previously living/offending outside of London (as with JC), including those resident in the pre-release scheme accommodation.

Yes an error, but NOT a complete failure to identify possible offenders.

There are known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Know which applies!

With all due respect, unless you worked on this case, how would you know that they identified and checked possible suspects in Fulham as they were supposed to? Hopefully they did, but do we know for sure?

 

[Cluesleuth]

What may not have happened is liaison with the Wormwood Scrubs Prison Intelligence to identify recently released offenders previously living/offending outside of London (as with JC), including those resident in the pre-release scheme accommodation.

Wouldnt JC details be on the HOLMES2 system and his name come up automatically under the search criteria you mentioned earlier ... MO of abduction, sexual offences, murder surely he would be entered onto the system as having been released and the date?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

With all due respect, unless you worked on this case, how would you know that they identified and checked possible suspects in Fulham as they were supposed to? Hopefully they did, but do we know for sure?

Absolutely correct....

 

[NeverPersonal]

Absolutely correct....

You've officially worked on Suzy's case as LE?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Wouldnt JC details be on the HOLMES2 system and his name come up automatically under the search criteria you mentioned earlier ... MO of abduction, sexual offences, murder surely he would be entered onto the system as having been released and the date?

The original investigation used a card index system. HOLMES had not long been implemented.....it's a pity it wasn't used from the outset, although it was very clunky and certainly not the beast it is today.

At the time HOLMES was a stand alone system for the management of complex investigations, to enable significant amounts of data obtained during the course of the investigation to be cross-referenced, searched on and the original source documents of a piece of information to be identified.

HOLMES 2 was not introduced until 1994 and was a significant improvement on HOLMES.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

You've officially worked on Suzy's case as LE?

Nope. I wouldn't be here if I had.

 

[Cluesleuth]

1. I believe that SLJ was meeting a client at 37 SR, referred to as Mr Kipper, who she had previously met socially. 'Mr Kipper' had booked the viewing as a means to meet with SJL again. Either she forgot the keys in error or deliberately so because she was wary of his persistence (flowers etc) but didn't want to antagonise him and felt it best to let him down gently etc.

I think he rocked up with champagne and was on a charm offensive. At some point he overpowered her and abducted her and she was taken into a building or duped into such, where she was held. It could have been another vacant property, where the offender had forced entry, likely at the rear. This had to have gone unseen in daylight.... but if someone is put in enough fear, they will comply, if they feel it's their only way of surviving the ordeal.

In this scenario, if SJL's car was at or near the scene of where she was being held, then it could indicate where she was being held captive. The offender would need to move it quickly, just far enough to put sufficient distance from where SJL was.

SJL would eventually be moved, probably that night, in another vehicle under cover of darkness.

2. I think the first sighting of the SJL's vehicle in Stevenage Road at approximately 12:40 is quite possibly a timing/memory error by the witness.

I wonder if the householder in Stevenage Road was asked if there was any particular reason why she believes it was 12;.40 when she first saw a vehicle and if it was the same vehicle that she saw later, at approximately 15:30 I recall? If she had good reason to recall the time and the vehicle then it could be considered reliable and throw considerable doubt on SJL driving straight to Shorrolds Road. I recall reading that this witness was considered to be unreliable.

The only two multiple sightings from witnesses are of couple at near 37 Shorrolds Road and SJL's abandoned vehicle in Stevenage Road. Although witnesses get things wrong I would be confident that it was SJL in Shorrolds Road with her abductor (no innocent parties ever came forward) and that SJL's car was seen at 14:00 by the London Cabbie.....they are switched on, don't miss much!

Interesting Im not so sure about the keys being forgotten in error.

Just after 12.00 SJL shared a cigarette with NH and SF at the back of the office after which SF left for a viewing. Theres no mention of where that viewing was, when she returned or what car she used. Do you think its possible the first sightings of the car on Stevenage could have been SF's viewing using SJL's car?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Interesting Im not so sure about the keys being forgotten in error.

Just after 12.00 SJL shared a cigarette with NH and SF at the back of the office after which SF left for a viewing. Theres no mention of where that viewing was, when she returned or what car she used. Do you think its possible the first sightings of the car on Stevenage could have been SF's viewing using SJL's car?

Of course it is possible.

In spite of all the bad press regarding the original investigation and errors were made, we must remember that there were experienced detectives, who were unable to manage the huge amount of information from the public. Hence possible lines of enquiry were either missed or picked up too late.

I really would be extremely surprised if experienced investigators didn't obtain detailed statements from all the staff, which included their movements out of the office on that day. This would have been essential to avoid any sightings of other staff at properties for sale and SJL's car being factored into being mistaken for the circumstances of SJL's disappearance.

My concern is that on the the basis of 'trust nothing, question everything' were any of the staff missing something out or mis-reporting something in their statements in order to cover up poor conduct, poor practice or some other misdemeanour that they felt they could lose their job over.

Also were the staff told to to stick to a certain story, to cover for other practices. I am sure those who understand the UK housing market can fathom out what kind of practices I am referring to. Estate Agents are regulated now under the ML regs.

I am naturally very suspicious. It has served me well.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Of course it is possible.

In spite of all the bad press regarding the original investigation and errors were made, we must remember that there were experienced detectives, who were unable to manage the huge amount of information from the public. Hence possible lines of enquiry were either missed or picked up too late.

I really would be extremely surprised if experienced investigators didn't obtain detailed statements from all the staff, which included their movements out of the office on that day. This would have been essential to avoid any sightings of other staff at properties for sale and SJL's car being factored into being mistaken for the circumstances of SJL's disappearance.

My concern is that on the the basis of 'trust nothing, question everything' were any of the staff missing something out or mis-reporting something in their statements in order to cover up poor conduct, poor practice or some other misdemeanour that they felt they could lose their job over.

Also were the staff told to to stick to a certain story, to cover for other practices. I am sure those who understand the UK housing market can fathom out what kind of practices I am referring to. Estate Agents are regulated now under the ML regs.

I am naturally very suspicious. It has served me well.

Yes we covered that previously.
As I said previously I dont think anyone did anything wrong it was a very unusal day and people help each other out its teamwork, and we are just discussing possible theories here because SJL was sighted in Shorrolds and her car sighted in Stevenage one person cannot be in two place at the same time.
If anything I would see it as small investigative error and not anything else
MOO

 

[Cluesleuth]

1. I believe that SLJ was meeting a client at 37 SR, referred to as Mr Kipper, who she had previously met socially. 'Mr Kipper' had booked the viewing as a means to meet with SJL again. Either she forgot the keys in error or deliberately so because she was wary of his persistence (flowers etc) but didn't want to antagonise him and felt it best to let him down gently etc.

Can you explain why you have moved away from the official line of the police that the keys were still missing. This is the Crimewatch reconstruction of that day it was screened in Oct 1986. The presenter makes a point of saying that the facts have been obscurred by rumour and gossips and the reconstruction is based entirely what IS known.

Sup Det Nick Carter (26.19) says she took the keys to number 37 and they have never been found this is some twelve weeks after her disappearance and the police still maintain she took the keys. You have pointed out numerous times the thoroughness of the investigation wouldnt you agree that as a matter of routine the police would have searched the office as a whole, the keyboard, SJL's desk,her bag and the desks of other members of staff to ascertain that a key was in fact missing..

“Believe nothing, question everything, assume nothing.”​

KR said she saw SJL take the keys and the details.

Would it be reasonable to assume if the police had found the keys to be still in the office then police would not assume that SJL had forgotten the key in error and the investigation would not have proceeded so quickly in the direction it did in the first days and weeks

Start video at 17.38. Key discussed at 26.19

 

[Pinkizzy]

Re phonecalls to and from Sturgis, why didn't the managers check the itemized phone bill?

 

[lee sumner]

I thought it might be interesting to see where everyone is with SJL actually being at Shorrolds road.
1. Who believes she went there?
2. Who believes she never went there?

i think she went there.

 

[lee sumner]

Can you explain why you have moved away from the official line of the police that the keys were still missing. This is the Crimewatch reconstruction of that day it was screened in Oct 1986. The presenter makes a point of saying that the facts have been obscurred by rumour and gossips and the reconstruction is based entirely what IS known.

Sup Det Nick Carter (26.19) says she took the keys to number 37 and they have never been found this is some twelve weeks after her disappearance and the police still maintain she took the keys. You have pointed out numerous times the thoroughness of the investigation wouldnt you agree that as a matter of routine the police would have searched the office as a whole, the keyboard, SJL's desk,her bag and the desks of other members of staff to ascertain that a key was in fact missing..

“Believe nothing, question everything, assume nothing.”​

KR said she saw SJL take the keys and the details.

Would it be reasonable to assume if the police had found the keys to be still in the office then police would not assume that SJL had forgotten the key in error and the investigation would not have proceeded so quickly in the direction it did in the first days and weeks

Start video at 17.38. Key discussed at 26.19

DS carter said suzy took the keys, but DV says she did not take the keys. i believe carter.

 

[lee sumner]

I know this is old ground (I’m mostly a lurker on this thread) but…

what do people mostly think / conclude about the name itself ‘Mr Kipper’?

To me, it’s still very odd that SJL uses that word / name when having had a school friend who was teased with that. It’s hardly the sort of word / name that rolls into one’s mind when making an excuse to dip out of work. IMO maybe it could be a bigger clue than we realise and I don’t mean that directed to that person with the nickname but that it’s rather odd in its own right.

i agree. MR KIPPER is a odd choice.

 

[lee sumner]

No....it's not available within my library network. I checked the other day.

What I would say though is unless AS knew SJL personally, and she told him so, then it is hearsay and hence not reliable.

If friends/family told AS so, after SJL went missing, then it may carry some weight, but only if they told him independently of each other, without prompting or as a response to leading questions.

This I fear is how we are fed so much 'information' that is stated as fact, when it is just not the case and therefore it cannot be relied on in any way to advance an investigation.

I think it is highly unlikely, given the passage of time, that anyone is going to reveal key evidence that will help to solve this tragic case. I cannot begin to imagine the lifelong anguish when a loved family member/friend disappears without trace.

The greatest hope is that a body is found and identified by DNA/dental records as Suzy. This may not solve the case, but at least she can be brought home and laid to rest properly.

i have a copy of AS book. i have read it about 10 time, ha, ha.