UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Whitehall 1212]

Very interesting points. So, what is it likely he could have done with her body and hidden / disposed of her? I believe he was living in the hostel at this time so he had no premises of his own to utilise? He seems to have an MO of taking pleasure in tormenting his victims so he would have needed to go somewhere they wouldn't be overheard.

How did he come to know SJL in the first place? Did they have mutual acquaintances or did he know people who he would likely have access to their premises?

The assumption is that JC had left the half-way house on Friday 25th July, when he was paroled from the prison system. The halfway house was a prison system facility, an open prison, outside the higher security facility.

Cannan would have needed somewhere to stay. If he had returned to his mothers H/A in Sutton Coldfield and his alibi was solid, then he would not be a suspect. As JD has stated it is known that JC was in Fulham on Monday 28th July.

Cannan wants power and control over his female victims. His MO is to use fear to gain control and then to exercise his power by means of rape. His preference is to abduct his victim to a more secure location, if the original attack is not indoors. He obviously wants to be undisturbed and where possible hold his victim for an extended period.

If he did hold SJL for an extended period, hours not days, then it will have likely needed to be indoors, where there was little chance of being seen or disturbed. His disposal of SB was in water near to a road. Sandra Court, which JC is a suspect, was also in water, near to a road. This is not an uncommon means of deposition by murderers but it may be habitual for any one killer. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

JC was resourceful and manipulative. I believe that he could easily secured temporary accommodation or identified vacant property, which he could break into and squat in.

I suggest that JC met SJL in a social setting. His later dating-agency video demonstrated the level of his ability to create a false persona and appear to be every bit the 'suave' self-made businessman. He had been around his fathers business, he knew the things to do and to say to get a customer to buy or charm a young woman.

 

[WestLondoner]

I guess the house for sale rapes stopped when he went to jail after attacking a lady in Erdington

So in 1981 the West Midlands police have no suspect for a series of house-for-sale rapes. 7 years later after JC is caught, speculation begins that he carried out a house-for-sale murder in Fulham. Nobody connects this at the time to the unsolved West Midlands crimes. 19 years later DL the idea that JC killed SJL gets the case reviewed. The West Midlands cases are cited as evidence that it's the kind of thing JC did, and he was from Sutton Coldfield, but nobody goes back to those cases to see if the description also fitted him? Really? The SJL case might not be made to fit him, but if he can be IDed and forensically linked to those old cases, why wouldn't you now do him for those as well?

Hence my guess that the description of the perp in the WM rape cases does not fit JC. If it did, WM police would surely have done him for all those offences.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I beg to differ it says 'bike contract' not take.
Its usual for bike couriers to bike contracts.
Fax machnes were used in 1986 by estate agents to fax sales/purchase agreements to solicitors. But contract exchange between solicitors needs a signature from buyer and seller, bike couriers were used to process this without delay.

I did say IF the entry above the Mr Kipper entry related to it. I said this because it could be an impression from a Sat entry. It depends how you are viewing the page to how you are able to decern what writing or impression can be made out.

The entry above the Wardo entry in my opinion says 6d Wyfold
MOO

It's 6d or 60 Wyfold as in Wyfold Road, SW6, which is midway between Shorrolds Road and Stevenage Road and close to Fulham Cemetery. If there was a 60 it has been re-developed since 1986 and no longer exists.

Look at the formation of SJL's 't' in 'Wright' and 'a's in 'Joanna' and 'Waldemar'. It looks to me like the a 't' and 'a' are combined.

I was referring to a contract between the agent and the vendor, which the vendor has to check is correct and sign before returning to the agent

Property purchase is generally a slow process. The signature to proceed with sale would have been done is a solicitors office in the 1980's. This would enable all the administrative work, that incurs cost, to commence. No final signature would be needed on documents for exchange or completion.

Solicitors use the DX exchange system for exchange and completion in property sales, which was established in the mid 1970's.

I have no idea where 'cycle couriers' for legal documents came from!

https://image.assets.pressassociation.io/v2/image/production/3a0d24a15a91e72c56351d6334ede05fY29udGVudHNlYXJjaCwxNTQwOTg5MDUx/2.1250001.jpg?w=640

 

[Pinkizzy]

It's 6d or 60 Wyfold as in Wyfold Road, SW6, which was midway between Shorrolds Road and Stephenson Road and close to Fulham Cemetery. If there was a 60 it has been re-developed since 1986 and no longer exists.

Look at the formation of SJL's 't' in 'Wright' and 'a's in 'Joanna' and 'Waldemar'. It looks to me like the a 't' and 'a' are combined.

I was referring to a contract between the agent and the vendor, which the vendor has to check is correct and sign before returning to the agent

Property purchase is generally a slow process. The signature to proceed with sale would have been done is a solicitors office in the 1980's. This would enable all the administrative work, that incurs cost, to commence. No final signature would be needed on documents for exchange or completion.

Solicitors use the DX exchange system for exchange and completion in property sales, which was established in the mid 1970's.

I have no idea where 'cycle couriers' for legal documents came from!

https://image.assets.pressassociation.io/v2/image/production/3a0d24a15a91e72c56351d6334ede05fY29udGVudHNlYXJjaCwxNTQwOTg5MDUx/2.1250001.jpg?w=640

It is Stevenage not Stephenson

 

[Terryb808]

I beg to differ it says 'bike contract' not take.
Its usual for bike couriers to bike contracts.
Fax machnes were used in 1986 by estate agents to fax sales/purchase agreements to solicitors. But contract exchange between solicitors needs a signature from buyer and seller, bike couriers were used to process this without delay.

I did say IF the entry above the Mr Kipper entry related to it. I said this because it could be an impression from a Sat entry. It depends how you are viewing the page to how you are able to decern what writing or impression can be made out.

The entry above the Wardo entry in my opinion says 6d Wyfold
MOO

Pity we can't be sure when the Mr Kipper entry was made, Saturday or Monday, it makes a world of difference to the narrative of what happened on the Monday.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It is Stevenage not Stephenson

Upated.....I don't wish to confuse unnecessarily. Thanks

 

[Cluesleuth]

Pity we can't be sure when the Mr Kipper entry was made, Saturday or Monday, it makes a world of difference to the narrative of what happened on the Monday.

Im interested why you think that.
It could have been an entry made even before Sat.
When did she get the call arranging the Monday Lunch date that was later cancelled ? Dont tell me it was the previous Monday
Maybe MR KIPPER was at the Sat nite party

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

So in 1981 the West Midlands police have no suspect for a series of house-for-sale rapes. 7 years later after JC is caught, speculation begins that he carried out a house-for-sale murder in Fulham. Nobody connects this at the time to the unsolved West Midlands crimes. 19 years later DL the idea that JC killed SJL gets the case reviewed. The West Midlands cases are cited as evidence that it's the kind of thing JC did, and he was from Sutton Coldfield, but nobody goes back to those cases to see if the description also fitted him? Really? The SJL case might not be made to fit him, but if he can be IDed and forensically linked to those old cases, why wouldn't you now do him for those as well?

Hence my guess that the description of the perp in the WM rape cases does not fit JC. If it did, WM police would surely have done him for all those offences.

Looks that way since you make this points, I agree.

 

[Konstantin]

Cannan would have needed somewhere to stay. If he had returned to his mothers H/A in Sutton Coldfield and his alibi was solid, then he would not be a suspect. As JD has stated it is known that JC was in Fulham on Monday 28th July.

I just now watched the little BBC snippet video of DIckie saying that the police had evidence JC was in Fulham on that day. I do not think that he would just fabricate this or that the police made up evidence to frame JC, that is a conspiracy theory and makes zero sense to me. If they have evidence JC was there, I believe him. Of course that does not prove he abducted SJL.

Look we know JC is a liar. He insists he did not kill Shirley Banks. Obviously he is not going to admit killed SJL if indeed he did kill her.

If he was in Fulham, and Dickie says he was, then as you say he would have needed somewhere to stay.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I just now watched the little BBC snippet video of DIckie saying that the police had evidence JC was in Fulham on that day. I do not think that he would just fabricate this or that the police made up evidence to frame JC, that is a conspiracy theory and makes zero sense to me. If they have evidence JC was there, I believe him. Of course that does not prove he abducted SJL.

Look we know JC is a liar. He insists he did not kill Shirley Banks. Obviously he is not going to admit killed SJL if indeed he did kill her.

If he was in Fulham, and Dickie says he was, then as you say he would have needed somewhere to stay.

He could borrow his mate's red Sierra and sleep in that

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So in 1981 the West Midlands police have no suspect for a series of house-for-sale rapes. 7 years later after JC is caught, speculation begins that he carried out a house-for-sale murder in Fulham. Nobody connects this at the time to the unsolved West Midlands crimes. 19 years later DL the idea that JC killed SJL gets the case reviewed. The West Midlands cases are cited as evidence that it's the kind of thing JC did, and he was from Sutton Coldfield, but nobody goes back to those cases to see if the description also fitted him? Really? The SJL case might not be made to fit him, but if he can be IDed and forensically linked to those old cases, why wouldn't you now do him for those as well?

Hence my guess that the description of the perp in the WM rape cases does not fit JC. If it did, WM police would surely have done him for all those offences.

1. JC was put forward as a suspect for SJL on account of a rape in Reading, where JC's DNA was identified.

2. There was no Police National Database until the early 2000's and the PNC only held vehicle data for general operational use at the time. Therefore, none of JC's interactions with police investigations or incidents would not have been readily available to officers from other forces. Detailed information/intelligence of JC previously coming to police notice will have been held at the Sutton Coldfield police division on a card index. Conviction history would have been obtained through central records.

3. Maybe consider the reality of rape for a traumatised victim and how it will impact on their ability to recall their ordeal, particularly, with any accuracy, the description of their attacker. To draw such information out takes great patience and skill. Many rape victims go into a survival mode and switch off completely. With all crime there is a victim. Sight must never be lost of this reality and it should remain uppermost in our considerations.

4. We know that the police attitude in 1970's towards rape victims and diligent rape investigation was generally appalling. Therefore any investigation may well have been sub-standard, i.e. no rape suites, no comprehensive forensic medical exam, no clothing retained, no diligent investigation.

5. DNA was not identified as a forensic technique until 1985.

6. The "house-for-sale" rapes in the West Midlands are unsolved as far as I am aware. JC's original offences, for which he was convicted, were also in West Midlands. I suspect the identification evidence from the "house-for-sale" rape victims was either poor, the investigation sub-standard, or both. JC may have been considered as a suspect after his arrest for the rape at Four Oaks, but the witness evidence for the other offences just didn't support an arrest and/or charge.

7. JC''s quoted offending history of violent rape and his MO is on account of the appalling offences for which he was convicted of in 1981 and 1988. I have not seen the 'house-for-sale rapes cited as "the kind of thing that JC did" by the police, where is your MSM report to support this? Of course anyone else can say what they like no matter how ridiculous or lacking in evidence it is.

 

[WestLondoner]

Im interested why you think that.
It could have been an entry made even before Sat.
When did she get the call arranging the Monday Lunch date that was later cancelled ? Dont tell me it was the previous Monday
Maybe MR KIPPER was at the Sat nite party

It's all about the 6pm viewing.

Suppose she came into the office that morning and the diary, as seems likely, was blank except for 'Wardo - bike contract' (as in, bike the contract either that we're appointed to sell Wardo, or remind the conveyancing solicitors to bike the contract to the buyer's solicitors).

So when the bank calls, she calls the pub. She can go there anytime if it's in her own time. She agrees to go there after work. Joanna Thingy then calls and says I want to look at Waldemar again, after work. SJL now has a PoW commitment at 6pm, but she agrees because money, and then calls the PoW to find out if there'll be anybody there if she shows up, like, now. There will be, so she rearranges her visit.

If that Mr Kipper appointment was already in the diary, she'd have known she couldn't go to the PoW at lunchtime either. So when she rang the PoW the second time, if the Mr Kipper appointment was already there, it would have been not to advance the visit, but to cancel it altogether. She already couldn't do lunchtime because Kipper, and now she can't do 6pm either because viewing.

Literally no witness has suggested that any of the calls to the PoW was first to make and then later to cancel a visit to the PoW. None can really explain why there needed to be two calls at all, in fact.

Ergo, she called to move the visit up to lunchtime because lunchtime was in fact clear. She put a fake viewing in the diary to explain her absence on a day when the office was short-staffed. It follows that the Mr Kipper appointment wasn't there until just before she left the office.

 

[WestLondoner]

I just now watched the little BBC snippet video of DIckie saying that the police had evidence JC was in Fulham on that day. I do not think that he would just fabricate this or that the police made up evidence to frame JC, that is a conspiracy theory and makes zero sense to me.

<modsnip - no evidence>

The trouble with JD is that he knows JC didn't own a BMW but he has declared that he is "personally confident" that he had access to one. <modsnip> What's his personal confidence worth? Where's the actual evidence?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Who posted about the refurbishment of the PoW?

 

[Cluesleuth]

It's all about the 6pm viewing.

Suppose she came into the office that morning and the diary, as seems likely, was blank except for 'Wardo - bike contract' (as in, bike the contract either that we're appointed to sell Wardo, or remind the conveyancing solicitors to bike the contract to the buyer's solicitors).

So when the bank calls, she calls the pub. She can go there anytime if it's in her own time. She agrees to go there after work. Joanna Thingy then calls and says I want to look at Waldemar again, after work. SJL now has a PoW commitment at 6pm, but she agrees because money, and then calls the PoW to find out if there'll be anybody there if she shows up, like, now. There will be, so she rearranges her visit.

If that Mr Kipper appointment was already in the diary, she'd have known she couldn't go to the PoW at lunchtime either. So when she rang the PoW the second time, if the Mr Kipper appointment was already there, it would have been not to advance the visit, but to cancel it altogether. She already couldn't do lunchtime because Kipper, and now she can't do 6pm either because viewing.

Literally no witness has suggested that any of the calls to the PoW was first to make and then later to cancel a visit to the PoW. None can really explain why there needed to be two calls at all, in fact.

Ergo, she called to move the visit up to lunchtime because lunchtime was in fact clear. She put a fake viewing in the diary to explain her absence on a day when the office was short-staffed. It follows that the Mr Kipper appointment wasn't there until just before she left the office.

Ok I understand but we know that the office wasnt running as it should that day staff that normally didnt carry out viewings were doing so. How do we know that she hadnt asked someone to the 6pm appointment?

Just wondering too if that was 43 Waldemar Rd or 43 Waldemar Av?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I just now watched the little BBC snippet video of DIckie saying that the police had evidence JC was in Fulham on that day. I do not think that he would just fabricate this or that the police made up evidence to frame JC, that is a conspiracy theory and makes zero sense to me. If they have evidence JC was there, I believe him. Of course that does not prove he abducted SJL.

Look we know JC is a liar. He insists he did not kill Shirley Banks. Obviously he is not going to admit killed SJL if indeed he did kill her.

If he was in Fulham, and Dickie says he was, then as you say he would have needed somewhere to stay.

Talking of conspiracy theories. This makes for interesting reading.

The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

Is there a link between conspiratorial thinking and psychopathology?

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[Cluesleuth]

1. JC was put forward as a suspect for SJL on account of a rape in Reading, where JC's DNA was identified.

Theres no proof that SJL disappearance is a sex crime.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's all about the 6pm viewing.

Suppose she came into the office that morning and the diary, as seems likely, was blank except for 'Wardo - bike contract' (as in, bike the contract either that we're appointed to sell Wardo, or remind the conveyancing solicitors to bike the contract to the buyer's solicitors).

So when the bank calls, she calls the pub. She can go there anytime if it's in her own time. She agrees to go there after work. Joanna Thingy then calls and says I want to look at Waldemar again, after work. SJL now has a PoW commitment at 6pm, but she agrees because money, and then calls the PoW to find out if there'll be anybody there if she shows up, like, now. There will be, so she rearranges her visit.

If that Mr Kipper appointment was already in the diary, she'd have known she couldn't go to the PoW at lunchtime either. So when she rang the PoW the second time, if the Mr Kipper appointment was already there, it would have been not to advance the visit, but to cancel it altogether. She already couldn't do lunchtime because Kipper, and now she can't do 6pm either because viewing.

Literally no witness has suggested that any of the calls to the PoW was first to make and then later to cancel a visit to the PoW. None can really explain why there needed to be two calls at all, in fact.

Ergo, she called to move the visit up to lunchtime because lunchtime was in fact clear. She put a fake viewing in the diary to explain her absence on a day when the office was short-staffed. It follows that the Mr Kipper appointment wasn't there until just before she left the office.

It's more likely she arranged for 18:00 initially and then called back after the second viewing was arranged to say she couldn't get there for 18:00. I propose that SJL advised she would call by later in the evening and would they keep he property safe until she could get there?

This was a contentious employee. She wanted to get on, make money, not risk her new career by making bogus appointments when something could be easily done out of business hours.

If we were to believe the PoW narrative then it debunks the witness evidence that a couple were seen O/S 37 Shorrolds Road at the material time, with distinctive descriptions, and a white Fiesta seen in Kelvedon Road in memorable circumstances, not long after. No one came forward to eliminate themselves.

It is also highly relevant that if SJL had left Sturgis about 12:30 to go to the PoW then it would have been open to customers, with the lunchtime trade on a dry summers day. How does the theory of SJL befalling some terrible accident in a public bar at lunchtime stack up? It doesn't....it's fanciful at best.....not to mention it dismisses the other information without providing any credible reason to doubt its collective weight.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

JD says that JC was known to be in Fulham the day SJL went missing.

JD knows there is a whole load of circumstantial evidence pointing at JC

JD also says other suspects were identified and eliminated

If JD says he is confident that JC had access to a BMW,. He wouldn't say this without good information/intelligence to support it.

There is absolutely no evidence to doubt what the police are reporting after the 2000 review, that JC is the "only suspect", i.e. that every other possible suspect identified was ruled out but the police could not do that with JC.

It's the truth presented by a man with integrity.....a career detective and one held in very high regard.

Are there other detectives fully knowledgeable with the case and aware of all information held by the police that also agree with JD's points of view? What if JD has got a personally motivated agenda to push this theory, could that make him the blind spot in all of this? How many other suspects were scrutinised and to what depth? If it's all so certain then why was JC not charged and convicted prior to his recent end of life situation? I'm confused.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

1. JC was put forward as a suspect for SJL on account of a rape in Reading, where JC's DNA was identified.

Theres no proof that SJL disappearance is a sex crime.

No, there is not.

But what there is, is the study of missing persons and offender behaviour when subjects are taken against their will.

The possibility of SJL being injured in hospital or going missing of her own free volition were quickly ruled out. There was nothing in SJL's psychology and situation that may give her cause to disappear and not keep in contact with her family.

It was possible that she had come to harm accidentally between Sturgis, her car, Shorrolds Road and back to Sturgis. This is checked and ruled out. 37 SR was checked....no trace.

So the safe working hypotheses is that SJL has come to harm at the hands of an unknown third party. The circumstances her car was later found in add significant weight to this.

The motives of people who abduct adults are:

1. Kidnap for ransom. This is very rare and no ransom demand was received. Demands are usually made within a few hours of the person being kidnapped.

2. Abduction by stranger or acquaintance (not partner/former partner) for violent sexual power/control, which often results in the murder of the victim, unless they are able to make their escape.

3. Murder by partner/former partner in anger and disposal elsewhere or concealed at the home address. Sexual assault not often a feature.

No kidnap ransom was received as far as we know. The police would not have gone public if this was a possibility.

Partner/former partners were ruled out. In any case the circumstances don't fit with this.....the offence most often takes place in the home.

No body was found quickly, which leads to the strong likelihood that SJL was abducted by a stranger (too risky for circs)/associate/someone who seemed credible (position of authority) and that the intent was violent sexual assault.

This is all based on studies, which are highly reliable, although that is not to say there couldn't be an outlier in offending behaviour.