UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #4

[Terryb808]

I don't think she did make a 6pm appointment to fetch it, she just said she would be along later that day.

Was it reported anywhere that she said 6pm? The diary appointment does suggest that she could not have gone at that time, but that isn't an issue given that the pub was open until 11pm. I don't think that there is really compelling evidence to suggest that SJL went to the pub that lunchtime rather than the place she said she was going. I know DV tries to make a case for it, I've read his book twice, but he is relying on two things:

1. Trying to claim she didn't take the keys for 37SR which relies on the Sturgis staff being really dim, and the police being the same--sorry, that doesn't really hold water to me. It also relies on the dubious idea that the door did not appear to be damaged in the press photos from a couple of days later. That is also really not very convincing.

2. Trying to claim that she had no other time to get the diary that day because there was an appointment in her diary for 6pm and that she must have been playing tennis at 6pm (at an unspecified location with an unspecified person who never came forward and her kit was in her flat, based on her unreliable mum's telling a radio journalist that she was). Pubs open until 11pm, it was near her house. She could have done the appointment, played tennis and STILL got the diary.

I think DV is not a reliable narrator. I wanted him to be, but I don't think he is. He seems to have a personal issue with the Met, and that is colouring his actions. I think he does bring some interesting info in his book but it might not be what he intended-- e.g. the officer he spoke to when presenting the evidence revealing that the police talked to the interim landlord and his wife and that the pub was open that lunchtime. Anyway, I don't think there is a huge conspiracy here to cover up...something... just a sad case of ambiguous loss (no body) and so no conclusion to the case, and the police can't reveal all the evidence because that is standard practice. Not everything is in the public domain.

I agree with your take on DV’s book, it tells a story, but I expected it to be inline with the way AS’s book.

What does not add up is the Mets attitude towards DV. They seem to dislike him, probably because of his criticism of their handling of the investigation.

With that in mind if they’re so sure he’s wrong why not just prove it. Search the PoW & the embankment and effectively close down any speculation that they got the investigation seriously wrong.

Best guess has to be they’re worried DV might be right.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree with your take on DV’s book, it tells a story, but I expected it to be inline with the way AS’s book.

What does not add up is the Mets attitude towards DV. They seem to dislike him, probably because of his criticism of their handling of the investigation.

With that in mind if they’re so sure he’s wrong why not just prove it. Search the PoW & the embankment and effectively close down any speculation that they got the investigation seriously wrong.

Best guess has to be they’re worried DV might be right.

If SJL turned up anywhere near the pub or the embankment, it would be terribly worrying in terms of the investigation. It wouldn't necessarily mean DV is right, as he has made a very specific allegation naming one perpetrator and one other person who may know about it.

 

[WestLondoner]

Way back in the last thread or the one before, I semi-seriously suggested that if SJL were now to be found at the PoW, the police would say JC put her there. It appears that this is no joke but exactly what would happen, given the very recent but vaguely evidenced claims that JC drank at the PoW. If she does turn up there, the groundwork for this being his handiwork is all out there. If this really is so, and he really did drink there you do wonder why the lost property and the idea of a search received an apparently low priority. The PoW is one of his haunts so why has it not been searched?

 

[asyousay]

Way back in the last thread or the one before, I semi-seriously suggested that if SJL were now to be found at the PoW, the police would say JC put her there. It appears that this is no joke but exactly what would happen, given the very recent but vaguely evidenced claims that JC drank at the PoW. If she does turn up there, the groundwork for this being his handiwork is all out there. If this really is so, and he really did drink there you do wonder why the lost property and the idea of a search received an apparently low priority. The PoW is one of his haunts so why has it not been searched?

JC couldn’t be fitted up like that at the POW - unless he drugged everybody and then Suzy turned up and he murdered her and buried her and then everybody woke up from their drugged state and got on with their day.


There would of been people in the pub 24/7 hence why they have a couple to come in so it’s always covered one would assume.


Mooooooooo

 

[WestLondoner]

JC couldn’t be fitted up like that at the POW - unless he drugged everybody and then Suzy turned up and he murdered her and buried her and then everybody woke up from their drugged state and got on with their day.


There would of been people in the pub 24/7 hence why they have a couple to come in so it’s always covered one would assume.


Mooooooooo

"I am personally confident that JC had a set of keys to the PoW cellar. Why can't you plebs just shut up and download my opinion?"

 

[asyousay]

"I am personally confident that JC had a set of keys to the PoW cellar. Why can't you plebs just shut up and download my opinion?"

When’s the book out to convince me?

 

[WestLondoner]

When’s the book out to convince me?

If the police dig a really big hole, they might find JC's BMW down there as well.

 

[asyousay]

If the police dig a really big hole, they might find JC's BMW down there as well.

Darn I wish you had added Spoiler alert

 

[WestLondoner]

Or maybe they'll find the keys to 37SR under the floor?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

What I keep wondering about is the people we do know SJL associated with who may have had a motivation or the opportunity to have murdered her, how have their lives turned out in the long run. Now all these years have gone past, have any of them been shown to be criminally behaved or interpersonally violent?

I've recently been looking at Jane Doe cases in the UK and notice the same serial murderers' names get raised as suspects even though there's no necessary proof or link. Why is this? I imagine it's entirely possible for a person to do something extreme, murder someone, cover it up, and never ever do it again to anyone else. Deaths of women aren't all down to a few serial killers is the point I'm trying to make and for every unsolved case and every missing woman it could be someone not previously known to the police and who never goes on to do it again.

 

[WestLondoner]

What I keep wondering about is the people we do know SJL associated with who may have had a motivation or the opportunity to have murdered her, how have their lives turned out in the long run. Now all these years have gone past, have any of them been shown to be criminally behaved or interpersonally violent?

I've recently been looking at Jane Doe cases in the UK and notice the same serial murderers' names get raised as suspects even though there's no necessary proof or link. Why is this? I imagine it's entirely possible for a person to do something extreme, murder someone, cover it up, and never ever do it again to anyone else. Deaths of women aren't all down to a few serial killers is the point I'm trying to make and for every unsolved case and every missing woman it could be someone not previously known to the police and who never goes on to do it again.

100%. Plus, there are 6,000+ permanently missing people in the UK and nigh on 1,000 unidentified body parts of people. This allows ample scope for repeat offenders who've never been caught.

 

[ruby925]

What I keep wondering about is the people we do know SJL associated with who may have had a motivation or the opportunity to have murdered her, how have their lives turned out in the long run. Now all these years have gone past, have any of them been shown to be criminally behaved or interpersonally violent?

I've recently been looking at Jane Doe cases in the UK and notice the same serial murderers' names get raised as suspects even though there's no necessary proof or link. Why is this? I imagine it's entirely possible for a person to do something extreme, murder someone, cover it up, and never ever do it again to anyone else. Deaths of women aren't all down to a few serial killers is the point I'm trying to make and for every unsolved case and every missing woman it could be someone not previously known to the police and who never goes on to do it again.

100%. Plus, there are 6,000+ permanently missing people in the UK and nigh on 1,000 unidentified body parts of people. This allows ample scope for repeat offenders who've never been caught.

Like Steve Wright who was convicted of murders in 2006 and more recently arrested for a murder in 1999. No evidence to connect him to SJL's disappearance but he knew SJL as they both worked on the cruise ship. So as well as the one off murderer who never re=offends, there must still be more where not all their victims are known. Just moo.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Retired detective says he knows who killed Suzy Lamplugh

Retired Met detective David Videcette conducted a three-year re- investigation and believes prime suspect, convicted killer John Cannan, is innocent of the 1986 murder of Suzy Lamplugh.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I know there’s a lot of people who criticise DV‘s book ~ I’ve never read it but I will do so as I’m interested to know what the people he located that were never spoken to at the time have to say.

In this article it says the police digs were off the back of a tip off from an ex girlfriend of JC that she was buried in a back garden.

 

[EddietheEagle]

100%. Plus, there are 6,000+ permanently missing people in the UK and nigh on 1,000 unidentified body parts of people. This allows ample scope for repeat offenders who've never been caught.

That doesn't mean a vacuum exists for the postulation of absurdities as we see from posts above.

You can only deal with what you see before you. You have to have facts, evidence and follow reasoned lines of enquiry that point towards or away. Otherwise nothing gets resolved and we live in chaos.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That doesn't mean a vacuum exists for the postulation of absurdities as we see from posts above.

You can only deal with what you see before you. You have to have facts, evidence and follow reasoned lines of enquiry that point towards or away. Otherwise nothing gets resolved and we live in chaos.

And here we all are, living in the chaos with nothing resolved. Facts get established by making enquiries ~ it’s a form of research, a scientific endeavour, isn’t it?

 

[Terryb808]

What I keep wondering about is the people we do know SJL associated with who may have had a motivation or the opportunity to have murdered her, how have their lives turned out in the long run. Now all these years have gone past, have any of them been shown to be criminally behaved or interpersonally violent?

I've recently been looking at Jane Doe cases in the UK and notice the same serial murderers' names get raised as suspects even though there's no necessary proof or link. Why is this? I imagine it's entirely possible for a person to do something extreme, murder someone, cover it up, and never ever do it again to anyone else. Deaths of women aren't all down to a few serial killers is the point I'm trying to make and for every unsolved case and every missing woman it could be someone not previously known to the police and who never goes on to do it again.

I recall DV quoting that something like 80% of murderers commit one killing and never offend again (this may be in his book, or from one of many interviews I’ve seen).

 

[Terryb808]

What I keep wondering about is the people we do know SJL associated with who may have had a motivation or the opportunity to have murdered her, how have their lives turned out in the long run. Now all these years have gone past, have any of them been shown to be criminally behaved or interpersonally violent?

I've recently been looking at Jane Doe cases in the UK and notice the same serial murderers' names get raised as suspects even though there's no necessary proof or link. Why is this? I imagine it's entirely possible for a person to do something extreme, murder someone, cover it up, and never ever do it again to anyone else. Deaths of women aren't all down to a few serial killers is the point I'm trying to make and for every unsolved case and every missing woman it could be someone not previously known to the police and who never goes on to do it again.

On another point I’m interested in your Jane Doe research, especially for the North East.
Maybe you could share what you’ve found?

 

[Terryb808]

That doesn't mean a vacuum exists for the postulation of absurdities as we see from posts above.

You can only deal with what you see before you. You have to have facts, evidence and follow reasoned lines of enquiry that point towards or away. Otherwise nothing gets resolved and we live in chaos.

I agree, however, you have to be totally objective in your research/ enquiries and be prepared to say “okay, I went down the wrong track, I need to look at this new one now”.
My background means I can’t help but work this way, it’s far too embarrassing to find you got it wrong because you were too stubborn to listen to someone else’s evidence.
You just can’t decide on a conclusion and then make the facts fit. If you do you’ll get ripped to shreds by the person who has been objective in their approach.

 

[WestLondoner]

That doesn't mean a vacuum exists for the postulation of absurdities as we see from posts above.

You can only deal with what you see before you. You have to have facts, evidence and follow reasoned lines of enquiry that point towards or away. Otherwise nothing gets resolved and we live in chaos.

How's that worked for finding SJL's killer, though?

An absurdity not often parsed is the occasional claim that nobody's abducted any women since JC was jailed, therefore this one must have been him. The logic fail with that is that you can apply the Donald Rumsfeld analysis to it. Rumsfeld's "known knowns" are killers we know about of women we know about; his "known unknowns" are where we have victims, who may be victims of unknown serial killers; and his "unknown unknowns" are where we have victims we don't know about of killers we don't know about. There is ample space for unknown victims to exist among the 6 to 8,000 people who've vanished, and that is of course itself an underestimate because not all missing persons are reported as such. So it is a brave assumption, and not one supported by data, that this has stopped because Cannan is inside, but you do hear it.

 

[RichardKimble]

I recall DV quoting that something like 80% of murderers commit one killing and never offend again (this may be in his book, or from one of many interviews I’ve seen).

Ronald Castree who was found to be the true killer of Lesley Molseed after the biggest miscarriage of justice seen in the uk , isn't as far as I can see linked to any other unsolved murders. As an aside but maybe of note a senior police officer and a retired forensics scientist were charged with perverting the course of justice at the original trial of Stefan Kiszko but defence barristers argued that a fair trial would be impossible after the passage of time , that was only after 18 yrs, SL's murder is some 36 yrs down the line, what chance a fair trial now for JC seeing as he's the only named suspect .