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

[Cherwell]

Cannan is only known to have committed one murder, which along with all his rapes was not committed in London.

Your assertion could not be more off the mark. Objectivity and insight are everything.

It's a fact though.

You'd need to know he was in Fulham that day. In the public domain at least, there is none.

Incorrect. Jim Dickie has been perfectly candid in saying that JC is known to have been in Fulham on the day SJL vanished.

But there's no evidence in the public domain.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's a fact though.

The point being that JC would commit offences in multiple locations, in fact wherever he happened to be.....and that would include London.

But there's no evidence in the public domain.

Unsurprisingly, that's the way it works in the UK with unsolved cases. The police don't reveal the nature of their evidence. Evidence is disclosed publicly by the Crown when a defendant is on trial.

I gave you the next best thing. Jim Dickie on camera confirming JC was in Fulham on the day SJL went missing.

 

[WiseOwl]

Bear in mind that JC is a narcissistic psychopath. They don't play by the same rules as mere mortals. It's all a game of power and control.

I recommend the Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh from Channel 5, if you want to see first hand how JC operates. He would swear black is white.....truth is anathema to him.

No access outside UK

The vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh should be about Suzy's disappearance and not JC, it really pigs me off how all recent documentaries about Suzy are about 15 minutes of her and the time she vanished and the rest of the documentary is all about JC.

Suzy seems almost incidental in some of these documentaries that it makes you wonder why they even bother to mention her in the titles at all.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh should be about Suzy's disappearance and not JC, it really pigs me off how all recent documentaries about Suzy are about 15 minutes of her and the time she vanished and the rest of the documentary is all about JC.

Suzy seems almost incidental in some of these documentaries that it makes you wonder why they even bother to mention her in the titles at all.

God no. If it was it would be like this thread

 

[Terryb808]

Even if the Sturgis office had no wall clock, surely the staff (or some of them) wore wrist watches?

KR (the secretary) said she went to the bank at 12.30 and came back 5 minutes later.

When she returned, she said Suzy was on the phone and half-sitting on her desk as if about to leave. After the call Suzy then went to pick up the keys to 37 Shorrolds Road from the key board behind MG's desk, and then took the house details from a drawer. She was carrying her purse and a ring holding the keys of her car, the office and her flat. NH recalled that as she went out of the door she turned back to ask JC 'where did you say my car was?' and then she was gone. This would place the time around 12.40.

So we have NH, JC, KR and even possibly (although we don't know for sure) MG in the office to support this version of the time that Suzy left.

If it was a genuine appointment at SR she would have left at this time, but if it was something she had made up she would have left at 12.40 also as to make it look as if she was heading to SR, just to convince the office staff that she was keeping the 12.45 appointment.

Either way, 12.40 seems logical to me as the time Suzy left the office.

I get all of what you’re saying, however, unless (for example) the bank visit was something that happened at 12.30pm every Monday these timings can only be approximate.
Something needs to trigger a person to notice the time, all of the actions SJL took prior to leaving would have been normal and expected.
So not out of the ordinary until Tuesday when it became clear to all the staff that she’d disappeared.
I’ve worked in a busy office which had no clock and when you yourself are busy you’re not clock watching.
If you asked me the day after when a person left I’d only be able to tell you approximately.
This equally applies to WJ and her visit to the bank, although, she said she noticed the time because of the number of people waiting behind her.
I’m saying that just because it’s in print it doesn’t mean it’s accustomed the minute.

 

[Terryb808]

The vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh should be about Suzy's disappearance and not JC, it really pigs me off how all recent documentaries about Suzy are about 15 minutes of her and the time she vanished and the rest of the documentary is all about JC.

Suzy seems almost incidental in some of these documentaries that it makes you wonder why they even bother to mention her in the titles at all.

Great point, if you search the web using “Suzy Lamplugh” there’s nothing in the top returned that doesn’t have JC as the topic.

Poor when you consider he wasn’t charged with her disappearance by the police.

They just decided he was guilty, even when the CPS wouldn’t bring him to trial.

It clearly gets in the way of unbiased investigations by TV documentary makers.

 

[WestLondoner]

It’s been provided but as you replied to me a retired cop said they know he was in Fulham that day.

That's not evidence. He needs to show his working. Police told a court Stefan Kiszko raped Lesley Molseed, knowing that he was infertile and her attacker was not. For all we know, there is lots more in the police files that proves JC did not do it and which, for obvious reasons, is not being disclosed.

There's quite a lot out there that points away from JC. One is that nobody reliably said they saw anyone who looked like him outside 37SR. HR disagrees with himself, so is unreliable. All the other "sightings" are just echoes of the last thing the witness saw. This was generally a TV reconstruction of what HR later agreed he never saw. JC was never put on an identity parade so there is literally nobody who claims to have seen any Mr Kipper and who later identified JC as him. Not one. We have identified many people who in someone or other's opinion look like that, including Nicolas Cage and yes, Uri Geller.

Then there is the height issue. Other victims agree he is between 5'6 and 5'8 tall with one outlier at 5'10. At any of those, he could not IMO have been the driver of the Fiesta.

Then there is the timing. Several witnesses place the Fiesta at StR from 12.50 or even earlier. That says SJL never went to 37SR. No 37SR visit, no JC sighting.

Then there is the absence of any evidence that other recently-released offenders were ever investigated. If they can't prove where they were on 28.7.1986, that makes them equally suspect by the same logic that points to Cannan.

I am personally confident there is much more along these lines in the files that has never been disclosed, because why would it be.

 

[Cherwell]

The point being that JC would commit offences in multiple locations, in fact wherever he happened to be.....and that would include London.



Unsurprisingly, that's the way it works in the UK with unsolved cases. The police don't reveal the nature of their evidence. Evidence is disclosed publicly by the Crown when a defendant is on trial.

I gave you the next best thing. Jim Dickie on camera confirming JC was in Fulham on the day SJL went missing.

No, it isn't the point.
You asserted that West Londoner's statements are incorrect. They are not, they are accurate.

 

[Cherwell]

I get all of what you’re saying, however, unless (for example) the bank visit was something that happened at 12.30pm every Monday these timings can only be approximate.
Something needs to trigger a person to notice the time, all of the actions SJL took prior to leaving would have been normal and expected.
So not out of the ordinary until Tuesday when it became clear to all the staff that she’d disappeared.
I’ve worked in a busy office which had no clock and when you yourself are busy you’re not clock watching.
If you asked me the day after when a person left I’d only be able to tell you approximately.
This equally applies to WJ and her visit to the bank, although, she said she noticed the time because of the number of people waiting behind her.
I’m saying that just because it’s in print it doesn’t mean it’s accustomed the minute.

Yes, I agree with this. Just because some people wore wristwatches, it doesn't follow that they looked at them at the relevant times.

In recent years there might be other evidence to pinpoint timing, such as the time on an email you were sending, or telephone call records. But in 1986 there would have been little else to go on.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Great point, if you search the web using “Suzy Lamplugh” there’s nothing in the top returned that doesn’t have JC as the topic.

Why would anyone conveniently ignore the undeniable fact that all the evidence the police have points towards JC and no one else?

The notion that the evidence must be ignored to satisfy a need for an unevidenced alternative undermines the imperative principle that an investigation must be evidence led.

Web pages are loaded with meta tags so that they function effectively....i.e. return all/any results in a ranking order which have some reference to the search term.

Depending on how the Web browser functions will affect the breadth of the result.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

No, it isn't the point.
You asserted that West Londoner's statements are incorrect. They are not, they are accurate.

And my point being that JC would commit offences where ever he happened to be at the time.

I suggest you read the complete trail rather than quoting snippets which alter my assertion completely.

 

[WiseOwl]

I get all of what you’re saying, however, unless (for example) the bank visit was something that happened at 12.30pm every Monday these timings can only be approximate.
Something needs to trigger a person to notice the time, all of the actions SJL took prior to leaving would have been normal and expected.
So not out of the ordinary until Tuesday when it became clear to all the staff that she’d disappeared.
I’ve worked in a busy office which had no clock and when you yourself are busy you’re not clock watching.
If you asked me the day after when a person left I’d only be able to tell you approximately.
This equally applies to WJ and her visit to the bank, although, she said she noticed the time because of the number of people waiting behind her.
I’m saying that just because it’s in print it doesn’t mean it’s accustomed the minute.

The police questioned WJ about her timings, and she explained about being at the bank at 12.49 which meant she left her home 4 minutes earlier.

I am fairly sure the police would also have asked KR (and the other Sturgis staff) about the timings and how they could confirm they were accurate. For all we know, Sturgis might have had a bank run every Monday at 12.30. Or KR might have simply said that she glanced at her watch and it was 12.30, so off she went to the bank.

Just because there was no office clock doesn't mean to say their timings were incorrect.

In fact, thinking about it, wouldn't KR have some kind of receipt or something to confirm what time she was in the bank? Again, i'm sure the police would have checked this.

Very remiss of them if they didn't!

 

[WiseOwl]

Great point, if you search the web using “Suzy Lamplugh” there’s nothing in the top returned that doesn’t have JC as the topic.

Poor when you consider he wasn’t charged with her disappearance by the police.

They just decided he was guilty, even when the CPS wouldn’t bring him to trial.

It clearly gets in the way of unbiased investigations by TV documentary makers.

Totally agree.

What I wonder is how the younger generation (under 30's say) that are interested in crime view Suzy's disappearance? They would be watching the documentaries produced in the last few years and automatically assume that JC was responsible.

These documentaries give a distorted view of what transpired around the time she disappeared. There is hardly any mention of her private life, and the seemingly unknown list of people that were involved. Even her family, friends and work colleagues weren't sure about Suzy's private life and the amount of people she came into contact with.

IMO, the police never had the resources or the time to go through all of Suzy's contacts (that which they knew of anyway). Did they ever interview all the people at the various parties Suzy went to? Those at nearby Wardo Avenue or Shorrolds Road? Did they ever search 54 SR?

All of this is conveniently glossed over by modern documentary makers who merely rely on the police's assumption that it was JC.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Totally agree.

What I wonder is how the younger generation (under 30's say) that are interested in crime view Suzy's disappearance? They would be watching the documentaries produced in the last few years and automatically assume that JC was responsible.

These documentaries give a distorted view of what transpired around the time she disappeared. There is hardly any mention of her private life, and the seemingly unknown list of people that were involved. Even her family, friends and work colleagues weren't sure about Suzy's private life and the amount of people she came into contact with.

IMO, the police never had the resources or the time to go through all of Suzy's contacts (that which they knew of anyway). Did they ever interview all the people at the various parties Suzy went to? Those at nearby Wardo Avenue or Shorrolds Road? Did they ever search 54 SR?

All of this is conveniently glossed over by modern documentary makers who merely rely on the police's assumption that it was JC.

The documentaries are primarily for entertainment, so they have to draw the viewer in....it's about profit not public service. They are not and never can be an in depth factial analysis of the investigation/evidence.

This is because serious crime investigation is long, laborious....the details of which are only disclosed on a 'need to know' basis'.

For all the key evidence there will be hundreds of hours of investigation that identify and eliminate other possible suspects or do not advance the search for the victim and the offender.

As the SJL investigation is still ongoing the police will not disclose details of the investigation, much of which would put to bed many points raised on this thread.

Unless someone is charged in connection with SJL's disappearance then the majority of what is known will not fall into the public domain.

 

[Cherwell]

And my point being that JC would commit offences where ever he happened to be at the time.

I suggest you read the complete trail rather than quoting snippets which alter my assertion completely.

Yes, I think we all understand your point. It doesn't contradict WL's statement: that none of the offences which are known to have been committed by JC were committed in London. That is true, but you implied that it wasn't by saying that it was "off the mark". Accuracy is important.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Accuracy is important.

In which case we shouldn't forget the attempted burglary by JC when approaching a house for sale in the Fulham area and entering believing the female occupant to be alone.....only to disappear sharpish when her husband appeared.

In 1986 section 9(1(a)) Theft Act 1968 was the offence of burglary when entering as a trespasser with intent to commit theft, criminal damage, GBH.....or rape.

The rape element has since been repealed.

As I said before JC would commit offences wherever he found himself.

 

[Cherwell]

In which case we shouldn't forget the attempted burglary by JC when approaching a house for sale in the Fulham area and entering believing the female occupant to be alone.....only to disappear sharpish when her husband appeared.

I don't recall this. Could you provide a link, please?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I don't recall this. Could you provide a link, please?

There's a source for everything I post as well as a source for everything I don't

Circumstantial Evidence

Everything about Circumstantial Evidence

www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk

When JD says police know that JC was in Fulham on the day SJL went missing.....

 

[WestLondoner]

There is hardly any mention of her private life, and the seemingly unknown list of people that were involved. Even her family, friends and work colleagues weren't sure about Suzy's private life and the amount of people she came into contact with.

IMO, the police never had the resources or the time to go through all of Suzy's contacts (that which they knew of anyway). Did they ever interview all the people at the various parties Suzy went to? Those at nearby Wardo Avenue or Shorrolds Road? Did they ever search 54 SR?

The two obvious initial errors in the investigation IMO were believing HR, and then going straight for a press conference that cemented HR's inaccurate and probably irrelevant account into the public consciousness.

The big subsequent error was to attempt to identify everyone SJL knew who might have been in Fulham that day. This was simply an impossible task given the resources available, even if it was the right direction to head (which IMO it was not).

It's odds-on MO that the answer to all your questions is No. Two more questions to which the answer is also No are, was the nearby property, to which the police surmise SJL was taken, ever found? And, was his supposed BMW ever tracked down?

If JC did this he didn't just make SJL disappear; he made cars and houses disappear, too.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

IMO, the police never had the resources or the time to go through all of Suzy's contacts (that which they knew of anyway). Did they ever interview all the people at the various parties Suzy went to? Those at nearby Wardo Avenue or Shorrolds Road? Did they ever search 54 SR?

A significant part of the investigation will have been spent building up a comprehensive picture of SJL's life and in particular her activities in the period leading up to her disappearance.

Her family, friends, lovers, acquaintances, colleagues etc will have been identified and spoken to if necessary.

If police had cause to search 54 SR as a line of enquiry then it will have been searched.

Police cannot search carte blanche....they have to comply with the legislation and authorisations that give them the power to do so.

What is a great shame is that there appears to be very little awareness of the activity undertaken in such a serious crime investigation.

Just because there is not a running commentary from the investigation team and the activity and actions are not in the public domain does not demonstrate a lack of diligence and thoroughness with the investigation.

It's better to ask the question if uncertain than to jump to conclusions.