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

[EddietheEagle]

Evidence was unearthed during the 2000 re-investigation that the name Mr Kipper was evidently being used by someone doing the rounds of Fulham estate agents at the time of SL's disappearance.

This is reported as a 'startling discovery' in the Real Crime documentary at 36.4 where Jim Dickie talks about the 26,000 card index files being computerised.

"Other estate agents in the Fulham area had been visited by a man calling himself Mr Kipper".

Whether the name was real or an alias was, as we all know, never established. It does, however, point away from the idea of the name being dreamt up by SL purely as a ruse to cover some personal mission away from the office which she wanted to keep to herself. It is unlikely that every agent approached by Mr Kipper would have got the name wrong or misspelt it.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It's likely that there is stuff DV knows that is not in the book. If, for example, he traced CV's previous addresses, cross referenced them to missing females and found that deaths and disappearances started when CV moved there and stopped when he moved away, that would put quite a different cast on CV.

But that it a moot point as it is plucked from the ether and has no basis in fact......and fact is what were are about here!

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Evidence was unearthed during the 2000 re-investigation that the name Mr Kipper was evidently being used by someone doing the rounds of Fulham estate agents at the time of SL's disappearance.

This is reported as a 'startling discovery' in the Real Crime documentary at 36.4 where Jim Dickie talks about the 26,000 card index files being computerised.

"Other estate agents in the Fulham area had been visited by a man calling himself Mr Kipper".

Whether the name was real or an alias was, as we all know, never established. It does, however, point away from the idea of the name being dreamt up by SL purely as a ruse to cover some personal mission away from the office which she wanted to keep to herself. It is unlikely that every agent approached by Mr Kipper would have got the name wrong or misspelt it.

If this is correct. Maybe it was someone stalkerish who had met SJL on a night out or socially and wanted to try and figure out which particular estate agents she worked at? Or maybe it was someone dodgy, in the business sense, who had an agenda regarding local property investments or sales. Estate agency is a strange and cut throat business and agencies (used to) keep an eye on one another and their staff, especially when it comes to things like split / shared fees and the vendor taking listing instructions from one agency to another or a vendee with big bucks shopping around.

 

[Cherwell]

One reason would be that she needed to speak to someone that day whose number was in the diary.

Possibly, but there were other ways to look up numbers then. It was a bit simpler before mobile phones.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Possibly, but there were other ways to look up numbers then. It was a bit simpler before mobile phone.

True but only if it was a listed number - we had to dial 'directory enquiries' who could look it up if we had most of the correct name and address. Also there were the huge yellow pages and business directories.

I think this is a really interesting point, what if she wanted the diary to ring someone sooner than later?

Or what if she even attended 37SR waited a while, nobody attended, she left and went to pick up her stuff from the PoW, maybe even so she could look up the number of 'Mr Kipper'. All the eyewitness accounts are really a bit contradictory so we're still left with all options open.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Possibly, but there were other ways to look up numbers then. It was a bit simpler before mobile phone.

Exactly. It's a hypothesis, but a very weak one when we consider:

1. The entry in SJL's work diary re 37 SR
2, Taking the keys and sale literature
3. The witnesses in Shorrolds Road
4 The phone call from SJL to the PoW stating she'd collect after 18:00
5. SJL's planned viewing at 18:00
6. As you allude to.....the phone book or knowing a friends number (work location) from memory to ring and ask for a mutual friends number

Hypotheses are to be encouraged but if we are to debunk the information we have, then there needs to be something tangible to do so.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

True but only if it was a listed number - we had to dial 'directory enquiries' who could look it up if we had most of the correct name and address. Also there were the huge yellow pages and business directories.

I think this is a really interesting point, what if she wanted the diary to ring someone sooner than later?

Or what if she even attended 37SR waited a while, nobody attended, she left and went to pick up her stuff from the PoW, maybe even so she could look up the number of 'Mr Kipper'. All the eyewitness accounts are really a bit contradictory so we're still left with all options open.

All hypothesis, with nothing to support it. It only results in a jolly merry go round with no one getting anywhere.

The constant thing about witness statements is that the genuine one's, without collaboration, will have inconsistencies in the detail. It's a red flag if they don't.

The first description from HR and the two further witnesses collectively describe a woman on her own O/S 37 SR, then with a man, who was was given a good description, in a situation that very much gave the impression of a house viewing.

This supports the entry in SJL's work diary in terms of time, location, meeting a male client and her leaving with the keys to 37 SR and the sale particulars.

 

[Konstantin]

All hypothesis, with nothing to support it. It only results in a jolly merry go round with no one getting anywhere.

The constant thing about witness statements is that the genuine one's, without collaboration, will have inconsistencies in the detail. It's a red flag if they don't.

The first description from HR and the two further witnesses collectively describe a woman on her own O/S 37 SR, then with a man, who was was given a good description, in a situation that very much gave the impression of a house viewing.

This supports the entry in SJL's work diary in terms of time, location, meeting a male client, leaving with the keys to 37 SR and the sale particulars.

One of the witnesses reported that the female he saw had hair that was blonder than the photo of SJL shared by the police, which was taken to be significant since she had actually had her hair done on the Saturday so it would have looked different from the pic. If the witnesses were just reporting seeing someone who was really just the "girl from the photo" you would expect them to say her hair was the same colour, surely.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

One of the witnesses reported that the female he saw had hair that was blonder than the photo of SJL shared by the police, which was taken to be significant since she had actually had her hair done on the Saturday so it would have looked different from the pic. If the witnesses were just reporting seeing someone who was really just the "girl from the photo" you would expect them to say her hair was the same colour, surely.

It certainly adds significantly to their credibility and accuracy

 

[WestLondoner]

Evidence was unearthed during the 2000 re-investigation that the name Mr Kipper was evidently being used by someone doing the rounds of Fulham estate agents at the time of SL's disappearance.

If true I'm not sure what is more remarkable: that it was mentioned in 1986 but nobody thought it worthwhile to look into it at the time, or that it wasn't reported at all until 2000. If the latter I would be sceptical that it's true, like I'm sceptical that JC's prison nickname before 1989 was ever 'Kipper'.

One of the witnesses reported that the female he saw had hair that was blonder than the photo of SJL shared by the police, which was taken to be significant since she had actually had her hair done on the Saturday so it would have looked different from the pic. If the witnesses were just reporting seeing someone who was really just the "girl from the photo" you would expect them to say her hair was the same colour, surely.

The last photo of SJL, taken on the Saturday after the hairdresser visit, shows her hair had streaks / highlights in it, but was a long way short of blonde. She was blonder than the old brunette photos DL unhelpfully gave the press, but she wasn't blonde. If HR saw a woman with actual blonde hair, it almost certainly wasn't SJL.

 

[Cherwell]

Evidence was unearthed during the 2000 re-investigation that the name Mr Kipper was evidently being used by someone doing the rounds of Fulham estate agents at the time of SL's disappearance.

If true I'm not sure what is more remarkable: that it was mentioned in 1986 but nobody thought it worthwhile to look into it at the time, or that it wasn't reported at all until 2000. If the latter I would be sceptical that it's true

There was so much publicity about this "Mr Kipper" that the police would have been inundated with such reports at the time. Estate agents would have been particularly alert to the case.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If HR saw a woman with actual blonde hair, it almost certainly wasn't SJL.

I'm not certain it was HR that described the woman in question.

HOWEVER

claiming that it 'almost certainly' wasn't SJL is to fail to see the collective evidence pointing towards the fact that is 'almost certainly' WAS SLP.

If the snippets of information are dealt with in isolation then it is easy to reject them.

HOWEVER

when they are looked at collectively they present a clearer picture of what 'almost certainly' took place in the period from when SJL left the office to the activity O/S 37 SR.

This is just often just how evidence is presented to a jury, as there is rarely a smoking gun, but a collection of circumstances and fact which together point to the defendants guilt.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

All hypothesis, with nothing to support it. It only results in a jolly merry go round with no one getting anywhere.

The constant thing about witness statements is that the genuine one's, without collaboration, will have inconsistencies in the detail. It's a red flag if they don't.

The first description from HR and the two further witnesses collectively describe a woman on her own O/S 37 SR, then with a man, who was was given a good description, in a situation that very much gave the impression of a house viewing.

This supports the entry in SJL's work diary in terms of time, location, meeting a male client and her leaving with the keys to 37 SR and the sale particulars.

What is the evidence of her taking the keys and sale particulars?

From what I understand there has never been any evidence of that at all and it's purely down to speculation. Was it not stated by a colleage that notably she definitely didn't take the particulars of 37SR?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What is the evidence of her taking the keys and sale particulars?

From what I understand there has never been any evidence of that at all and it's purely down to speculation. Was it not stated by a colleage that notably she definitely didn't take the particulars of 37SR?

AS p.6 states:

"left the office......clutching the particulars and keys of 37 Shorrolds Road"

AS p.6 states:

MG "remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys....."

Remember AS had access to some of the investigative material, of which the witness statements would have been the least contentious.

The Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh (Channel 5)

At 2:56 in JC states:

"Suzy....she asked me to get her the keys to Shorrolds Road. She said she was off to do a quick showing and may go for lunch".

We can make the reasonable assumption that JC gave SJL the keys to 37 SR.

JC has good reason to remember as it would involved a request from SJL and a physical action on his part.

There is inconsistency here between MG and JC, which needs to be resolved.

Did SJL go behind MG's desk and take the keys to any other property, was MG mistaken in her purpose for going behind the desk or has he confused this action with what SJL usually did, with another day, another employee or is he not sure?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

AS p.6 states:

"left the office......clutching the particulars and keys of 37 Shorrolds Road"

AS p.6 states:

MG "remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys....."

Remember AS had access to some of the investigative material, of which the witness statements would have been the least contentious.

The Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh (Channel 5)

At 2:56 in JC states:

"Suzy....she asked me to get her the keys to Shorrolds Road. She said she was off to do a quick showing and may go for lunch".

We can make the reasonable assumption that JC gave SJL the keys to 37 SR.

JC has good reason to remember as it would involved a request from SJL and a physical action on his part.

There is inconsistency here between MG and JC, which needs to be resolved.

Did SJL go behind MG's desk and take the keys to any other property, was MG mistaken in her purpose for going behind the desk or has he confused this action with what SJL usually did, with another day, another employee or is he not sure?

Thanks for finding the accounts. Do we know what the police consider to be the 'truth' of the issue in terms of what has been said in formal witness statements? I have definitely read somewhere that she didn't take any property papers with her which was odd.

Separately, the bit about 'off to do a quick showing and may go for lunch' doesn't sound like the demeanour of a young woman who was obliged to put something / anything in her diary just to excuse herself from a strict boss either, maybe it's my way of interpreting but it sounds a very relaxed attitude.

 

[EddietheEagle]

If true I'm not sure what is more remarkable: that it was mentioned in 1986 but nobody thought it worthwhile to look into it at the time, or that it wasn't reported at all until 2000. If the latter I would be sceptical that it's true, like I'm sceptical that JC's prison nickname before 1989 was ever 'Kipper'.

The presence of Mr Kipper in Fulham was reported at the time in 1986 (or thereabouts) and assembled into a card index system where it was intended to be analysed, cross-referenced and acted upon. The sheer volume of information obtained overwhelmed the manual system and led to important clues remaining hidden or missed by simple human error (Jim Dickie).

Seemingly, a Mr Kipper was out there doing the rounds, using an MO not dissimilar to that of the House for Sale rapist in Birmingham who, significantly perhaps, was never apprehended. Someone learning on the job perhaps then modfying his method to suit?

Beyond the information gathered in 1986 and re-analysed via computer, new witnesses came forward after a new appeal in 2000. In the C5 documentary you have Stewart Ault, IO, face to camera, stating that new, "positive identification" of JC was made by more than one of these new witnesses, including a woman who stood next to JC outside Sturgis the day before SL vanished.

I agree that Mr Kipper sounds incredulous. But what is more incredulous, a man claiming to be Mr Kipper or a man in a dating video, an admirer of the pacifist Gandhi and the "socially aware" Prince Charles, a man looking for a "pleasant", "natural" woman who, within weeks of that tosh, stoves the skull in of someone who embodied all those qualities and possibly more? It is somewhat ironic that the police made more use of that video than JC did as it enabled them to produce the video compilation which resulted in the positive identification of him in Fulham.

 

[EddietheEagle]

AS p.6 states:

"left the office......clutching the particulars and keys of 37 Shorrolds Road"

AS p.6 states:

MG "remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys....."

Remember AS had access to some of the investigative material, of which the witness statements would have been the least contentious.

The Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh (Channel 5)

At 2:56 in JC states:

"Suzy....she asked me to get her the keys to Shorrolds Road. She said she was off to do a quick showing and may go for lunch".

We can make the reasonable assumption that JC gave SJL the keys to 37 SR.

JC has good reason to remember as it would involved a request from SJL and a physical action on his part.

There is inconsistency here between MG and JC, which needs to be resolved.

Did SJL go behind MG's desk and take the keys to any other property, was MG mistaken in her purpose for going behind the desk or has he confused this action with what SJL usually did, with another day, another employee or is he not sure?

All of which is accurately portrayed in BBC's Crimewatch video based on information "known at the time" including the manager himself peering in through the front window of No 37 because SL had left with the keys.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Thanks for finding the accounts. Do we know what the police consider to be the 'truth' of the issue in terms of what has been said in formal witness statements? I have definitely read somewhere that she didn't take any property papers with her which was odd.

Separately, the bit about 'off to do a quick showing and may go for lunch' doesn't sound like the demeanour of a young woman who was obliged to put something / anything in her diary just to excuse herself from a strict boss either, maybe it's my way of interpreting but it sounds a very relaxed attitude.

It is relaxed....but was it the usual SJL? She comes across as a people person and quite chilled so more than likely. She doesn't seem like a shrinking violet who would sneak off, afraid to speak.

Personally, if I was in a team situation but operated independently away from the team at times I may write it in a diary or on the board or update control but to keep the wheels oiled I'd mention it to my boss or a colleague in lieu rather than just walking out.

So it seems natural behaviour to me.

Detective Supt Carter, the original SIO was clearly confident that SJL took the keys to 37 SR with her on the Sturgis keyfob, which he proudly presented on Crimewatch.

The Crimewatch episode was a couple of months after SJL went missing, I recall, so the police had plenty of time to be absolutely clear that SJL took the keys.....unless of course we are saying that her colleagues were mistaken/lied, the police didn't cotton on, covered up their error etc.

"Did SJL take the keys to 37 SR"? is a key question as what she did next almost rests or falls with it.....the police will have recognised this, they really were not muppets, as some would wish to portray them. I am sure as I can be that D/Supt Carter will have satisfied himself that this was the case.

JMO

 

[Cherwell]

I've just watched the Ch5 documentary in which John Cannan is seen a lot. For me, far and away his most striking feature is his heavy eyebrows, almost a monobrow. Yet this doesn't show in the photofits. It would be the first thing I would mention.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree that Mr Kipper sounds incredulous. But what is more incredulous, a man claiming to be Mr Kipper or a man in a dating video, an admirer of the pacifist Gandhi and the "socially aware" Prince Charles, a man looking for a "pleasant", "natural" woman who, within weeks of that tosh, stoves the skull in of someone who embodied all those qualities and possibly more? It is somewhat ironic that the police made more use of that video than JC did as it enabled them to produce the video compilation which resulted in the positive identification of him in Fulham.

Do you know what action was taken to investigate JC at the time? Was he identified as a strong suspect? Or is part of what you suggest, that he was completely overlooked as a suspect back then? I'm still confused why he's not been proven to be the 'house for sale' rapist. Is it possible there's two people using the similar MO?