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

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Quality post Eddie. It really brings to the fore some of the significant circumstantial evidence and its veracity.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of what witnesses wemember

 

[Cherwell]

Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of what witnesses wemember

Not really a case of what they remember, more what makes the strongest impression. I find it hard to believe that anyone who had seen him wouldn't mention the eyebrows.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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?

JC was put forward as a possible suspect for SJL's abduction by Thames Valley Police in early 1987 following a rape in late 1986 in Reading.

The SIO for the SJL case at the time was D/Supt Malcom Hackett (D/Supt Carter had retired).

Hackett was an odd character who did not get on with DL. For whatever reason he didn't accept JC as a viable suspect, did not put him on an ID parade, did not question JC's alibi thoroughly etc.

This is probably where the most momentum was lost in investigating JC thoroughly, his movements, associates, activities etc.

Who knows....if Hackett had never been on the case the outcome may have been very different.

 

[Konstantin]

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.

This hypothesis, that she put the appt in her diary to be able to leave the office for a personal errand that lunchtime, was created by DV. He needs a reason why SJL would have made up the appointment, since if she didn't make it up, then she had a real appointment. He needs her to not have a real appointment, because then he can suggest she went to pick her diary up from the pub near her home.


<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Not really a case of what they remember, more what makes the strongest impression. I find it hard to believe that anyone who had seen him wouldn't mention the eyebrows.

At least one of his victims did say about his 'eyebrows that met in the middle' despite being raped at night in the dark and with him wearing a balaclava of some sort.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

This hypothesis, that she put the appt in her diary to be able to leave the office for a personal errand that lunchtime, was created by DV. He needs a reason why SJL would have made up the appointment, since if she didn't make it up, then she had a real appointment. He needs her to not have a real appointment, because then he can suggest she went to pick her diary up from the pub near her home.



I just watched the documentary and it seems the thinking is that he didn't like the idea of civilians putting forward theories about who was responsible so he dismissed the possibility out of hand and it was never followed up.

I didn't realise this, I was under the impression it had been formally stated by fellow office staff and there was some mention of the owner being somewhat military?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Not really a case of what they remember, more what makes the strongest impression. I find it hard to believe that anyone who had seen him wouldn't mention the eyebrows.

What you notice as being outstanding may not reflect someone's else's focus.

It all depends on what is happening and the witnesses relationship to it.

Watching a guy sitting down, talking to camera you will be drawn to their facial features inititially and then in no particular order, mannerisms, speech, clothing etc.

In a street, on a bright summers day, with distance between, other people, distractions, movement, interaction and not standing square on to the subject for any period of time you may notice many other things before someone's monobrow.

 

[ruby925]

So if there was a Mr Kipper doing the rounds of estate agents in Fulham, was it possibly someone trying to trace SJL specifically (without alerting her) or was it to target anyone that could then be isolated and/or assaulted in a property? JMO of course, but would be interesting to know if any property viewings actually took place in that timeframe or whether it was just phone queries.

 

[WestLondoner]

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.

Did anyone test these miraculous memories of 4 years before by asking these witness what else they remembered? For example, could any of them remember and date a newspaper headline from that long ago?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Did anyone test these miraculous memories of 4 years before by asking these witness what else they remembered? For example, could any of them remember and date a newspaper headline from that long ago?

The better question would be "what is the reason that you are able to recall the events you have described".

The art is all in the way the right question is asked at the right time.

If someone is prompted to come forward after so many years, they will have their reasons that need to be explored.

The elapsed time doesn't automatically make them unreliable. Memory and recall works on many different levels. To understand that is to recognise how valuable such a witness can be.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

SJL may have been carjacked enroute to Shorrolds Rd, logically it would make sense to check the PoW for her remains.

I seem to remember that someone said before on this thread that SJL was said to have turned right when leaving the Sturgis office that lunchtime, can anyone on here confirm this? It's just that turning right takes you away from both Whittingstall and Radipole Roads which are the 2 locations we have been told, in the first case by the police and the second an apparent correction of the first by the office junior, that Suzy Lamplugh's car was parked when she went to pick it up having asked the office junior where he had left it that lunchtime.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I seem to remember that someone said before on this thread that SJL was said to have turned right when leaving the Sturgis office that lunchtime, can anyone on here confirm this? It's just that turning right takes you away from both Whittingstall and Radipole Roads which are the 2 locations we have been told, in the first case by the police and the second an apparent correction of the first by the office junior, that Suzy Lamplugh's car was parked when she went to pick it up having asked the office junior where he had left it that lunchtime.

Turning right probably suggests she was heading towards Putney after collecting her car

 

[EddietheEagle]

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.

Not really a case of what they remember, more what makes the strongest impression. I find it hard to believe that anyone who had seen him wouldn't mention the eyebrows.

JC himself was well aware of the distingushing nature of his eyebrows. Moreover, it is known he took steps, at least once in crude fashion, to mitigate the issue and influence its effect on being recognised. Following the 1981 Sutton Coldfield robbery/rape, his arrest followed release of a photofit publicised in the local press. While in custody, police noticed he had shaved between his eyebrows and in so doing, nicked the bridge of his nose. JC, unconvincingly, attempted to explain this away as mere vanity on his part. Both the C5, 2001 documentary at 11.40 and Prime Suspect, hardback edition, page 42 highlight this incident, the latter at length.

As an aside, I think this 1st edition C5 documentary makes a strong, all round contribution to the debate. For example, note the IO, Stewart Ault, at 3.45, declare his initial scepticism regarding JC and how, over the passage of time, the accumulation of lines that pointed to JC forced an eventual change in opinion.

The issues of: 'House for Sale' rapist - 20 West Midlands assaults, 3 rapes; the baffled initial investigation; JC's revealed social habits in Fulham and Putney; Putney POW-Avon Gorge Hotel hunting ground parallel; the red Sierra/Sandra Court DNA evidence; the 2nd investigation and the circumstances of SL's lost/stolen personal belongings at Mossops/POW are all given a good airing. Talking head contributions from police dealing with both investigations and witnesses who knew JC and SL personally, underpin credibility and add veracity to the information presented. Inferences can be drawn from parallel situations where in one the facts are known and the other not so clearly. Some of the details may remain open to challenge or differing interpretations but I think in general, the documentary is a good primer for those with interest in this unsolved case.

 

[EddietheEagle]

Turning right probably suggests she was heading towards Putney after collecting her car

There's turning right and turning right. It all depends on who or what is turning and what point exactly you're starting from. Left and right are inherently relative.

If her car were in Whittingstall Road, parked facing North, you would turn left onto Fulham Road. With her car around the corner, it is unlikely SL would exit the door, turn right and walk to Putney on foot. It's an unnecessary trek for an estate agent.

 

[RichardKimble]

You know the rules, I have absolute certainty of that!

Hackett can be commented on quite legimately.

Check out the below Channel 5 documentary at 20 mins 21 seconds in.

No access outside UK

Caught up with this last night, well worth a watch .Puts it right about the Red Sierra, thanks for the heads up.

As an aside would todays policing allow a modern day Hacket to rule out a suspect without some structured argument against.

 

[Konstantin]

Caught up with this last night, well worth a watch .Puts it right about the Red Sierra, thanks for the heads up.

As an aside would todays policing allow a modern day Hacket to rule out a suspect without some structured argument against.

Yes I also caught up on this yesterday and found it interesting and informative to learn about the different stages of the investigation/review etc. It was very good to hear from some of the detectives involved in it.

And now I understand where DV got his pseudonym for the temp pub landlord from.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Caught up with this last night, well worth a watch .Puts it right about the Red Sierra, thanks for the heads up.

As an aside would todays policing allow a modern day Hacket to rule out a suspect without some structured argument against.

Investigations now have trained Family Liaison Officers appointed to act as a support and conduit for the flow of information.

SIO's now maintain a comprehensive decision log of all decisions made and the rationale behind them.

Of course a modern day investigations also have the benefit of evidence/intelligence from technology and advances in forensic science, which make it easier to progress or rule out a suspects involvement.

 

[RichardKimble]

Investigations now have trained Family Liaison Officers appointed to act as a support and conduit for the flow of information.

SIO's now maintain a comprehensive decision log of all decisions made and the rationale behind them.

Of course a modern day investigations also have the benefit of evidence/intelligence from technology and advances in forensic science, which make it easier to progress or rule out a suspects involvement.

If Cannan is responsible for the murder of S Lamplugh the only way he would face a court is to reveal the whereabouts of her remains imo . Wasn't it reported he had had a stroke and was having palliative care so the chances of that are all but zero.

 

[Pinkizzy]

There's turning right and turning right. It all depends on who or what is turning and what point exactly you're starting from. Left and right are inherently relative.

If her car were in Whittingstall Road, parked facing North, you would turn left onto Fulham Road. With her car around the corner, it is unlikely SL would exit the door, turn right and walk to Putney on foot. It's an unnecessary trek for an estate agent.

You should read his other books, he's not literal all of the time. Trust me, turning right from Sturgis suggests she was heading towards Putney. DV writes and researches his books with a linguist so she knows how to present information in a meaningful way