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

[Whitehall 1212]

The one on YouTube labelled "Cannan documentary" is IMO very poor. As well as the unsourced and unsubstantiated assertions already noted above, it also contains nonsensical errors.

For example, the dating video is said to have resulted in the agency being inundated with women wanting to meet Cannan. Yet elsewhere the agency owner has said she thought something wasn't quite right, and that she never issued it. Both can't be true. The source of the claim that the agency was inundated appears to have been Cannan himself:

John [sic] wrote to the authors claiming he was inundated with telephone calls from women as a result of his video. But Caroline and Tim Francis were so concerned about their client’s intentions that they took his name off their dating list and did not show it. ‘We felt there was something very strange about him,’ they said later.

Berry-Dee, Christopher. Prime Suspect - The True Story of John Cannan, The Only Man the Police Want to Investigate for the Murder of Suzy Lamplugh (p. 124). John Blake. Kindle Edition.

This appears to be sloppy research by the TV producers. Another example is the assertion that Cannan looked like the Mr Kipper sketch. This is a matter of opinion, not fact. It's asserted that he had a BMW. Cannan was in fact using a red Sierra and no sign of this BMW has ever turned up.

One thing that was interesting was that Bryan Saunders of A&SP confirms in this video that the Met interviewed Cannan and there is no evidence that connects him to the Lamplugh case.

1. Both can be true. The dating agency had significant interest after women viewed the video. Even so the dating agency decided not to progress any 'suitable' matches. Maybe they did some due diligence!

2. Why is CB-D being quoted as being accurate, when it has already been ascertained that he is prone to manipulating the truth to make a compelling case, e.g. SLP's DNA in the red Ford Sierra SLP386....a patent mistruth x2

3. JC had access to a red Ford Sierra whilst as the halfway house, which he was released from on 25th July 1986. JD has stated that JC was driving a BMW at the time of SJL's abduction. He doesn't expand on why he thinks this, but he wouldn't say it without very good reason. The clear implication is that this is information, the source of which cannot be disclosed.

4. Many think that the sketch looks like JC. The photofit image even more so. Sketches and photo fits aren't photographs, they are witness recall. They support the search for further witnesses. The OP misunderstands this.

5. Taking Brian Saunders comments on linking crimes at face value it to misunderstand what is required for crimes to be formerly linked. Linking investigations can undermine the robustness of both investigations, if done in error. A very high degree of certainly is needed.

Having the requisite insight prevents errors and misunderstanding.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

This 1988 BBC documentary on Cannan is also interesting. A&SP put JC on an identification parade and had JH attend. She instantly recognised Cannan as the man who had threatened her. Nothing of the kind was ever done with any of the 1986 witnesses who reckoned they'd seen Mr Kipper. How odd.

There is also an interesting comment from a lawyer with the Bristol CPS who was asked by the police for advice on their plan to publish photos of Cannan to appeal for further evidence against him. He observes that "if we used Cannan's photograph in the press any identification evidence would be tainted by that"; and that there was also "the need to secure a fair trial so far as Cannan was concerned", neither of which appear to have troubled the Met when soliciting sightings of him later. One does wonder why claimed sightings of him 14 years later are thought to have any value given these two CPS points. Bryan Saunders also comments on one of the sightings that the appeal brought forth: "Clearly she was a well-intentioned lady...but in Crown Court terms a witness who doesn't come forward until a number of weeks later and then makes statements really has to be looked at with a fine-toothed comb", and a caption across the bottom notes that the judge told the jury to disregard this evidence because of how long she took to come forward.

1. The unbelievable attitude of DCS Malcolm Hackett prevented JC from being considered a suspect, which included putting him on an ID parade. The Met acknowledged these errors and apologised for them some years ago.

2. The Met didn't publish JC's photo to seek witnesses, as alleged. The Met used cut elements of JC's dating video and incorporated them into an identification procedure, complying with the ID procedures in PACE 1984. They showed this to possible witnesses AFTER they had provided a witness statement describing a male such as JC.

3. The witness that Brian Saunders is referring to provided evidence relating to what is described as an attack on a women in woodland near to JC's flat. Not to come forward with this at the time certainly does raise questions of credibility. The witness did not identify JC subsequently.

4. In the Met's case the witnesses observed a male, matching JC's description in a non-contentious situation. These witnesses subsequently identified JC during the identification procedure. This gives their evidence credibility, even though the defence at trial would endeavour to introduce doubt, owing to the passage of time. Nevertheless, it is up to the jury members what they believe can be relied upon.

It is important to understand the nuances and legislation surrounding the introduction of identification evidence if making comparisons between different circumstances.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There's just a bare statement that JC frequented the PoW with nothing to back it up, afaicr. Followed by a witness who never mentions the Prince of Wales by name and wasn't filmed outside it.

"He just said that it was a lively pub and it was like a proper wine bar ... he used to go there quite regular."

She doesn't give a name or location. And she's relating what she remembers him saying - she doesn't say that she went to that pub herself. She's described as a former work colleague and there's no indication that she socialised with him.

I wasn't commenting on it's veracity. In fact I made almost identical observations in a post a few days ago.

The question was where is the PoW mentioned as somewhere that JC went?

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

No, SJL may have gone behind MG's desk, maybe she didn't, but if she did, which keys did she take, if indeed she took keys? Did MG assume SJL took keys because 'someone' went behind his desk - SJL or JC? Has he got eyes in the back of his head? Was he confused with what SJL did on other...

www.websleuths.com

 

[Cherwell]

I wasn't commenting on it's veracity. In fact I made almost identical observations in a post a few days ago.

The question was where is the PoW mentioned as somewhere that JC went?

I'm confused - are you asking me? It's here. My question was how do the police know that JC frequented the PoW?

 

[Konstantin]

This is an interesting report from July 2006 regarding a witness who came forward to say that Cannan had access to a black BMW.

Lamplugh suspect linked to 'killer's car' 20 years on

webcache.googleusercontent.com

Detectives investigating the murder of Suzy Lamplugh, the estate agent, have made a potential breakthrough in the case, just days before the 20th anniversary of her disappearance. A new witness has come forward with evidence that John Cannan, the man police have previously named as their chief suspect, had access to a dark BMW at the time she vanished.
Officers have long suspected that 25-year-old Miss Lamplugh's killer used a black or dark BMW to abduct her after she went to show "Mr Kipper" a house at 37 Shorrolds Road in Fulham, west London, in July 1986.

Scotland Yard reviewed the Lamplugh case in 1999. Among the new evidence collected was a statement from a jogger who saw a woman struggling with a man in a car, believed to be a black BMW, close to where Miss Lamplugh's Ford Fiesta was abandoned. The car may, unusually, have been a left-hand-drive vehicle.
Det Supt Jim Dickie, who is in charge of the case, confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph: "We are looking at a new line of inquiry which could be very interesting." He refused to comment further on the breakthrough.

I also read that some of the witnesses who came forward in the 2000 review of the case had actually attempted to come forward originally but the sheer volume of calls to the police at the time of the original investigation meant that many pieces of information were just never taken down so these witnesses would have been lost had it not been for the re-investigation.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I'm confused - are you asking me? It's here. My question was how do the police know that JC frequented the PoW?

Yes, I posted the link to that MSM a few days ago. I commented then on the narrator stating that JC frequented the PoW, but that the editing was done in such a way that it was not directly stated by either the 'interviewee' or DCI Ault.

So there may be a link. It's not our imagination but its provenance is questionable.

What is of more interest is AL discussing the 'missing' items. The rapid blinking (sign of stress) and the 'other items'....whatever they were.

By all accounts SJL was not too concerned about the missing items until the morning of the day she went missing. Did she realise before then? She did have a full on weekend.

How could AL be so certain they were taken in the PoW, assuming SJL did not realise until Monday morning, and he is unlikely to have spoken with her between the time she realised (Monday A.M.?) and when she went missing.

My feeling is that AL borrowed the items as he was checking up on SJL over his suspicion about her being unfaithful.

 

[Cherwell]

What is of more interest is AL discussing the 'missing' items. The rapid blinking (sign of stress) and the 'other items'....whatever they were.
By all accounts SJL was not too concerned about the missing items until the morning of the day she went missing. Did she realise before then? She did have a full on weekend.
How could AL be so certain they were taken in the PoW, assuming SJL did not realise until Monday morning, and he is unlikely to have spoken with her between the time she realised (Monday A.M.?) and when she went missing.
My feeling is that AL borrowed the items as he was checking up on SJL over his suspicion about her being unfaithful.

That does sound plausible. But where would he have put them? He's wouldn't have had a bag, and I doubt he would have had a coat in July. Inside jacket pocket? there can't have been much more or it would be too bulky.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

That does sound plausible. But where would he have put them? He's wouldn't have had a bag, and I doubt he would have had a coat in July. Inside jacket pocket? there can't have been much more or it would be too bulky.

Deep side and rear pockets in trousers work well.

Failing that I'd stick them down my socks and the back of my pants....anything elasticated.

They can't have been that bulky.

The one other thing that interests me is AL phoning SJL at Sturgis on the afternoon she went missing and leaving an answerphone message.

I just wonder if phoning SJL at work was something AL did regularly?

Maybe SJL had telephoned AL that morning about her missing property and left a message, which he returned later. I've not heard any mention of this though.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Deep side and rear pockets in trousers work well.

Failing that I'd stick them down my socks and the back of my pants....anything elasticated.

They can't have been that bulky.

The one other thing that interests me is AL phoning SJL at Sturgis on the afternoon she went missing and leaving an answerphone message.

I just wonder if phoning SJL at work was something AL did regularly?

Maybe SJL had telephoned AL that morning about her missing property and left a message, which he returned later. I've not heard any mention of this though.

It may have been a message to collect his things from her flat after being dumped

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It may have been a message to collect his things from her flat after being dumped

Have you got anything tangible to support that?

1. There is nothing to support that SJL had ended the relationship.

2. AL did not live with SJL.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

It may have been a message to collect his things from her flat after being dumped

Have you got anything tangible to support that?

1. There is nothing to support that SJL had ended the relationship.

2. AL did not live with SJL.

3. 'Dumping' AL from work by telephone I very much doubt would have been SJL's style!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

DBM - Duplicate

 

[WestLondoner]

I also read that some of the witnesses who came forward in the 2000 review of the case had actually attempted to come forward originally but the sheer volume of calls to the police at the time of the original investigation meant that many pieces of information were just never taken down so these witnesses would have been lost had it not been for the re-investigation.

Which would be hideously embarrassing and best not owned up to. Shades of the Yorkshire Ripper, where the culprit wasn't some never-before-encountered wraith but somebody who'd been repeatedly sighted in red light districts and interviewed nine times.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Which would be hideously embarrassing and best not owned up to. Shades of the Yorkshire Ripper, where the culprit wasn't some never-before-encountered wraith but somebody who'd been repeatedly sighted in red light districts and interviewed nine times.

The 2000 SLP re-investigation was a warts and all enquiry. Nothing would have been withheld. It was an overarching search for the truth.

The view that it would be 'best not owned up to' is an indictment on the integrity of one who would consider it appropriate not to own up.

There can be no comparison with Ripper enquiry as they were entirely different investigations, with the implementation of the Byford report separating them. This shows an overwhelming lack of knowledge of the Ripper enquiry.

I've not read anything insightful yet amongst all the verbosity! Do we have to wait much longer?

 

[Cluesleuth]

It may have been a message to collect his things from her flat after being dumped

MG had rang DL earlier in the afternoon and she in turn had rung around SJL's, AL would have been an obvious person she or one of SJL's had checked with. While it might appear suspicious if a person was trying to cover their tracks police did eliminate him from their inquiryies.
Persumably the location of his call was checked by telephone records.
The call he made to the Sturgis office at 4.45pm was most likely in response to previous calls he had received from DL or one of SJL's friends.
JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I've not read anything insightful yet amongst all the verbosity! Do we have to wait much longer?

Wait much longer for what? A revealing of previously undisclosed information from the police?

Following your logic, if we are to believe there was the type of investigation you pertain to, then the police must have with-held a heck of a lot from the general public. Either that, or there wasn't. Can't have it both ways.

 

[RichardKimble]

MG had rang DL earlier in the afternoon and she in turn had rung around SJL's, AL would have been an obvious person she or one of SJL's had checked with. While it might appear suspicious if a person was trying to cover their tracks police did eliminate him from their inquiryies.
Persumably the location of his call was checked by telephone records.
The call he made to the Sturgis office at 4.45pm was most likely in response to previous calls he had received from DL or one of SJL's friends.
JMO

Are we talking of the same day, Suzy left the office at 12-40pm but only 4 hrs later despite there being no report of anything untoward calls are being made to determine her whereabouts, did her employers keep the staff on such a short lease that anything over a certain time for a house viewing was to be held suspicious ?

 

[EddietheEagle]

Are we talking of the same day, Suzy left the office at 12-40pm but only 4 hrs later despite there being no report of anything untoward calls are being made to determine her whereabouts, did her employers keep the staff on such a short lease that anything over a certain time for a house viewing was to be held suspicious ?

Not a rule as such. More an increasing level of curiosity or concern as to where she was which grew with the passage of time. Negotiators are in and out the office all day long but, habitually, they don't stay out for long periods. There are calls to make and receive and actions that require your continuing presence in the office such as client and solicitor liaison.

 

[EddietheEagle]

Have we pictured when he struck? How soon after the visit to Shorrolds Rd did this occur? Did he lure SL to Bishops Park and bundle her away when the champagne ran out and she wanted away? And why would she have drunk at all at that time of day? Drink driving laws were enforced even then. Maybe she didn't partake and he grew annoyed. Plenty to postulate on.

How far away did he take SL? I know one quiet outdoors spot in Fulham but it's not that near and further away from Hammersmith. My feeling (and only that) is that he took her to a house or flat nearby, otherwise further away to a quiet spot near the river, down by Chiswick Bridge perhaps or, more likely, Brentford.

The record of clues and evidence here, regrettably, is almost totally lacking.

 

[Konstantin]

MG had rang DL earlier in the afternoon and she in turn had rung around SJL's, AL would have been an obvious person she or one of SJL's had checked with. While it might appear suspicious if a person was trying to cover their tracks police did eliminate him from their inquiryies.
Persumably the location of his call was checked by telephone records.
The call he made to the Sturgis office at 4.45pm was most likely in response to previous calls he had received from DL or one of SJL's friends.
JMO

Yes, DL was ringing around to see if people had seen SJL and since her office was obviously also worried and trying to find her they might have rung around a bit too.

It might have been totally normal for AL to call SJL at work or maybe he had something specific to ask her. Either way, he was cleared. Even if he was jealous or upset or figured it was on the cards that she was going to dump him (it was not a serious relationship anyway), he was cleared and was not responsible for her disappearance.