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

[Terryb808]

Cannan sometimes scrubbed up OK apparently if you liked that sort of thing. Wright didn't scrub up.

I am baffled by the idea that he was attractive though. To me he always looked like a petulant bellend.

If you listen to all the hype about JC he’ll have you believing most women couldn’t resist John the bellend.
In reality it was probably the opposite, SJL seems to have been well switched on and would have seen through all the bulls**t.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Cannan didn't ? View attachment 364557

Baffling to me personally but plenty women in the interviews seem to mention how attractive he was. I guess 80s version attractive was a different creature than it is today but even so I can't imagine SJL going for it at all.

 

[ruby925]

It's a completely qualitative and subjective opinion on my part but looking at Wright he does not look like SJL's type at all. SJL was a hypergamous "yuppie" - "Young Upwardly-mobile Professional", in the parlance of the day - whereas Wright had to use prostitutes, drove a folklift and looks like a lout - too ugly and too blue collar for SJL, I would say. He'd be interested in her, she'd not have been interested in him.

Photos on the net show Wright when he was a steward on the QE2 at the same time as SJL, he did not look like a lout then, he must have been quite personable to have a passenger facing role.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Photos on the net show Wright when he was a steward on the QE2 at the same time as SJL, he did not look like a lout then, he must have been quite personable to have a passenger facing role.

Based on that picture, if he was an actor he'd be down for 'trustworthy next door neighbour' or 'kindly favourite uncle'. Goes to show that what things look like literally doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Cherwell]

Baffling to me personally but plenty women in the interviews seem to mention how attractive he was. I guess 80s version attractive was a different creature than it is today but even so I can't imagine SJL going for it at all.

Some people have a kind of magnetism that doesn't come over in still photographs. In JC's case I can't say it came over in the dating video either but he was putting on a certain sort of pose there.

 

[Cluesleuth]

That's what I thought. I wonder why Google is calling it something else. I couldn't find any reference to "Xoán's Bridge".

Perhaps Gallows Bridge was how local people referred to it.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Perhaps Gallows Bridge was how local people referred to it.

I found it on a history site known as Gallows bridge, that's what it was called when it was first built and opened. I reckon it's probably had a name change at some point due to political correctness or maybe just trying to cheer everyone up?

 

[Terryb808]

I found it on a history site known as Gallows bridge, that's what it was called when it was first built and opened. I reckon it's probably had a name change at some point due to political correctness or maybe just trying to cheer everyone up?

The name change must be fairly recent, after the TV documentary in which JD made reference to it I found it on Google straight away.
Also DW refers to it as Gallows Bridge in the more recent “In the Footsteps of Killers” series.

 

[Terryb808]

The name change must be fairly recent, after the TV documentary in which JD made reference to it I found it on Google straight away.
Also DW refers to it as Gallows Bridge in the more recent “In the Footsteps of Killers” series.

Just checked Apple maps, it’s still listed as Gallows Bridge, also Duck Duck Go search engine finds it as Gallows Bridge.
Only Google maps doesn’t list it as Gallows Bridge, maybe someone at Google maps is playing games.

 

[WestLondoner]

So about this supposed 12.45 appointment with Mr Kipper. Why did she write that in her diary at all?

Per some accounts, perhaps unreliable ones that got cemented in later, she left the office while her manager was still there. OK, but if MG was still there and the viewing appointment was genuine, why put an entry in the diary at all? Why not just tell him and go?

Next, when and how did that "appointment" get made? That morning she had been in contact with her bank and the PoW about her missing items. Yet the two most obvious slots to go and pick the stuff up were apparently blocked - a 12.45 viewing and a 6pm viewing after work. Nobody had ever heard of any Mr Kipper, so this 12.45 appointment must have been made by phone but before she spoke to the PoW. So when did she speak to the pub, when did she arrange the viewings, why did she apparently change the pub visit time, and what was her intended schedule around all this?

If the first call arranged the pub visit for 6, she didn't need a second call to change it because as has been pointed out she could have just turned up at 7. If the second call was to move a lunchtime visit to 7pm to allow a viewing at 12.45, which was imminent, why did she need to write that into her diary anyway? Was she going to forget that quick?

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is only my opinion but I think the Kipper entry was genuine. Wether it was a name chosen by the perpetrator or by SJL the name will have a significant meaning to the meeting.

 

[Terryb808]

So about this supposed 12.45 appointment with Mr Kipper. Why did she write that in her diary at all?

Per some accounts, perhaps unreliable ones that got cemented in later, she left the office while her manager was still there. OK, but if MG was still there and the viewing appointment was genuine, why put an entry in the diary at all? Why not just tell him and go?

Next, when and how did that "appointment" get made? That morning she had been in contact with her bank and the PoW about her missing items. Yet the two most obvious slots to go and pick the stuff up were apparently blocked - a 12.45 viewing and a 6pm viewing after work. Nobody had ever heard of any Mr Kipper, so this 12.45 appointment must have been made by phone but before she spoke to the PoW. So when did she speak to the pub, when did she arrange the viewings, why did she apparently change the pub visit time, and what was her intended schedule around all this?

If the first call arranged the pub visit for 6, she didn't need a second call to change it because as has been pointed out she could have just turned up at 7. If the second call was to move a lunchtime visit to 7pm to allow a viewing at 12.45, which was imminent, why did she need to write that into her diary anyway? Was she going to forget that quick?

Looking at your summary it seems logical that the second call to the PoW was to say “look I’ve got another appointment, I’ll be along later”. This is exactly what CV told the police.
Now if this is correct and the Mr Kipper appointment was also correct SJL was either snatched when she reached her car or from Shorrolds Road.
If it was Shorrolds Road it would be more like persuaded to go to another Sturgis property.
To try and fit this in with other events you need to work out when her car appears in Stevenage Road.
The police according to AS believed that SJL’s car was in Stevenage Road from 12.50pm onwards and never moved after this time.
IMO only one scenario fits with this and that’s a multiple perpetrator abduction from Shorrolds Road.

 

[WestLondoner]

Looking at your summary it seems logical that the second call to the PoW was to say “look I’ve got another appointment, I’ll be along later”. This is exactly what CV told the police.
Now if this is correct and the Mr Kipper appointment was also correct SJL was either snatched when she reached her car or from Shorrolds Road.
If it was Shorrolds Road it would be more like persuaded to go to another Sturgis property.
To try and fit this in with other events you need to work out when her car appears in Stevenage Road.
The police according to AS believed that SJL’s car was in Stevenage Road from 12.50pm onwards and never moved after this time.
IMO only one scenario fits with this and that’s a multiple perpetrator abduction from Shorrolds Road.

Right - unless the 12.50 time is wrong (I think it is), and she either never went to 37SR *or* went somewhere else from there.

She could not have conducted a viewing anywhere else without the keys, however, and nobody has said she took two sets (DV thinks she didn't even take one). This says to me that any second visit or house call was not to another Sturgis property.

What would be possible is if "Mr Kipper" took her to a property of his own that he claimed to be selling; or took her off somewhere else saying that's where they were going. There need not actually have been any property, of course. He could have taken her to the back of a van.

There would have been little point taking her outside Fulham supposedly to look at a house, because the further off her patch it is, the less she's going to be able to say about it. So the ostensible destination would have to be nearby; but if so, why dump the Fiesta in her own area? Wasn't that a bit risky? The driver seems to have thought so because look how carelessly he parked it - he couldn't wait to be out of there.

 

[Cherwell]

The name change must be fairly recent, after the TV documentary in which JD made reference to it I found it on Google straight away.
Also DW refers to it as Gallows Bridge in the more recent “In the Footsteps of Killers” series.

There's no name change. It's just the caption on the attached photographs of the bridge. So it's probably something personal to the photographer.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Looking at your summary it seems logical that the second call to the PoW was to say “look I’ve got another appointment, I’ll be along later”. This is exactly what CV told the police.
Now if this is correct and the Mr Kipper appointment was also correct SJL was either snatched when she reached her car or from Shorrolds Road.
If it was Shorrolds Road it would be more like persuaded to go to another Sturgis property.
To try and fit this in with other events you need to work out when her car appears in Stevenage Road.
The police according to AS believed that SJL’s car was in Stevenage Road from 12.50pm onwards and never moved after this time.
IMO only one scenario fits with this and that’s a multiple perpetrator abduction from Shorrolds Road.

Working with the Shorrolds rd abduction for now the sighting of the vehicles by RT and how they were parked

As book pg 77 - RT says
He had driven up Shorrolds rd between 12.30 -1.00pm. Cars were parked both sides of the rd, but he remembered in particular three cars that were double parked. One was a white Ford Fiesta and another a navy blue BMW 518 with 4 doors. It was parked almost outside number 37, and someway behind it was another white Ford Fiesta, possibly with someone sitting in it.

The position of the double parked cars could offer an opportunity to abduct a person into a vehicle with minimum force. SJl woud not have suspected anything untoward if she had double parked and Kipper had double parked next to her, the 2nd Fiesta being at a distance would not have drawn attention until the abduction was imminent then it would draw up behind the BMW reducing the chances of escape and restrict a clear visual of the abduction by any residents of the street or passing vehicles. This can be done in seconds to an unsuspecting victim.
HR's statement of a struggle could indicate this is was the case.


If one person drove away the first Fiesta the abducted person was in the BMW with one or two other people and the 2nd Fiesta driven away by another person.

One thing to note is that there is no mention from either of the passerby witnesses ND & ND of any double parked cars despite passing by a female and a male - one with a bottle of champagne stood outside 27 Shorrolds rd.

What is shown on the Crimewatch video is a double parked small white van with a ladder on the roof rack you can see it in the first shot of the road and a glimpse when ND wlaks past the female and the male with the champagne bottle.

This vehicle is of interest to me.

These are my opinions only

 

[Cherwell]

What would be possible is if "Mr Kipper" took her to a property of his own that he claimed to be selling; or took her off somewhere else saying that's where they were going. There need not actually have been any property, of course. He could have taken her to the back of a van.

That seems very plausible.

 

[Cherwell]

What is shown on the Crimewatch video is a double parked small white van with a ladder on the roof rack you can see it in the first shot of the road and a glimpse when ND wlaks past the female and the male with the champagne bottle.

This vehicle is of interest to me.

But surely in a reconstruction they wouldn't have control over all the vehicles in the road. The van would just be one of the vehicles that happened to be parked there while they were filming. If there's no mention of it then there can't be any significance.

 

[WiseOwl]

So about this supposed 12.45 appointment with Mr Kipper. Why did she write that in her diary at all?

Per some accounts, perhaps unreliable ones that got cemented in later, she left the office while her manager was still there. OK, but if MG was still there and the viewing appointment was genuine, why put an entry in the diary at all? Why not just tell him and go?

Next, when and how did that "appointment" get made? That morning she had been in contact with her bank and the PoW about her missing items. Yet the two most obvious slots to go and pick the stuff up were apparently blocked - a 12.45 viewing and a 6pm viewing after work. Nobody had ever heard of any Mr Kipper, so this 12.45 appointment must have been made by phone but before she spoke to the PoW. So when did she speak to the pub, when did she arrange the viewings, why did she apparently change the pub visit time, and what was her intended schedule around all this?

If the first call arranged the pub visit for 6, she didn't need a second call to change it because as has been pointed out she could have just turned up at 7. If the second call was to move a lunchtime visit to 7pm to allow a viewing at 12.45, which was imminent, why did she need to write that into her diary anyway? Was she going to forget that quick?

I can only assume that she wrote it in her diary because she believed it was a genuine oppointment? If it wasn't, why then didn't she just tell MG or any other of the staff that she was going to the PoW to pick up her diary & chequebook? Why would there be a problem with that?

 

[Cluesleuth]

But surely in a reconstruction they wouldn't have control over all the vehicles in the road. The van would just be one of the vehicles that happened to be parked there while they were filming. If there's no mention of it then there can't be any significance.

You make a good point, this is one of the problems we have when not being able to work with a cold case officer - obtaining factual detail.

Filming would have taken some hours, I would have thought permission was granted to close the road and perhaps divert the traffic while filming - except to residents of course.
Where its seems some people appearing in the reconstruction appeared in person I would like to have had confirmation that this was the case for everyone. Likewise the vehicles and their positioning on the street which would have been particularly important in jogging peoples memories.

JMO

 

[WiseOwl]

Right - unless the 12.50 time is wrong (I think it is), and she either never went to 37SR *or* went somewhere else from there.

She could not have conducted a viewing anywhere else without the keys, however, and nobody has said she took two sets (DV thinks she didn't even take one). This says to me that any second visit or house call was not to another Sturgis property.

What would be possible is if "Mr Kipper" took her to a property of his own that he claimed to be selling; or took her off somewhere else saying that's where they were going. There need not actually have been any property, of course. He could have taken her to the back of a van.

There would have been little point taking her outside Fulham supposedly to look at a house, because the further off her patch it is, the less she's going to be able to say about it. So the ostensible destination would have to be nearby; but if so, why dump the Fiesta in her own area? Wasn't that a bit risky? The driver seems to have thought so because look how carelessly he parked it - he couldn't wait to be out of there.

This is why I wonder if 54 Shorrolds Road is significant at all? After all, it's only a few doors from 37 Shorrolds Road and the number of coincidences linked to JH do seem remarkable.

Could Suzy have ended up at 54SR after viewing 37SR? Is this why she disappeared so quickly afterwards?

It would be good to know if the police ever searched 54 Shorrolds Road.