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

[WestLondoner]

It would be extremely difficult to do that. I'm not 100% sure about 1980s models, but in the Fiestas I've had the lever for moving the seat back and forth is under the front of the driver's seat.

Not at all. You could lock the passenger door by getting out, pressing the 'lock' handle and slamming the door.

A friend of mine doesn't drive and when he's a passenger with me, he automatically does that every time he gets out of the car. Not necessary now with central locking, but the habit is deeply ingrained with him

Right, so if that's how he got out of the car, there was no need to move her seat back. Either he drove the car then dumped it; or she drove the car and he got out of the passenger door in the normal way. What requires anyone to have moved the seat?

Also, the angle and position of the car, the door left unlocked and valuables left in it all point to a hasty departure - who does that, but locks the passenger door? Isn't it clear the driver got into the car alone and the passenger door was already locked?

 

[Terryb808]

Kipper is also WW2 submariner slang for 'torpedo'. Perhaps the secret evidence shows JC had access to a submarine?

Must have been a black one and made by BMW, don’t know how the witnesses missed it and the police failed to trace the owner.

 

[WiseOwl]

If you list the possibilities and add For & Against, then give them a score based on how likely they are to be correct. Shorrolds Road comes out top of the list.

This is heavily influenced by the witnesses that came forward after the police appeal / reconstruction. Prior to this they basically had nothing to go on.

It’s clear people generally matching the description HR gave were at Shorrolds Road, however, they were never clearly identified as either Suzy Lamplugh or John Cannan.

According to AS’s book until the police made this appeal the residents of Shorrolds Road said they saw nothing out of the ordinary that day. So ask yourself how did they miss what the two ND’s said happened and the double parked cars highlighted by RT?

IMO EH & RT are important witnesses, their accounts tend to back each other up and I can see why the police spent so much time looking for the BMW 2000 series RT said he was.

The odd coincidence is that JH lived some 15 doors away from 37 Shorrolds Road, was nicknamed Kipper and owned a BMW, and his brother was a Sturgis client.

If there’s any significance in the diary entry for Mr Kipper, this one jumps out at you.

JH was also mentioned in by Suzy in one of her diaries, lived at properties in Wardo Avenue & Shorrolds Road, and knew Suzy by her attending parties at both properties. Oh yes - his nickname at school was Kipper.

Surprisingly, despite all these coincidences, he is only mentioned on one page of AS's book.

It does make you wonder how closely the police looked at JH, considering there seems a lack of any information about him.

It was also said that he lived with 3 others at Wardo Avenue, and that he met Suzy through a friend of a friend. So did the police at the time track all these people down? What about the others who attended the parties? Were any other of these people mentioned in Suzy's diaries? Who was the friend who introduced Suzy to JH?

We don't know anything about any of these people.

 

[Cluesleuth]

JH was also mentioned in by Suzy in one of her diaries, lived at properties in Wardo Avenue & Shorrolds Road, and knew Suzy by her attending parties at both properties. Oh yes - his nickname at school was Kipper.

Surprisingly, despite all these coincidences, he is only mentioned on one page of AS's book.

It does make you wonder how closely the police looked at JH, considering there seems a lack of any information about him.

It was also said that he lived with 3 others at Wardo Avenue, and that he met Suzy through a friend of a friend. So did the police at the time track all these people down? What about the others who attended the parties? Were any other of these people mentioned in Suzy's diaries? Who was the friend who introduced Suzy to JH?

We don't know anything about any of these people.

JH had a brother who was on the books at Sturgis.
They were interviewed and eliminated by police at the time.

FWIW in my opinion Wardo Av may prove to important.
JMO

 

[WestLondoner]

Must have been a black one and made by BMW, don’t know how the witnesses missed it and the police failed to trace the owner.

To be fair, U-boats are meant to be unobtrusive.

 

[WiseOwl]

JH had a brother who was on the books at Sturgis.
They were interviewed and eliminated by police at the time.

FWIW in my opinion Wardo Av may prove to important.
JMO

Maybe they covered for each other? Some people have speculated that 2 people may have been involved, in which case it's a possibility there are a couple of false statements that are on file from the original investigation.

In DV's book, he says that Suzy attended a party at 54 Shorrolds Road around 6 months before she disappeared. In the following months leading up to her vanishing it has been said that there was someone stalking her, phoning her up at home and work, and sending her flowers.

Is it possible that this person was someone she met at the party at Shorrolds Road?

 

[WestLondoner]

Maybe they covered for each other? Some people have speculated that 2 people may have been involved, in which case it's a possibility there are a couple of false statements that are on file from the original investigation.

In DV's book, he says that Suzy attended a party at 54 Shorrolds Road around 6 months before she disappeared. In the following months leading up to her vanishing it has been said that there was someone stalking her, phoning her up at home and work, and sending her flowers.

Is it possible that this person was someone she met at the party at Shorrolds Road?

It probably is, but OTOH, if this was someone who knew her home address, why faff about abducting her from a viewing when you could go after her at home?

 

[Cherwell]

It probably is, but OTOH, if this was someone who knew her home address, why faff about abducting her from a viewing when you could go after her at home?

To make it look like she was taken by a client, or someone masquerading as a client? If so, it worked.

 

[WiseOwl]

It probably is, but OTOH, if this was someone who knew her home address, why faff about abducting her from a viewing when you could go after her at home?

Maybe they knew she had a flatmate?

 

[Tombel]

Right, so if that's how he got out of the car, there was no need to move her seat back. Either he drove the car then dumped it; or she drove the car and he got out of the passenger door in the normal way. What requires anyone to have moved the seat?

Also, the angle and position of the car, the door left unlocked and valuables left in it all point to a hasty departure - who does that, but locks the passenger door? Isn't it clear the driver got into the car alone and the passenger door was already locked?

Hi Web sleuths and thank you for letting me join. I've been following the SJL story since the beginning and I'm really loving the work you are all doing here. I've read both the DV and AS books and have found them extremely useful. After reading the DV book, I admit to being drawn to his way of thinking. I've had a thought about the seat position of the Fiesta in SR. Is it possible that the reason for it being pushed back to the position found was due to SJL wearing a tight (ish) skirt? From the recreation videos it looks like SJL was wearing a straight skirt, with a slight flair at the bottom. I don't wear skirts as a rule, but I'd have thought that swinging your feet and legs out of the foot well may not be that easy if the seat is forward as we think it would be for someone of SJL's height. From all available sources, we think SLJ was wearing low heeled shoes too that day and that may add to the difficulty. Perhaps, SJL stopped her car in SR, possibly behind another car, which has been suggested as an explanation for the garage overhang. She then pushed the seat back simply to allow more room to swing her legs out of the car. The intention being to pull the seat forward again when she got back in. This is just a thought and perhaps more knowledgeable skirt wearing folk might have some ideas on this. Apologies if this has been addressed before. MOO.

 

[WiseOwl]

Hi Web sleuths and thank you for letting me join. I've been following the SJL story since the beginning and I'm really loving the work you are all doing here. I've read both the DV and AS books and have found them extremely useful. After reading the DV book, I admit to being drawn to his way of thinking. I've had a thought about the seat position of the Fiesta in SR. Is it possible that the reason for it being pushed back to the position found was due to SJL wearing a tight (ish) skirt? From the recreation videos it looks like SJL was wearing a straight skirt, with a slight flair at the bottom. I don't wear skirts as a rule, but I'd have thought that swinging your feet and legs out of the foot well may not be that easy if the seat is forward as we think it would be for someone of SJL's height. From all available sources, we think SLJ was wearing low heeled shoes too that day and that may add to the difficulty. Perhaps, SJL stopped her car in SR, possibly behind another car, which has been suggested as an explanation for the garage overhang. She then pushed the seat back simply to allow more room to swing her legs out of the car. The intention being to pull the seat forward again when she got back in. This is just a thought and perhaps more knowledgeable skirt wearing folk might have some ideas on this. Apologies if this has been addressed before. MOO.

Welcome to the thread @Tombel.

An interesting theory. However, it would mean that Suzy parked her car in Stevenage Road at some point, rather than it being parked there by someone else.

Have you any thoughts on why she would have done this?

 

[asyousay]

As far as I’m aware Suzy couldn’t drive in the seat position it was in so it wasn’t down to a tight skirt. Her leg’s simply would not of been long enough to drive with the seat pushed that far back. Also as a women I wouldn’t need to pull the seat back to get out in a skirt that would be way too much hassle imo


That car was driven by somebody who wasn’t Suzy.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Right, so if that's how he got out of the car, there was no need to move her seat back. Either he drove the car then dumped it; or she drove the car and he got out of the passenger door in the normal way. What requires anyone to have moved the seat?

Also, the angle and position of the car, the door left unlocked and valuables left in it all point to a hasty departure - who does that, but locks the passenger door? Isn't it clear the driver got into the car alone and the passenger door was already locked?

I would have thought (hoped) that forensic analysis of the car could have shown DNA and fibres placing whether the last driver ever sat anywhere else in the car.

In the absence of, there is no forensic evidence to prove that SJL was ever in her own car with the person who harmed her, no evidence to suggest or prove that person was ever in the passenger seat (and would they have needed that seat pushed back?).

So, the absolute simplest scenario would be SJL drove somewhere that may or may not have been 37SR (depending if you believe eye witness accounts), she then went on foot into some sort of premises near where she'd parked up, either with the perpetrator or to go inside and meet the perpetrator. Something unfolded, that accidentally or on purpose ended her life. I imagine accidentally because who would contemplate murdering someone in the middle of the working day? They then had to swiftly get her car away from the scene of the crime in order to evade detection because a) the crime scene was messy and someone would be likely to discover it; b) her body was still there; c) their own DNA and forensic traces were there; AND it was a location they are firmly connected to and needed to return to.

If some type of abductor took SJL from 37SR, they would have no need whatsoever to move her car - it wouldn't be near them, it had no trace of them in it, and had no crime scene evidence in it. The highest possible risk the perpetrator put themselves in that day was moving the car - anyone could have seen them or been searching for SJL and the car, whether it be police or friends or family, and could have confronted them or tackled them. They also had to leave the crime scene in daylight to get inside a car that isn't theirs. That risk must have been so vital for the cover up that it was worth the journey.

I imagine the driver would have done something to disguise themself. Also they would have to bring zero attention to themself getting into the car if they were in an area where people know them, ie on the street they live, or near their own workplace.

 

[Terryb808]

Point 2, why need for musical cars, if restrained near Stevenage road why not just make off, moving the car then coming back to where ever close by leaves room for SL if still alive to raise the alarm.

Someone highlighted that SJL may have gone into a property and never came out, in this case the perpetrator would need to move her car to avoid it being seen outside his house.

 

[Terryb808]

How about:

2. 54 Shorrolds Road.

Near enough?

Yes I thought that myself, the police must have checked it out. It’s just too good to be true.

 

[Terryb808]

I would have thought (hoped) that forensic analysis of the car could have shown DNA and fibres placing whether the last driver ever sat anywhere else in the car.

In the absence of, there is no forensic evidence to prove that SJL was ever in her own car with the person who harmed her, no evidence to suggest or prove that person was ever in the passenger seat (and would they have needed that seat pushed back?).

So, the absolute simplest scenario would be SJL drove somewhere that may or may not have been 37SR (depending if you believe eye witness accounts), she then went on foot into some sort of premises near where she'd parked up, either with the perpetrator or to go inside and meet the perpetrator. Something unfolded, that accidentally or on purpose ended her life. I imagine accidentally because who would contemplate murdering someone in the middle of the working day? They then had to swiftly get her car away from the scene of the crime in order to evade detection because a) the crime scene was messy and someone would be likely to discover it; b) her body was still there; c) their own DNA and forensic traces were there; AND it was a location they are firmly connected to and needed to return to.

If some type of abductor took SJL from 37SR, they would have no need whatsoever to move her car - it wouldn't be near them, it had no trace of them in it, and had no crime scene evidence in it. The highest possible risk the perpetrator put themselves in that day was moving the car - anyone could have seen them or been searching for SJL and the car, whether it be police or friends or family, and could have confronted them or tackled them. They also had to leave the crime scene in daylight to get inside a car that isn't theirs. That risk must have been so vital for the cover up that it was worth the journey.

I imagine the driver would have done something to disguise themself. Also they would have to bring zero attention to themself getting into the car if they were in an area where people know them, ie on the street they live, or near their own workplace.

Spot on with this analysis, this is why it’s so important to determine if possible exactly when SJL’s car appeared in Stevenage Road.

If WJ is correct and the police’s original conclusion (that SJL’s car was there from 12.59pm onwards) the location SJL went to could not have been more that 5 minutes drive away.

The later the car appears in Stevenage Road the greater the distance SJL could have been away from Stevenage Road.

Your analysis fits (IMO) for example the PoW & 54 Shorrolds Road. Both places you could go into, have not been noticed doing so and would need rapid movement of the car pretty much essential.

I would tend to favour a private house over the PoW, no need to be concerned over someone finding a body while you get rid of the car.

 

[WestLondoner]

If some type of abductor took SJL from 37SR, they would have no need whatsoever to move her car - it wouldn't be near them, it had no trace of them in it, and had no crime scene evidence in it. The highest possible risk the perpetrator put themselves in that day was moving the car - anyone could have seen them or been searching for SJL and the car, whether it be police or friends or family, and could have confronted them or tackled them. They also had to leave the crime scene in daylight to get inside a car that isn't theirs. That risk must have been so vital for the cover up that it was worth the journey.

This is indeed a very good point - why touch the car at all unless if you leave it where she left it, it betrays where she really went.

There was no thus need to move it from 37SR. Her diary entry already points there; you're not going to divert suspicion away from there simply by moving the car.

So it must have been moved to disguise that she had been somewhere else. Could this somewhere else have been a different house in SR? The diary points to SR just the same, so moving the car does not help; it still looks like she went to SR. But conceivably, if parking was busy, she could have parked some way away from 37 - possibly outside or near 54. If you live there and harmed her there would you worry that she had inadvertently undermined your false trail by parking right outside? And would you move the car? I don't know. Rather than leave fingerprints or increase the chances of being seen in the car, you might be best advised to leave it where it is. You then let the police take months to connect you to her - which they may never do - and act dumb. If they find traces of her in your house, of course they did. She knew you socially.

All of which makes me think that the car was moved from the place she came to harm, and that this place was not SR.

 

[WiseOwl]

Yes I thought that myself, the police must have checked it out. It’s just too good to be true.

You would of hoped they did check the property.

In his brief interview with DV, JH plays down knowing Suzy much at all. He said he remembered her from a party at Wardo Avenue, but doesn't mention anything about a party at 54 Shorrolds Road. However, DV has information that Suzy attended a party at this address about 6 months before she went missing so why didn't JH mention this?

What intrigues me is that JH is mentioned by Suzy in one of her diaries, so if they hardly knew each other why would she find it significant to mention him at all?

 

[Terryb808]

This is indeed a very good point - why touch the car at all unless if you leave it where she left it, it betrays where she really went.

There was no thus need to move it from 37SR. Her diary entry already points there; you're not going to divert suspicion away from there simply by moving the car.

So it must have been moved to disguise that she had been somewhere else. Could this somewhere else have been a different house in SR? The diary points to SR just the same, so moving the car does not help; it still looks like she went to SR. But conceivably, if parking was busy, she could have parked some way away from 37 - possibly outside or near 54. If you live there and harmed her there would you worry that she had inadvertently undermined your false trail by parking right outside? And would you move the car? I don't know. Rather than leave fingerprints or increase the chances of being seen in the car, you might be best advised to leave it where it is. You then let the police take months to connect you to her - which they may never do - and act dumb. If they find traces of her in your house, of course they did. She knew you socially.

All of which makes me think that the car was moved from the place she came to harm, and that this place was not SR.

Agreed, this is the cold thought pattern when you are totally detached from the event. if for whatever reason you just killed SJL and her car is outside your house, the first place the police will search is your house.
They searched 123 Stevenage Road and that was just another Sturgis property up for sale, I accept we don't know for sure, but the police found no fingerprints or fibers inside SJL's car that shouldn't have been there.

So, the perpetrator must have had time in his hurried abandonment of her car to wipe it clean, I know they could have & probably did wear gloves. JC used to carry a pair of cotton gloves, which are ideal for purpose of wiping away any evidence. He also took time to wipe over the seats to remove any fibers, he may have been inept, but he knew how to make tracing him extremely difficult.

While I don't think it was JC, it must be someone who knew how to clean up after himself, IMO chances are that the perpetrator only sat in the driver's seat.

 

[asyousay]

This is indeed a very good point - why touch the car at all unless if you leave it where she left it, it betrays where she really went.

There was no thus need to move it from 37SR. Her diary entry already points there; you're not going to divert suspicion away from there simply by moving the car.

So it must have been moved to disguise that she had been somewhere else. Could this somewhere else have been a different house in SR? The diary points to SR just the same, so moving the car does not help; it still looks like she went to SR. But conceivably, if parking was busy, she could have parked some way away from 37 - possibly outside or near 54. If you live there and harmed her there would you worry that she had inadvertently undermined your false trail by parking right outside? And would you move the car? I don't know. Rather than leave fingerprints or increase the chances of being seen in the car, you might be best advised to leave it where it is. You then let the police take months to connect you to her - which they may never do - and act dumb. If they find traces of her in your house, of course they did. She knew you socially.

All of which makes me think that the car was moved from the place she came to harm, and that this place was not SR.

That’s a good point the diary mentions where she was going so moving the car doesn’t make sense. Unless as you say she went somewhere else as well which wasn’t known and then moving the car makes a lot more sense.