I think that's obvious - and naturally instinctive. He didn't want to give the police any ideas that he might wish her harm.
UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #5
- Thread starter Pinkizzy
- Start date
- Status
I think that's obvious - and naturally instinctive. He didn't want to give the police any ideas that he might wish her harm.
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,840
- Reaction score
- 129,545
ADMIN NOTE:
Sorry folks, but the Netflix documentary is totally off limits because it violates Websleuths TOS with regards to naming, sleuthing, accusing individuals who have not been named as POIs or suspects by law enforcement.
If you wish to discuss it privately that's fine, but not on the public thread.
Any questions, please do not ask them on the thread. Just jump off any post to ask and a Mod or Admin will get back to you when there is time.
Thanks very much for your understanding.
Sillybilly
WS Admin
Sorry folks, but the Netflix documentary is totally off limits because it violates Websleuths TOS with regards to naming, sleuthing, accusing individuals who have not been named as POIs or suspects by law enforcement.
If you wish to discuss it privately that's fine, but not on the public thread.
Any questions, please do not ask them on the thread. Just jump off any post to ask and a Mod or Admin will get back to you when there is time.
Thanks very much for your understanding.
Sillybilly
WS Admin
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2022
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 334
Jeffrey Epstein told Virginia Roberts / Giuffre that he could have her killed and she believed him. There must have been a reason she believed him such that for a long time she didn't go to the authorities.
This points to Epstein being at the head of a group involving others engaged in criminal activity.
I do not think that she is a credible person. I wouldn't take her word for anything.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
- Reaction score
- 4,186
A quick fisk of the 2002 ITV documentary, The Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh, which might better have been called Trial by Insinuation.
Production date was clearly 2002 (at 1:25, “she disappeared 16 years ago”)
3.10 First error: 28/7/86 it was not “a beautiful summer day”, but one so overcast the cricket was suspended
3.15 “she left…at 12.30” - interesting because most infer 12.40
3.30 Mike Barley repeats this
4.10 voiceover refers to “the sinister-looking house in Shorrolds Road” - eh?? Quite manipulative
4.20 DI Peter Johnstone (PJ) says “37SR was where she was first seen by the neighbour HR”, but there is no subsequent "second" or "third" time of being seen
4.30 PJ says HR said Kipper was 5’8 to 5’9, but does not comment on whether someone of this height could have driven the Fiesta with the seat where it was.
At no point in the account of SJL's supposed visit is any forensic evidence for it produced. The case that she went there relies on witnesses, none of whom identified her.
5.30 Marianna Jagoda (MJ) at 139 Stevenage saw a well dressed, sun tanned man in that road. No time is given.
6.50 The documentary is two years after the PL interview, in which he is speaking fourteen years on from her disappearance.
8.32 Aaaaaaand goes straight to JC - nothing on any other avenue explored in 1986-7
8.59 2nd error - "the original investigation may have been flawed…the wrong picture of Suzy was issued”. The wrong pictures were in fact distributed by DL, not the police
11.50 3rd error - "it would be a year before they realised the artist's impression resembled JC". That would be in late 1987 but later it is said this connection was made by the family and press, not the police
12.20 This account by former workmates of JC's pulling technique is not dated, so are these recollections in 2002 from 16 years before?
13.09 It’s asserted he had access to an expensive car. The basis of this is JD’s "belief". No evidence is given.
14.27 The house for sale rapes in Birmingham are mentioned - pure insinuation; no link to JC established
23.15 confirms that the first connection between JC and SJL’s case was made by the media
24.50 DI Simon Addey was not convinced by JC's supposed "confession".
25.40 DI Bryan Saunders of A&S police says no connection was found between SB and SJL case
29.25 The claims of what Gilly Paige (GP) supposedly said are culled - without acknowledgment - from the red top press. GP herself mentioned none of this in her police statement, which she stood by.
30.48 “JC told GP his nickname was Kipper because of the kipper ties he wore” - this appears to be the original source of the "JC's-nickname-was-Kipper" claim.
31.20 4th error - "during the 1990s the investigation slowly wound down". Inaccurate; it was closed at the end of 1987
35.30 Another JC dating video malapropism along with "sedimentary" and "Macchu Pyucchu": “it’s a focrum of Europe”. LOL, I'd forgotten about that one.
36.15 JD admits that “our main term of reference was to eliminate or implicate John Cannan”. When the 2000 "reinvestigation" is mentioned it's as well to remember what it actuallt was - an effort not to find the killer but "to eliminate or implicate John Cannan".
36.45 "14 years on police made a startling discovery - other EAs in the area had been visited by a man calling himself Mr Kipper". No description of the man making these visits is given. Was he 6'3 and grossly fat? If so, would the police say so, or would they stick to the Cannan narrative?
37.21 2nd error gets trotted out again: "...the original dark haired picture the police issued..." - they didn’t. The parents issued those
"Almost immediately a new witness came forward..." - fourteen years later and he can remember the day, date and time he saw something. Pffffft.
38.33 "...the jogger had provided good circumstantial evidence..." - 14 years later? No way.
44.45 The police searched the Quantock Hills where SB was found, on the assumption that JC would have put both bodies in the same place. Why would he do that?? He had had a year to recce the area after leaving jail, and it was reasonably handy for Bristol. But he had never been there in 7/86.
45.30 “...last summer, police were able to prove Cannan was in Fulham” - so a “witness” 15 years after the fact suddenly remembered the day and date he saw JC?! And that proves anything?
Overall score: 2/10. Insinuation, innuendo, incuriousness and very clear that they started with the JC-did-it narrative and worked unsceptically forwards from there.
Production date was clearly 2002 (at 1:25, “she disappeared 16 years ago”)
3.10 First error: 28/7/86 it was not “a beautiful summer day”, but one so overcast the cricket was suspended
3.15 “she left…at 12.30” - interesting because most infer 12.40
3.30 Mike Barley repeats this
4.10 voiceover refers to “the sinister-looking house in Shorrolds Road” - eh?? Quite manipulative
4.20 DI Peter Johnstone (PJ) says “37SR was where she was first seen by the neighbour HR”, but there is no subsequent "second" or "third" time of being seen
4.30 PJ says HR said Kipper was 5’8 to 5’9, but does not comment on whether someone of this height could have driven the Fiesta with the seat where it was.
At no point in the account of SJL's supposed visit is any forensic evidence for it produced. The case that she went there relies on witnesses, none of whom identified her.
5.30 Marianna Jagoda (MJ) at 139 Stevenage saw a well dressed, sun tanned man in that road. No time is given.
6.50 The documentary is two years after the PL interview, in which he is speaking fourteen years on from her disappearance.
8.32 Aaaaaaand goes straight to JC - nothing on any other avenue explored in 1986-7
8.59 2nd error - "the original investigation may have been flawed…the wrong picture of Suzy was issued”. The wrong pictures were in fact distributed by DL, not the police
11.50 3rd error - "it would be a year before they realised the artist's impression resembled JC". That would be in late 1987 but later it is said this connection was made by the family and press, not the police
12.20 This account by former workmates of JC's pulling technique is not dated, so are these recollections in 2002 from 16 years before?
13.09 It’s asserted he had access to an expensive car. The basis of this is JD’s "belief". No evidence is given.
14.27 The house for sale rapes in Birmingham are mentioned - pure insinuation; no link to JC established
23.15 confirms that the first connection between JC and SJL’s case was made by the media
24.50 DI Simon Addey was not convinced by JC's supposed "confession".
25.40 DI Bryan Saunders of A&S police says no connection was found between SB and SJL case
29.25 The claims of what Gilly Paige (GP) supposedly said are culled - without acknowledgment - from the red top press. GP herself mentioned none of this in her police statement, which she stood by.
30.48 “JC told GP his nickname was Kipper because of the kipper ties he wore” - this appears to be the original source of the "JC's-nickname-was-Kipper" claim.
31.20 4th error - "during the 1990s the investigation slowly wound down". Inaccurate; it was closed at the end of 1987
35.30 Another JC dating video malapropism along with "sedimentary" and "Macchu Pyucchu": “it’s a focrum of Europe”. LOL, I'd forgotten about that one.
36.15 JD admits that “our main term of reference was to eliminate or implicate John Cannan”. When the 2000 "reinvestigation" is mentioned it's as well to remember what it actuallt was - an effort not to find the killer but "to eliminate or implicate John Cannan".
36.45 "14 years on police made a startling discovery - other EAs in the area had been visited by a man calling himself Mr Kipper". No description of the man making these visits is given. Was he 6'3 and grossly fat? If so, would the police say so, or would they stick to the Cannan narrative?
37.21 2nd error gets trotted out again: "...the original dark haired picture the police issued..." - they didn’t. The parents issued those
"Almost immediately a new witness came forward..." - fourteen years later and he can remember the day, date and time he saw something. Pffffft.
38.33 "...the jogger had provided good circumstantial evidence..." - 14 years later? No way.
44.45 The police searched the Quantock Hills where SB was found, on the assumption that JC would have put both bodies in the same place. Why would he do that?? He had had a year to recce the area after leaving jail, and it was reasonably handy for Bristol. But he had never been there in 7/86.
45.30 “...last summer, police were able to prove Cannan was in Fulham” - so a “witness” 15 years after the fact suddenly remembered the day and date he saw JC?! And that proves anything?
Overall score: 2/10. Insinuation, innuendo, incuriousness and very clear that they started with the JC-did-it narrative and worked unsceptically forwards from there.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
- Reaction score
- 4,186
The main reasons I think SJL never went to 37SR are that her presence there was entirely the police's assumption, "Mr Kipper" being JC was also the police's assumption, neither was validated by any eyewitness or via ID parade, and that there is no public domain confirmation that her fingerprints were found inside 37SR. If she never went inside 37SR, then HR can't have seen her coming out of 37SR, which means the entire sighting is bogus. DV's discovery that the police probably had the keys all along (so she didn't) is just the icing on the cake.
If SJL did not go to any of the likely places, then we're left with an abduction from somewhere else. Being approached by someone she knew as she is standing by her car would fit. The car would need to be somewhere unobserved. Presumably while one abductor deals with her, another gets rid of her car, otherwise the inevitable search will focus on what happened to her on the very short walk from office to car. Moving the car to a completely random spot elsewhere deals with this.
The question then arises of who she was involved with who'd want to do such a thing...?
If SJL did not go to any of the likely places, then we're left with an abduction from somewhere else. Being approached by someone she knew as she is standing by her car would fit. The car would need to be somewhere unobserved. Presumably while one abductor deals with her, another gets rid of her car, otherwise the inevitable search will focus on what happened to her on the very short walk from office to car. Moving the car to a completely random spot elsewhere deals with this.
The question then arises of who she was involved with who'd want to do such a thing...?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2022
- Messages
- 271
- Reaction score
- 334
If SJL was abducted into the reported 1 Rostrevor Road, then the likely place of abduction would have been Rostrevor Mews which 1 Rostrevor Road backs on to.
But if SJL'S car wasn't actually parked in Rostrevor Mews ( or indeed Whittingstall or Radipole Roads ), then she would probably have been easier to abduct ( while lostly looking for it ) than if it was parked there.
Perhaps her car wasn't returned to the near vicinity of Sturgis after being taken out that morning, but instead it was taken to and hidden out of public view near to the place it was eventually discovered and then moved to it's eventual destination later that day.
The person who took the car out could have been given a lift back to near Sturgis after dropping off SJL'S car.
MOO
But if SJL'S car wasn't actually parked in Rostrevor Mews ( or indeed Whittingstall or Radipole Roads ), then she would probably have been easier to abduct ( while lostly looking for it ) than if it was parked there.
Perhaps her car wasn't returned to the near vicinity of Sturgis after being taken out that morning, but instead it was taken to and hidden out of public view near to the place it was eventually discovered and then moved to it's eventual destination later that day.
The person who took the car out could have been given a lift back to near Sturgis after dropping off SJL'S car.
MOO
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
- Reaction score
- 4,186
Yes, that's a good point. The car could have been taken any time after JC parked it and went back into the office. SJL leaves at 12.40 and is standing around puzzled when she is taken - except that her purse would not then have been in the absent car's door pocket. In theory, it could have been taken at 12pm or something and dumped outside 123SR. This would make WJ's sighting accurate. But if so, someone went back to it after that time, to put her stuff inside.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
- Reaction score
- 4,186
Not seen it but I guess so - maybe the one I reviewed above.
The thing about all the TV documentaries on this subject is that they all kowtow to the same unsuccessful detectives who didn't solve the case, and buy into the police speculation as though it's fact. Acceptance of the police view is almost certainly a precondition of police co-operation with documentary makers in the first place. If you said you wanted to interview current or former officers so you could show them to be pig-headed buffoons who haven't done their jobs properly, I imagine the police wouldn't be helpful. If you said you wanted to explore other possibilities than JC, I expect they still wouldn't be helpful.
What's needed is someone to start from scratch, point out what was not done or properly understood at the time, engage with non-usual witnesses, contacts and talking heads (eg BW, MG, PSS and TS), and outline the full range of possibilities.
What is criminal is that the one single link to the perpetrators was treated with total disregard (Suzy’s car).
Cases of this age have been solved using modern forensics, however, only when the evidence has been gathered correctly and preserved.
This appears to not have happened in this case and also the murder of Penny Bell. IMO it’s very possible (be it a costly one) to solve these cases with the use of the latest forensic technology.
However, this option has been lost to cross contamination.
Cases of this age have been solved using modern forensics, however, only when the evidence has been gathered correctly and preserved.
This appears to not have happened in this case and also the murder of Penny Bell. IMO it’s very possible (be it a costly one) to solve these cases with the use of the latest forensic technology.
However, this option has been lost to cross contamination.
As a follow up to the above an ITV series called “Cold Case Forensics” (or similar) was aired very recently.
There were only 3 episodes, but at least 2 of them will be of interest Rachel Nickell featuring in episode 1.
Dr Angela Gallop is the featured expert and she demonstrates how cold cases can be solved when you have the right expertise and funding.
After watching episode 1&2 it’s obvious that in the cases of Suzy Lamplugh & Penny Bell preserving the evidence would have pushed both cases forward.
It’s an interesting watch even when the technology is not your forte.
There were only 3 episodes, but at least 2 of them will be of interest Rachel Nickell featuring in episode 1.
Dr Angela Gallop is the featured expert and she demonstrates how cold cases can be solved when you have the right expertise and funding.
After watching episode 1&2 it’s obvious that in the cases of Suzy Lamplugh & Penny Bell preserving the evidence would have pushed both cases forward.
It’s an interesting watch even when the technology is not your forte.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,538
- Reaction score
- 4,186
As we’ve come to expect, there’s not much that is actually correct with this early reconstruction.
If this is what the police believe happened at the time it’s no wonder they said they had nothing concrete to go on.
I can only conclude that the later review by the Met headed by JD must have a lot of circumstantial evidence never released to the public.
Otherwise the Met have just decided John Cannan is guilty regardless of what the evidence actually says.
Otherwise the Met have just decided John Cannan is guilty regardless of what the evidence actually says.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,450
- Reaction score
- 13,611
Not seen that before, the keys whose key's ? Mr Kipper waiting ?, they go inside ? seen outside, they "assume " they both got in the fiesta ? not much right is there.
The keys to the property Mr Kipper wanted to view . Assuming they both got in the car should not have been the case .
Maybe tho he invited her for a drink to discuss the property saying he might want another look after considering ,she agreed and her car was used ?
I watched the 90 minute Ch 5 documentary the other week and imo the Met were not far wrong to think John Cannan was Mr Kipper .
Last edited:
Yes, you probably would think that after watching the documentary. It's what they want us to think.
I'm not easily persuaded .
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2021
- Messages
- 4,450
- Reaction score
- 13,611
Not sure if it was that docu, but the CPS have said JC and SJL cannot be placed together.
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 103
- Guests online
- 2,095
- Total visitors
- 2,198