UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #6

[WestLondoner]

There would not have been any phone records in 1986. Itemised billing was not standard. If you wanted it, you had to ask for it to be enabled at the (mechanical) exchange, which took a couple of weeks to set up, and was at extra cost. It did not capture where incoming calls were from, only outgoing ones, nor could you apply it retrospectively. That is, you couldn't enable it today and find out what numbers you rang yesterday - it only worked from the point you set it up.

 

[su5ie]

There would not have been any phone records in 1986. Itemised billing was not standard. If you wanted it, you had to ask for it to be enabled at the (mechanical) exchange, which took a couple of weeks to set up, and was at extra cost. It did not capture where incoming calls were from, only outgoing ones, nor could you apply it retrospectively. That is, you couldn't enable it today and find out what numbers you rang yesterday - it only worked from the point you set it up.

Thank you . There was actually a debate concerning legislation for this in the house of Parliament on the 7th of july 1986 . But would calls that required an operator to connect have been recorded in a ledger by the exchange ? I know the operator took the name of the person you wanted to speak to and then connected the call . So potentially if suzy recieved a call in the office from a car phone the operator would know if a call was made to Sturgis that morning from one ? I wondered was this angle investigated.

The reasoning behind my thinking in case posters think I'm gone mad lol . I'm wondering was the rendezvous point changed last minute . The caller in their car had time to scope out where was quieter and rang suzy last minute . Or possibly the MR kipper was a rich business man with whom suzy was sleeping with or the person with whom she was due to go into business with or purchase a house with . Which could be what she was doing that day not looking at a house for a client but that she was looking at a house that she and the client were to buy together .This businessman could potentially be a criminal in the kray twins sense of the word . I'm just trying to think outside of the box

 

[lee sumner]

Thank you . There was actually a debate concerning legislation for this in the house of Parliament on the 7th of july 1986 . But would calls that required an operator to connect have been recorded in a ledger by the exchange ? I know the operator took the name of the person you wanted to speak to and then connected the call . So potentially if suzy recieved a call in the office from a car phone the operator would know if a call was made to Sturgis that morning from one ? I wondered was this angle investigated.

The reasoning behind my thinking in case posters think I'm gone mad lol . I'm wondering was the rendezvous point changed last minute . The caller in their car had time to scope out where was quieter and rang suzy last minute . Or possibly the MR kipper was a rich business man with whom suzy was sleeping with or the person with whom she was due to go into business with or purchase a house with . Which could be what she was doing that day not looking at a house for a client but that she was looking at a house that she and the client were to buy together .This businessman could potentially be a criminal in the kray twins sense of the word . I'm just trying to think outside of the box

i also think the mystery deal she had going could be connected to her disappearance. why was she wanting to sell her flat so quickly. was it to invest in a property.

 

[lee sumner]

Not if she was abducted at random.

A lot of women were snatched off the street in London in the 80s and even 90s.

abducted at random. no way. not with mr kipper listed in her diary.

 

[WestLondoner]

A quirk of early mobile phones was that the range of numbers you could call from them was restricted. As late as the mid-1990s, I recall seeing ads on the Tube which consisted of a blank poster and the words "All the numbers you can't call from a Mercury 1-2-1 phone", it being a very big deal back then that you could now call anyone where previously you couldn't. I don't recall what numbers you couldn't call or why not, but this along with price was quite a big obstacle to mobile phone uptake back then.

The thing I don't understand about Mr Kipper, as a means of approaching estate agents you want to rape, is how you'd get around having to provide a phone number for yourself as Mr Kipper. Any agent you approached as a would-be buyer is going to want a contact number, or at least one where messages can be left. If we accept for argument's sake that someone really did approach other agents posing as Mr Kipper, and that these agents did report this in 1986 right after SJL disappeared, then Mr Kipper must have met none of them (why would a rapist go into the office where your target works?), but left a fake phone number with all of them, and thereby gone onto some of these other agents' contact list - but not onto others (e.g. Sturgis). If this happened, and other agents then rang the inquiry in 1986 and said Yeah, we had some guy phoned us calling himself Kipper, it tells you right away there was an actual person calling himself Mr Kipper. If there were none, or if these were all claims that originated 14 years later, it tells you there really was no such person. In that case he was either a figment of SJL's imagination, or was known to her under a different name which she did not identify in her diary. It's similar to the unfaithful spouse's latter day ruse of putting their bit on the side's number into their mobile phone as "Accounts" or "BT", so if s/he phones while the other half is around, the caller's supposed name coming up doesn't give the game away.

One possibility for which there's zero evidence but that the circumstances allow for is the "Afternoon Delight": Mr Kipper is one of SJL's current or ex-squeezes, who rings her up at work and demands an insta-sh*g. She writes down 37SR in the diary but goes somewhere else. I'm sure I recall a story in the Sun in the 80s about "randy house sales girls" doing this sort of thing...

 

[su5ie]

i also think the mystery deal she had going could be connected to her disappearance. why was she wanting to sell her flat so quickly. was it to invest in a property.

The sale of suzys flat would have only covered the mortgage repayment to the bank . So with whose money was she going to buy a new property with

According to AS book when Suzys assets were being assessed she didnt own much Dad mentions her buying a property with someone else but I've not seen this delved into any further and as far as I can see this person never came forward publicly anyway . Its almost said as an off the cuff remark .

I most definitely feel ,the married man she was seeing ,the married man cooking her nice meals , the man pressuring her and whomever she was buying this property with and sent the roses are one and the same person . I feel the meeting that day was pre arranged
If you notice the entries in her work diary morning and 6pm appointment scribbled , wrote most probably while on the phone and wrote in haste as person is calling out information. MR KIPPER entry is neater its already in her head ,she is writing from memory in relaxed fashion .

If we look at what suzy is telling us by her actions not what others assume or their" Truths " Suzy is telling us she was involved with a married man and he was doing things she didn't like and she felt pressured . She was selling her flat with no other property lined up . She was secretive. she didnt have huge savings and she engaged in risky behaviour

. Why the police and her family believe that someone who was engaged in risky behaviour in her personal life , would not also make risky choices in work by making a false entry in a diary to meet some one known to her is beyond me . I'm not judging her lifestyle I'm just making an observation.
In my mind she arranged to meet at 123StR that day with a person well known to her . No sign of a struggle, no chunks of hair or chipped nails to say she was dragged out of her car or into another car ,no dropped keys ,no paperwork in her car . No tyre marks of a car that screeched off everything tells us either she never entered that car or got out of her own free will
Things turned sour over some disagreement and she was disposed of .too much hassle to keep her alive . Imo she was probably dating or involved in a relationship with possibly a crooked businessman or a gangland type figure either that or she never left the office .

 

[Konstantin]

The thing I don't understand about Mr Kipper, as a means of approaching estate agents you want to rape, is how you'd get around having to provide a phone number for yourself as Mr Kipper. Any agent you approached as a would-be buyer is going to want a contact number, or at least one where messages can be left. If we accept for argument's sake that someone really did approach other agents posing as Mr Kipper, and that these agents did report this in 1986 right after SJL disappeared, then Mr Kipper must have met none of them (why would a rapist go into the office where your target works?), but left a fake phone number with all of them, and thereby gone onto some of these other agents' contact list - but not onto others (e.g. Sturgis).

This is an excellent point.
I guess if you wanted to stalk young female estate agents, you could walk around peering through windows until you found someone to target. But how would you contact them to lure them to a house viewing? If you phoned the office, you'd not necessarily get put through to your target, you might get her male colleague. You might go in and try to talk to someone, but surely you'd have to talk to someone on reception first rather than just walk up to someone's desk, plus then, you're showing your face to literally everyone in the office. And the receptionist is going to want to send you particulars of houses you might be interested in so they would obviously ask for an address. Or at least as you say a number to contact you on. Sturgis had some sort of filing system where agents had to put clients' names.

If SJL's abductor was a male predator targeting estate agents, this does not tally with the narrative that he also stalked her beforehand. Stalking her implied that he met her somewhere and followed her about. I guess he could have peered through the Sturgis window, picked her out and followed her to a wine bar or somewhere, and talked to her. It's all a bit vague.

In that case he was either a figment of SJL's imagination, or was known to her under a different name which she did not identify in her diary.

This is the most likely thing in my view. Kipper is just a very weird name that would immediately draw attention to someone using it as a fake name. It's a name you would remember. Why not fly beneath the radar by calling yourself Mr Smith or Mr Jones or Mr Brown? SJL and her set used to make up funny nicknames for people. She also had dyslexia. So either its a mis-spelling (Kiper anyone?) or SJL just used a made up name, risking having her colleagues suss that's what she'd done when she came back and failed to put the fishy new client into the Rolodex.

 

[su5ie]

This is an excellent point.
I guess if you wanted to stalk young female estate agents, you could walk around peering through windows until you found someone to target. But how would you contact them to lure them to a house viewing? If you phoned the office, you'd not necessarily get put through to your target, you might get her male colleague. You might go in and try to talk to someone, but surely you'd have to talk to someone on reception first rather than just walk up to someone's desk, plus then, you're showing your face to literally everyone in the office. And the receptionist is going to want to send you particulars of houses you might be interested in so they would obviously ask for an address. Or at least as you say a number to contact you on. Sturgis had some sort of filing system where agents had to put clients' names.

If SJL's abductor was a male predator targeting estate agents, this does not tally with the narrative that he also stalked her beforehand. Stalking her implied that he met her somewhere and followed her about. I guess he could have peered through the Sturgis window, picked her out and followed her to a wine bar or somewhere, and talked to her. It's all a bit vague.



This is the most likely thing in my view. Kipper is just a very weird name that would immediately draw attention to someone using it as a fake name. It's a name you would remember. Why not fly beneath the radar by calling yourself Mr Smith or Mr Jones or Mr Brown? SJL and her set used to make up funny nicknames for people. She also had dyslexia. So either its a mis-spelling (Kiper anyone?) or SJL just used a made up name, risking having her colleagues suss that's what she'd done when she came back and failed to put the fishy new client into the Rolodex.

Very good points about the possibility a male colleague could take the call or show up to a house viewing. How would cannan or anyone else for that matter be sure to get suzy .

I think it's great everyone is looking at the finer details in the known evidence and clues suzy left herself . I myself decided to disregard the known hypothesise and look from the beginning to try unravel the logic from the illogical

 

[su5ie]

This is an excellent point.
I guess if you wanted to stalk young female estate agents, you could walk around peering through windows until you found someone to target. But how would you contact them to lure them to a house viewing? If you phoned the office, you'd not necessarily get put through to your target, you might get her male colleague. You might go in and try to talk to someone, but surely you'd have to talk to someone on reception first rather than just walk up to someone's desk, plus then, you're showing your face to literally everyone in the office. And the receptionist is going to want to send you particulars of houses you might be interested in so they would obviously ask for an address. Or at least as you say a number to contact you on. Sturgis had some sort of filing system where agents had to put clients' names.

If SJL's abductor was a male predator targeting estate agents, this does not tally with the narrative that he also stalked her beforehand. Stalking her implied that he met her somewhere and followed her about. I guess he could have peered through the Sturgis window, picked her out and followed her to a wine bar or somewhere, and talked to her. It's all a bit vague.



This is the most likely thing in my view. Kipper is just a very weird name that would immediately draw attention to someone using it as a fake name. It's a name you would remember. Why not fly beneath the radar by calling yourself Mr Smith or Mr Jones or Mr Brown? SJL and her set used to make up funny nicknames for people. She also had dyslexia. So either its a mis-spelling (Kiper anyone?) or SJL just used a made up name, risking having her colleagues suss that's what she'd done when she came back and failed to put the fishy new client into the Rolodex.

Suzy also mixed up P with B and also spelt words as they sounded but from looking at the difference in writing style and looking at hastily written handwriting in top and bottom of diary but Mr kipper written so neatly . If I write a name and number as I'm talking on the phone its scribbled, if I'm relaxed and written from memory it's neat

 

[tes1984]

abducted at random. no way. not with mr kipper listed in her diary.

You may well be right, but it's far from certain.

The Leah Croucher case had some interesting theories about her personal life and why she disappeared, but the truth turned out to be that she was snatched at random by a maniac, who was working in the area.

 

[lee sumner]

There are other explanations for it -- SJL could have dropped something -- money, an earring, whatever you like -- on the floor of the car and it rolled under the seat, so she pushed it back to grab it before she got out. Then didn't have time to faff about re-pushing the seat back before she had to dash off to meet whoever in a rush, so didn't lock the driver's door, after all she was only expecting to be out a few moments, it was a quiet street. Passenger door locked because no one had been in the car so no one needed to open it.

There is more than one plausible scenario than "the abductor was a tall male and he drove the car alone to Stevenage Road, pushing the seat back to do so."

Were the mirrors of the car in a different position from how SJL usually had them? I assume she might have had to adjust them when she first got in because her colleague had just driven the car.

was mr kipper a small man who pushed the seat back to mislead everyone.

 

[su5ie]

was mr kipper a small man who pushed the seat back to mislead everyone.

While a possibility, perps will do stuff to throw the scent .but why would an unknown or known perpetrator take the keys and house details of Shorrolds or for that matter move the car at all and plenty of other out of sight places in fulham to abandon a car other than directly across from WJ house in the line of sight from any one of her windows ,that she could look out at any given moment or walk through her front door the car wasn't parked there discreetly in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping

I personally don't buy any other scenario other than suzy parked that car herself. If she was taken into another vehicle on Whittingstall, why move it ,that's hassle and more risk of being caught . If she was taken at Shorrolds, again why move it . A criminal is not going to complicate things like that even if there was two perpetrators and certainly not under a Sturgis sign and if we pretend the perp was stupid and behaving erratically ,we'll have to also assume if he was this he would not have had the brain for meticulous planning and the cunning to hide a body for 38 years

The only other possibility is another colleague parked the car there and suzy never left the office but why not park nearer to her diary entry and if wrote in by someone else after the fact why not write Stevenage

 

[WestLondoner]

in AS book. he talks about them going for a cig break. no mention of words being said over a sale. AS had access to the case file, but DV investigation is hearsay and no hard facts.

To be fair, AS' not mentioning this could just reflect a lack of thoroughness by the police themselves in 1986. DV has correctly pointed out that everything the police think they know about what was happening at the PoW came from just one person at the PoW (whether the PoW is relevant or not), who told them she never turned up there. Likewise everything they think they know about SJL's movements after 12.40 is based on the assumption that she was going to a viewing. DV contribution is to observe that, given there was a bit of a set-to that morning over whose bidder should be put to a vendor and it ended up not being hers, it might be she was a bit miffed. In which case, where else apart from to a viewing might she instead have gone? There's not going to be a lot about this in the police files because as far as we know they weren't curious about this at all.

You may well be right, but it's far from certain.

The Leah Croucher case had some interesting theories about her personal life and why she disappeared, but the truth turned out to be that she was snatched at random by a maniac, who was working in the area.

I guess the challenge is that the odds would have to be very long against someone being randomly abducted by Unknown Person A shortly after she has put in her diary an appointment with a completely unrelated Unknown Person B who's not a pukka house buyer.

Long odds but not impossible - after all, she was living on the turf of at least five homicidal rapists - Cannan, Wright, Napper, Duffy, and Mulcahy - and they're only the ones we know about.

 

[WestLondoner]

why would an unknown or known perpetrator take the keys and house details of Shorrolds or for that matter move the car at all and plenty of other out of sight places in fulham to abandon a car other than directly across from WJ house in the line of sight from any one of her windows

Good point, it doesn't sound like a furtive rendezvous. I've long wondered how all the various car movements around 37SR were handled if the abduction began there. Somehow SJL and Mr Kipper both went there, he in his canonical BMW, so what happened next? They drove in her car - OK so when does he retrieve his? They drove off in his car - OK so how does hers get to 123SR? In neither case is an abductor going back to 37SR to collect a car, given that by this time it's possible she's been missed.

One possibility that works (and fits Cannan) is if he actually arrived on foot - in Cannan's case, from his mate's flat in Star Road 10 minutes away. It would explain the BW sighting in that he gets her to drive him around, including to wherever he has left his own car.

Another conjectural fit with Cannan may be something that happened with SB. When SJL disappeared it was a major story in less than 24 hours, which would have significantly constrained a kidnapper. If this were Cannan, did he conclude that next time he needed to keep the heat off longer, and thus contrive the call to the office by SB?

 

[su5ie]

Good point, it doesn't sound like a furtive rendezvous. I've long wondered how all the various car movements around 37SR were handled if the abduction began there. Somehow SJL and Mr Kipper both went there, he in his canonical BMW, so what happened next? They drove in her car - OK so when does he retrieve his? They drove off in his car - OK so how does hers get to 123SR? In neither case is an abductor going back to 37SR to collect a car, given that by this time it's possible she's been missed.

One possibility that works (and fits Cannan) is if he actually arrived on foot - in Cannan's case, from his mate's flat in Star Road 10 minutes away. It would explain the BW sighting in that he gets her to drive him around, including to wherever he has left his own car.

Another conjectural fit with Cannan may be something that happened with SB. When SJL disappeared it was a major story in less than 24 hours, which would have significantly constrained a kidnapper. If this were Cannan, did he conclude that next time he needed to keep the heat off longer, and thus contrive the call to the office by SB?

While I agree with the assessment of the need to buy more time and possibility of Cannan learning from his mistake I still don't see the relevant need of his to park suzys car at Stevenage at a Sturgis sign surely looking at other Sturgis properties in the area was a starting point of any good police investigation in their search for suzy and hardly buys the time a perp would be hoping for and what if a colleague of suzy's was doing a viewing of 123StR at the time you are pulling up in her car . Which brings me to a conclusion that suzy parked her own car there as she knew there wasn't a viewing at the property that day .

Another observation of mine is if the sighting of suzy in her car with a male by BW if this is correct and the sighting was afforded as the most factual given that BW knew suzy

.Why was passenger side seat not pulled back to allow for a taller passenger as BW observed a male in this seat and why was passenger door locked but not drivers side . why no fingerprints on handles from opening and closing a door

Why would a perp take the keys and house details of Shorrolds obvious reason would be if he was holding them in the passenger seat but suzy had to then willingly allow him into her car ,be willing to drive around from place to place and upon getting out at Stevenage had to lean over and lock the passenger side but not lock her own door ? and where did they go from Stevenage ?

Suzy was hardly dragged up the road while her or perp holding on to car keys, house keys ,house details etc all the while eluding anyone seeing them and perp possibly holding a weapon ,.Perp risking suzy screaming for help or creating a scene, even if she froze he would had to have coerced her up the street or into another car He would have risked been seen doing this on a busy enough street ,kids off school playing ,workmen ,taxi drivers and most importantly, housewives looking out of residential windows .

A witness says she seen a man in a smart suit and holding a briefcase walking along Stevenage Road. Could suzy have gone for a walk along the Thames with a known associate to discuss a business deal in the lunchtime sunshine and been pushed in and perp walked away up Stevenage Road and into his own car parked somewhere along his route .

To account for sightings of BMW and sighting of saloon type car with 2 men sitting in it . Suzys alleged abduction I'm sure wasn't the only criminal activity that day and other suspect activity that normally people would see in passing and ignore it was then put into the context of oh it must have something to do with suzy because it was suspicious to me

 

[lee sumner]

To be fair, AS' not mentioning this could just reflect a lack of thoroughness by the police themselves in 1986. DV has correctly pointed out that everything the police think they know about what was happening at the PoW came from just one person at the PoW (whether the PoW is relevant or not), who told them she never turned up there. Likewise everything they think they know about SJL's movements after 12.40 is based on the assumption that she was going to a viewing. DV contribution is to observe that, given there was a bit of a set-to that morning over whose bidder should be put to a vendor and it ended up not being hers, it might be she was a bit miffed. In which case, where else apart from to a viewing might she instead have gone? There's not going to be a lot about this in the police files because as far as we know they weren't curious about this at all.

I guess the challenge is that the odds would have to be very long against someone being randomly abducted by Unknown Person A shortly after she has put in her diary an appointment with a completely unrelated Unknown Person B who's not a pukka house buyer.

Long odds but not impossible - after all, she was living on the turf of at least five homicidal rapists - Cannan, Wright, Napper, Duffy, and Mulcahy - and they're only the ones we know about.

mr kipper is such a strange name, then SL goes missing after meeting this mysterious mr kipper. its obvious something sinister has happened to her.

 

[lee sumner]

While a possibility, perps will do stuff to throw the scent .but why would an unknown or known perpetrator take the keys and house details of Shorrolds or for that matter move the car at all and plenty of other out of sight places in fulham to abandon a car other than directly across from WJ house in the line of sight from any one of her windows ,that she could look out at any given moment or walk through her front door the car wasn't parked there discreetly in the middle of the night when everyone is sleeping

I personally don't buy any other scenario other than suzy parked that car herself. If she was taken into another vehicle on Whittingstall, why move it ,that's hassle and more risk of being caught . If she was taken at Shorrolds, again why move it . A criminal is not going to complicate things like that even if there was two perpetrators and certainly not under a Sturgis sign and if we pretend the perp was stupid and behaving erratically ,we'll have to also assume if he was this he would not have had the brain for meticulous planning and the cunning to hide a body for 38 years

The only other possibility is another colleague parked the car there and suzy never left the office but why not park nearer to her diary entry and if wrote in by someone else after the fact why not write Stevenage

i think the car was ditched at night time, it appears to have been ditched in a hurry with the handbrake off, and door unlocked.

 

[WestLondoner]

i think the car was ditched at night time, it appears to have been ditched in a hurry with the handbrake off, and door unlocked.

That's not possible though. It was found at 10pm having been there all day since no earlier than about 12.40.

 

[su5ie]

i think the car was ditched at night time, it appears to have been ditched in a hurry with the handbrake off, and door unlocked.

If car was ditched in the evening or night time
,we have to disregard the multiple witnesses who saw Suzy's car during the day .WJ may have indicated a specific timeline but other witness observed it throughout the day .

If we hypothesised that it was parked the night before we therefore have to conclude she was killed in Sturgis or never showed up to work at all. This would involve a lot of colluding by a hell of a lot of people including her flatmate .

A lot of women and I'm not being sexist we see it everyday in carparks common mistakes leaving handbrake off , problems parallel parking etc so the way Suzy’s car was parked is not an unusual thing for me tbh

 

[lee sumner]

A quirk of early mobile phones was that the range of numbers you could call from them was restricted. As late as the mid-1990s, I recall seeing ads on the Tube which consisted of a blank poster and the words "All the numbers you can't call from a Mercury 1-2-1 phone", it being a very big deal back then that you could now call anyone where previously you couldn't. I don't recall what numbers you couldn't call or why not, but this along with price was quite a big obstacle to mobile phone uptake back then.

The thing I don't understand about Mr Kipper, as a means of approaching estate agents you want to rape, is how you'd get around having to provide a phone number for yourself as Mr Kipper. Any agent you approached as a would-be buyer is going to want a contact number, or at least one where messages can be left. If we accept for argument's sake that someone really did approach other agents posing as Mr Kipper, and that these agents did report this in 1986 right after SJL disappeared, then Mr Kipper must have met none of them (why would a rapist go into the office where your target works?), but left a fake phone number with all of them, and thereby gone onto some of these other agents' contact list - but not onto others (e.g. Sturgis). If this happened, and other agents then rang the inquiry in 1986 and said Yeah, we had some guy phoned us calling himself Kipper, it tells you right away there was an actual person calling himself Mr Kipper. If there were none, or if these were all claims that originated 14 years later, it tells you there really was no such person. In that case he was either a figment of SJL's imagination, or was known to her under a different name which she did not identify in her diary. It's similar to the unfaithful spouse's latter day ruse of putting their bit on the side's number into their mobile phone as "Accounts" or "BT", so if s/he phones while the other half is around, the caller's supposed name coming up doesn't give the game away.

One possibility for which there's zero evidence but that the circumstances allow for is the "Afternoon Delight": Mr Kipper is one of SJL's current or ex-squeezes, who rings her up at work and demands an insta-sh*g. She writes down 37SR in the diary but goes somewhere else. I'm sure I recall a story in the Sun in the 80s about "randy house sales girls" doing this sort of thing...

great points you make. we dont even know if SL was even the target. he might have been after any female estate agent.