UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #7

[Konstantin]

Presumably they'd have shared any other such evidence with the CPS at least - the entirety of their case you'd imagine. Yet the CPS still declined to proceed.

Throughout the review of SJL's case, the review team kept on promising that they would have a suspect in custody at the end of the review. There are a few reports on the BBC where they kept on making that promise.

Of course, after so much time had elapsed, and given that the original investigation was run on paper cards and not computerized so sorting through all that information would have been a nightmare if not impossible, and given other less critical factors like SJL's mother being so influential -- finding evidence that could lead to prosecution was going to be very difficult. And there was no body, so the defence could even argue there was no murder here at all.

We've no idea what they have on Cannan but we do know that the CPS thought it was not enough to secure a guilty verdict and so not worth the money to prosecute. The crucial factor seems to be zero evidence that Cannan ever actually crossed paths with SJL at all. The Met could not find this crossing point.

But perhaps the Met wanted to make good on their promise to have a suspect in custody so leaned heavily onto the Cannan angle because there was no other angle, given the original investigation messed up so badly for many reasons that were not all because the police were bad. Even if he was never prosecuted, they could still say job done, we're not looking for anyone else (true, because the investigation went nowhere so why look). Cannan is a bad un and he looks like the Kipper photofit, he was in London at the time and had a fake numberplate on SB's car that was sort of like SJL's initials. Maybe it was him!

If a body turns up and there is some DNA or other crucial evidence of course this can all be reopened but the chances of that after all this time are very slim.

 

[lee sumner]

Jc had been out in hostel from as early as jan/feb

i suppose it depends on how much freedom he had, but no one ever seen a man fitting his description with SL, so i doubt he even knew her.

 

[Ljh21]

I think the CPS rejected the witness identifications because they were made in 2002 after potential witnesses watched the fifteen year old dating video of Cannan.

Looking at cannans wording in his letters and the letter posted after the sandra court murder i feel in no doubt it is the same person

 

[Ljh21]

Throughout the review of SJL's case, the review team kept on promising that they would have a suspect in custody at the end of the review. There are a few reports on the BBC where they kept on making that promise.

Of course, after so much time had elapsed, and given that the original investigation was run on paper cards and not computerized so sorting through all that information would have been a nightmare if not impossible, and given other less critical factors like SJL's mother being so influential -- finding evidence that could lead to prosecution was going to be very difficult. And there was no body, so the defence could even argue there was no murder here at all.

We've no idea what they have on Cannan but we do know that the CPS thought it was not enough to secure a guilty verdict and so not worth the money to prosecute. The crucial factor seems to be zero evidence that Cannan ever actually crossed paths with SJL at all. The Met could not find this crossing point.

But perhaps the Met wanted to make good on their promise to have a suspect in custody so leaned heavily onto the Cannan angle because there was no other angle, given the original investigation messed up so badly for many reasons that were not all because the police were bad. Even if he was never prosecuted, they could still say job done, we're not looking for anyone else (true, because the investigation went nowhere so why look). Cannan is a bad un and he looks like the Kipper photofit, he was in London at the time and had a fake numberplate on SB's car that was sort of like SJL's initials. Maybe it was him!

If a body turns up and there is some DNA or other crucial evidence of course this can all be reopened but the chances of that after all this time are very slim.

There was a tasman road murder of lorna st theresa hayles which was thought to have been comitted around 4 weeks before her body was found, knowing what cannan was like i feel it links to around the 28th of july and he may have befriended her in the weeks before and could have been for money value.

 

[tes1984]

There was a tasman road murder of lorna st theresa hayles which was thought to have been comitted around 4 weeks before her body was found, knowing what cannan was like i feel it links to around the 28th of july and he may have befriended her in the weeks before and could have been for money value.

I haven't really seen anything to connect Cannan to this murder. Lorna was seen alive on 1st August. She did say she was going to Putney on 27th July though, which is the day before Suzy disappeared.

 

[lee sumner]

Looking at cannans wording in his letters and the letter posted after the sandra court murder i feel in no doubt it is the same person

i read an article about sandra court murder, and it said she had been murdered by a freind she was out with that night. this so called friend after killing sandra then ditched her belongings to misdirect detectives, then wrote that letter. his family was said to have been aware what he did and were involved in the cover up. i dont know what to make of this, as we know SC made her way home alone. first to her sisters who was not home, then she was taken on her way home.

 

[Ljh21]

i read an article about sandra court murder, and it said she had been murdered by a freind she was out with that night. this so called friend after killing sandra then ditched her belongings to misdirect detectives, then wrote that letter. his family was said to have been aware what he did and were involved in the cover up. i dont know what to make of this, as we know SC made her way home alone. first to her sisters who was not home, then she was taken on her way home.

And we know cannan had use of the red sierra with her dna in and a pay and display ticket from bournemouth

 

[WestLondoner]

SC's possessions were found distributed along a likely route back to London by someone who was chucking them out of a car window.

Other explanations are possible, but this detail does at least fit with JC being the perp, and being in Southampton that afternoon before driving back to Wormwood Scrubs via the M3 (a route which, rather interestingly, would have taken him past the Sturgis office).

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Has it been considered, the possibility that SJL's colleague JC when he took her car out earlier that day he left it in the Mahon's property and it was then rolled out into the street later for police to find just after 10pm?

 

[Ljh21]

SC's possessions were found distributed along a likely route back to London by someone who was chucking them out of a car window.

Other explanations are possible, but this detail does at least fit with JC being the perp, and being in Southampton that afternoon before driving back to Wormwood Scrubs via the M3 (a route which, rather interestingly, would have taken him past the Sturgis office).

Just a quetion, if slp cancelled her chequebook but already knew it was at the pow then why cancel it?

 

[Ljh21]

SC's possessions were found distributed along a likely route back to London by someone who was chucking them out of a car window.

Other explanations are possible, but this detail does at least fit with JC being the perp, and being in Southampton that afternoon before driving back to Wormwood Scrubs via the M3 (a route which, rather interestingly, would have taken him past the Sturgis office).

Just a question, if slp cancelled her chequebook while at work but already knew it was at the pow then why cancel it

 

[Ljh21]

Just a question, if slp cancelled her chequebook while at work but already knew it was at the pow then why cancel it

Also if the pow had already called the bank to report the missing chequebook then if slp called the bank later they would have known it reported found surely and pow saying slp to collect her items at 6pm when in fact she had an appointment at that time means this must be a false statement. In conclusion 3 statements that are false.

 

[Cherwell]

Just a question, if slp cancelled her chequebook while at work but already knew it was at the pow then why cancel it

It is an obvious precaution because she would not know if someone had already made use of it.
And her initials are SJL not SLP.

Also if the pow had already called the bank to report the missing chequebook then if slp called the bank later they would have known it reported found surely and pow saying slp to collect her items at 6pm when in fact she had an appointment at that time means this must be a false statement. In conclusion 3 statements that are false.

Her initials are SJL not SLP.

It's unlikely that a specific appointment was made for 6 pm. That is when the pub opened, so it would have been understood that she needed to come after 6 pm, ie any time during opening hours. Six o'clock would have been mentioned, but not as a fixed time; there would be no need for that.

I don't follow your reasoning about the calls to the bank. It's natural that both the loser and the finder would call the bank about the chequebook. Where is the "false statement"?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

The day SJL disappeared Wendy Jones and Mrs Mahon apparently watched Pinocchio who is of course known for telling lies

 

[Ljh21]

It is an obvious precaution because she would not know if someone had already made use of it.
And her initials are SJL not SLP.

Her initials are SJL not SLP.

It's unlikely that a specific appointment was made for 6 pm. That is when the pub opened, so it would have been understood that she needed to come after 6 pm, ie any time during opening hours. Six o'clock would have been mentioned, but not as a fixed time; there would be no need for that.

I don't follow your reasoning about the calls to the bank. It's natural that both the loser and the finder would call the bank about the chequebook. Where is the "false statement"?

if they had already contacted sjl then why call the bank or is there just misinformation posted everywhere

 

[Kasparthecat1]

if they had already contacted sjl then why call the bank or is there just misinformation posted everywhere

My understanding is that SJL rang the bank herself to cancel the cheque book. She was then informed by the bank that it was being held at the POW. The bank did not contact her - there was no need. Did she continue to cancel it I wonder - if she did, there would have been no particular urgency to collect it at all. The bank would simply issue another.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

How did she find out that her diary was also at the POW? Did she simply assume that, after finding out her chequebook was there too?

 

[Ljh21]

How did she find out that her diary was also at the POW? Did she simply assume that, after finding out her chequebook was there

How did she find out that her diary was also at the POW? Did she simply assume that, after finding out her chequebook was there too?

it was said the landlord of the pow pub reported finding her chequebook outside the pub, which if we chose to think that if the items were not stolen then the only people who had access to them would be her bf, also we are assuming that they were lost and not removed before they even went out that evening, maybe even from any event over the weekend someone could have access to her items but most likely the bf or the pub/restaurant next door staff.

 

[Cherwell]

it was said the landlord of the pow pub reported finding her chequebook outside the pub, which if we chose to think that if the items were not stolen then the only people who had access to them would be her bf, also we are assuming that they were lost and not removed before they even went out that evening, maybe even from any event over the weekend someone could have access to her items but most likely the bf or the pub/restaurant next door staff.

It's been suggested that for privacy, when her flatmate was home, she used the telephone box which was then adjacent to the pub. That on this occasion it was occupied and she sat at one of the tables outside the pub while waiting, and somehow managed to leave the items on the table.

 

[Ljh21]

It's been suggested that for privacy, when her flatmate was home, she used the telephone box which was then adjacent to the pub. That on this occasion it was occupied and she sat at one of the tables outside the pub while waiting, and somehow managed to leave the items on the table.

I thought it was light rain that night?
So i would not have sat around outside

It's been suggested that for privacy, when her flatmate was home, she used the telephone box which was then adjacent to the pub. That on this occasion it was occupied and she sat at one of the tables outside the pub while waiting, and somehow managed to leave the items on the table.

i heard it was drizzle that weekend so i doubt she would have gone out to use the phone