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

[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.

Also if we stick to facts we chose to believe the bf saying she lost her items but if not true then that leaves the bf only who could place her items and as she spoke nothing of them missing over the whole weekend this would seem strange as she had contact with close friends and family and would only leave sunday as the day to leave her items outside the pub

 

[WestLondoner]

A soft argument against her losing her stuff on Friday is that it would have been obvious where they went missing, if that's when it happened. It depends when she noticed I guess.

 

[Ljh21]

A soft argument against her losing her stuff on Friday is that it would have been obvious where they went missing, if that's when it happened. It depends when she noticed I guess.

I was thinking the items that were missing were items that could have information about what she was doing recently, so the purse had no value also if al took the items that makes sense as he would want to know that info and sjl would know they were missing if the purse was missing too and that is if they were ever missing at all as only al says this

 

[Ljh21]

IIRC none, but the assertion that SJL's DNA had been found is misleading because as I recall what was found was a 60% match. This doesn't mean there's a 60% probability that it's hers, apparently; it just means it's a match with 60% of the population, including her. This a lot less persuasive of her having been in that car because it really just narrows it down to her or 30 million other people. Even a 99% match would include 600 000 people.

Welcome to the thread

The keys to 37SR are a vexed question. The early reconstructions suggested that colleagues remembered her taking the keys, that witnesses saw her outside 37SR with them and that she was seen and heard her leaving 37SR having been inside. The police forensication in contrast said that nobody had been inside that day. In AS' book, MG is said to have searched inside the house before he called the police. In DV's book, MG would have gone for lunch before she needed the keys, and it's not obvious why anyone else would have remembered her taking them. All this casts doubt on whether she took them. Fogging the picture still more, a witness in the house opposite where her car was found in Stevenage Road said it was already there by 12.50. This makes it very hard for her to have been at 37SR at 12.45 before or 1pm after that viewing, and if true, points to there not having been one.

The police did look at whether she was involved with anyone in the office and concluded not. There are really only three candidates - MG, NH and the guy who was abroad on hols that week. We can eliminate the latter, and also NH for being 18yo to her 25. This leaves only MG, who does actually resemble the Kipper sketches IMO. But then if these were a description of men seen at the property that day, well, MG was there all right - looking for SJL.

The role of the keys was an important detail to bottom out, which does not appear to have been done.

How convenient to be able to place yourself there as looking for sjl but forensics said no-one had been in sr that day so how come forensics are so wrong

 

[Ljh21]

How convenient to be able to place yourself there as looking for sjl but forensics said no-one had been in sr that day so how come forensics are so wrong

Also i would find it quite easy to write o/s in anyones handwriting style after a few practise runs

 

[Ljh21]

Was it MG that got HR to state that he saw a man bundling a woman into a car?

My thought too!

 

[Ljh21]

My thought too!

I wonder was the investigation being looked into or questions being asked to mg at the time of the report of the jogger coming forward, if so maybe someone was feeling the heat as it were

 

[Ljh21]

I don't think so. The pointers were her car in his garage and her thumbprint on a document in his flat.

There was DNA evidence in the Reading rape. With the haberdashery shop rape he was caught while fleeing IIRC.

Also this occured near deadmans lane , can you believe that!

 

[Ljh21]

My thought too!

Maybe do a thread with peoples top 5 suspects , one conclusion i always come to is uaually the last person to see her alive.
Eg ian huntley

 

[RichardKimble]

I don't think so. The pointers were her car in his garage and her thumbprint on a document in his flat.

There was DNA evidence in the Reading rape. With the haberdashery shop rape he was caught while fleeing IIRC.

The SJL disappearance doesn't fit in with him leaving evidence.

 

[WestLondoner]

The SJL disappearance doesn't fit in with him leaving evidence.

Exactly. In every other case before and since he was neglectful of leaving evidence; in the Reading rape, given he'd just raped someone, WTF did he think was the point of wiping the fingerprints away? Fingerprints weren't going to be the evidence relied on.

 

[Ljh21]

Yes. HR said he heard a door slamming but when he was reinterviewed he admitted that the door slamming could have been the other side, not number 37.

He also retracted his testimony that he had seen a man "bundling" a woman into a car.

The house was forensically examined using the technology of the day which would have been mostly latent prints and nothing belonging to SJL was found, or presumably to anyone else with her. You'd expect, if she went inside the house, for her to have left prints or partial prints on door handles, possibly on counters or light switches depending. If someone had gone in with her they might have been more cautious about touching anything. But there were no prints found and no evidence of anything being moved or disturbed. If SJL did go in -- which there is no evidence for -- she did not touch anything and was not assaulted in the house. Assaulting someone in a terraced house in broad daylight would have been messy anyway because anyone in the neighbouring homes would hear something.

So SJL might have gone to Shorrolds Road but that is far from determined as fact. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable which is why CCTV cameras are such a game changer. Cameras don't lie or misremember.

So the last known facts are
she called her bank
She had been told her personal belongings were at the prince of wales
She left her place of work at around 12:30 ish
Conclusion
If not abducted and shorrolds was a fake entry as no proof of ever being there then if i were her and i had time i would be collecting my personal belongings
You could argue that she was to collect them at 6pm but that is if you believe the staff at pow as unproven statement.

 

[Ljh21]

So the last known facts are
she called her bank
She had been told her personal belongings were at the prince of wales
She left her place of work at around 12:30 ish
Conclusion
If not abducted and shorrolds was a fake entry as no proof of ever being there then if i were her and i had time i would be collecting my personal belongings
You could argue that she was to collect them at 6pm but that is if you believe the staff at pow as unproven statement.

Also her personal items being there are a red flag, if the crime had occured at the pow that would explain needing the items in case someone may have seen her there thus providing an excuse as it were

 

[Ljh21]

Also her personal items being there are a red flag, if the crime had occured at the pow that would explain needing the items in case someone may have seen her there thus providing an excuse as it were

sjl was never on stevenage road because of the way the car was parked purse left door open seat back.

 

[Ljh21]

sjl was never on stevenage road because of the way the car was parked purse left door open seat back.

If i was clever enough i would think that the distance and placing of the car makes getting back to pow look like a highly unlikely spot to leave it as either bridge is a fair distance when the car could have been left on the other side of the thames for ease but would make pow more suspect

 

[Konstantin]

Exactly. In every other case before and since he was neglectful of leaving evidence; in the Reading rape, given he'd just raped someone, WTF did he think was the point of wiping the fingerprints away? Fingerprints weren't going to be the evidence relied on.

Yes, exactly. Cannan had appalling impulse control (a hallmark of many criminals) and committed crimes on impulse leaving a trail behind him. I don't think he was a brilliant criminal mastermind strategist, just a psychopath with poor impulse control. Antisocial personality disorder in the extreme.

I mean in some ways this might fit with abducting someone in broad daylight when they were due back at work, if the initial meeting was not planned just as a meeting and not as the start of an abduction. It's a stupid and reckless thing to do and could have been based on Cannan losing his rag, but he was fresh out of his hostel so if he had no place to take her to...how did he conceal her? We are back to the mystery of why there was no evidence or trace of him. Perhaps the Met were just that bad.

 

[lee sumner]

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

i heard it was a strand of hair consistent with SC. without the root there is no way to get proper DNA.

 

[WestLondoner]

So the last known facts are
she called her bank
She had been told her personal belongings were at the prince of wales
She left her place of work at around 12:30 ish
Conclusion
If not abducted and shorrolds was a fake entry as no proof of ever being there then if i were her and i had time i would be collecting my personal belongings
You could argue that she was to collect them at 6pm but that is if you believe the staff at pow as unproven statement.

This is more or less DV's argument.

The trouble with it is that he has not shown the pub was closed and hence that SJL walked into an attackable situation. The handover stocktake at the pub was done by noon, so there seems no reason why it could not have opened normally. Even if the pub weren't doing food (I think it was, but not all pubs that do food do it all day), this would mean two or three staff* being about the place, plus any billy bunters who rocked up. Someone would have remembered that visit. Soooooo, either it was open normally and she never turned up or it was closed and she arranged to go there even so. We've no reason or evidence that would lead one to think it was closed.

sjl was never on stevenage road because of the way the car was parked purse left door open seat back.

There were quite a few sightings of someone who could have been SJL near 123SR. So for my money, her presence there is actually better supported than her presence outside 37SR. The car to me looks like it could have been ditched or could perhaps have been stopped in haste, rather than parked. The seat was pushed back further than she'd need to push it back, which along with the unlocked driver's door and purse in the door pocket suggests it was ditched by a different driver.

However, these could also point to it being parked in haste and then searched / ransacked by someone looking for something in a hurry. The Shorrolds keys? Property particulars she'd brought that pointed to where she'd been, i.e. sites to be searched? An abductor's personal effects that would tie him to the scene? If you're the killer Fred Q. Kipper, and your tieclip monogrammed "FQK" went missing in a struggle at some point that day, you're going to want to find that - or at least make sure it didn't go missing in her car.

The ransacking idea also foots with the print evidence from the car. It had not been wiped down, so if Kipper went inside it, he did so with gloves on. He can't have done this while she was innocently driving him, for obvious reasons. But his going back later to search the car would explain the seat position, lack of prints, etc.

* barman, washer-up, maybe cellar guy if any barrel wanted changing

 

[Ljh21]

This is more or less DV's argument.

The trouble with it is that he has not shown the pub was closed and hence that SJL walked into an attackable situation. The handover stocktake at the pub was done by noon, so there seems no reason why it could not have opened normally. Even if the pub weren't doing food (I think it was, but not all pubs that do food do it all day), this would mean two or three staff* being about the place, plus any billy bunters who rocked up. Someone would have remembered that visit. Soooooo, either it was open normally and she never turned up or it was closed and she arranged to go there even so. We've no reason or evidence that would lead one to think it was closed.

There were quite a few sightings of someone who could have been SJL near 123SR. So for my money, her presence there is actually better supported than her presence outside 37SR. The car to me looks like it could have been ditched or could perhaps have been stopped in haste, rather than parked. The seat was pushed back further than she'd need to push it back, which along with the unlocked driver's door and purse in the door pocket suggests it was ditched by a different driver.

However, these could also point to it being parked in haste and then searched / ransacked by someone looking for something in a hurry. The Shorrolds keys? Property particulars she'd brought that pointed to where she'd been, i.e. sites to be searched? An abductor's personal effects that would tie him to the scene? If you're the killer Fred Q. Kipper, and your tieclip monogrammed "FQK" went missing in a struggle at some point that day, you're going to want to find that - or at least make sure it didn't go missing in her car.

The ransacking idea also foots with the print evidence from the car. It had not been wiped down, so if Kipper went inside it, he did so with gloves on. He can't have done this while she was innocently driving him, for obvious reasons. But his going back later to search the car would explain the seat position, lack of prints, etc.

* barman, washer-up, maybe cellar guy if any barrel wanted changing

Sjl may have agreed to meet at a location rather than at pub then i still cannot let go of the fact member of staff had her personal belongings and can just say they were left on the doorstep

 

[Ljh21]

Sjl may have agreed to meet at a location rather than at pub then i still cannot let go of the fact member of staff had her personal belongings and can just say they were left on the doorstep

Or al left them there as his prints were said to be all over the car