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

[Klclevi]

Just some thoughts below! The perp has to be someone in her orbit, she was not a random pluck off the streets . She did not know JC and vice versa, this theory that it was him does not make any sense when you look at the practicalities (and realities) of his life at the time. Its just too remote a possibility that they would have been in any sort of relationship. He just fit the mold for the police when they wanted it to because they stuffed it up. The issue is at this time we only know of some people in her orbit, not all. There could be someone noone even knows about

Thought 1.
SJL and AL go out for dinner Friday night. They may have also gone to the POW for a bit but nothing happened in terms of losing the diary that night. She may have dumped him that Friday night , or seemed like she had lost interest more likely at that stage? She then takes off for the weekend with her bestie, has a flirtation with another man at the party on Saturday night. AL goes up on the Sunday to windsurf with her and friends, to try to spend some time with her or try to talk to her to win her back. But, no, she clearly had a reason to get back to London via her own means and not travel back with him on the Sunday night. This could have been to make a phone call from the POW phone box in private on her way home from her parents place Sunday night (to the new love interest?) and subsequently left her pocket diary etc outside. Where is this diary today ??

SJL then gets home to Putney flat Sunday night, (supposedly speaks to AL on the phone later - at this point she may have ended it with him -said she was seeing someone else etc) Could he have begged her to reconsider and meet him the next day in Fulham? ie AL coming to her and talking things out ) That may explain the made up diary entry and the reason she only took her purse. No need to get glammed up when you are trying to let someone down easy.

However, what does not make sense either way is the location of the Fiesta parking when she leaves the office (Whittingstall Road,or Radipole Road). If SJL did not know where the car was and had to ask before leaving, how would she have told AL (or anybody for that matter where it was?) (no mobiles, no texting in 1986). It is highly unlikely she was carjacked on a whim in those streets in the middle of the day, how would any perp know where she was going or what she was doing? Some random was just hanging out in either road waiting for a young woman to attack? Even if she was to meet someone she knew (AL or otherwise) at the car would have meant she would have to have called them from the office to tell them prior.

That would indicate that she got in the car by herself initially. Did she pick AL up from a planned location in Fulham,(ignoring 37SR sighting in this although she could have picked him up from there in a bid to make it look authentic? ) and spend the next two hours prior to 2.45pm negotiating their fledgling relationship or her trying to placate him if he knew about her other lovers/new one and was angry about it?

This is placing weight on the sighting at 2.45pm of Suzy driving the Fiesta with a passenger by someone she knew means she was alive at 2.45pm.

If indeed it was AL in the car with her - and I do realise its probably a long stretch for him to commit murder, do something with her body potentially at that time (unless he could have put it in a boot of another car etc or push her in the Thames - unlikely in broad daylight I know) and then drive the Fiesta to Stevenage Road by 4ish is also unlikely. The fact that the seat was pushed that far back and not put back to the original drivers position would indicate sloppiness on the drivers part in a rush to ditch the car and get out of there.

I say 4pm return in the Fiesta as apparently he made a phone call to Sturgis to speak to SJL about a party that was on the next night and left a message at 4.45pm (is this true?) . In the AS book it says he had meetings all day ( did he actually attend them) and had lunch with a friend (this could have been an early lunch or lasted all of 15minutes , made an excuse and got out of there) and then he stayed in his office after the meetings till 7pm because he had to go out for dinner. I figure his alibis have all been properly checked out and are solid but his behaviour at the interview was certainly left of field.

The phone call seems a bit odd - why that time? Why not call her Tuesday morning if he was so busy all of Monday? Did he make that phone call from a phone box to place himself somewhere he was not?

Having said this, WestLondoner you are quite right, it is some major baggage to carry around for
40 years. Could it have actually been an accidental crime of passion and he covered it up using SJLs family?

2. Someone at Sturgis is responsible. Fraud? Collusion and Sex? Dodgy cash under the table being taken for deals ? Seems unlikely murder would come of that. But..

Q. What is known about the property deal she pulled out of and the other party went bankrupt a week or so after ?Again unlikely .. But..

 

[WestLondoner]

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence putting JC in the frame for this, notably:

- he was on day release in the area for 6 months beforehand
- he was still an active criminal, stealing from the prop hire company he worked at
- he had access to a substantial amount of inherited cash
- he was mates with the hostel cook who had a council flat and possibly a garage around 6 minutes' walk from Shorrolds
- he made several payments on the cook's red Sierra
- someone drove the cook's red Sierra to Southampton the day SC was strangled; her possessions were found scattered along the obvious route back towards London from where she was left
- this killing happened the day SJL cancelled on someone unknown and went to Wales for the weekend instead
- his movements over the key days remain unknown
- he accidentally admitted to it when under police interrogation re SB
- he allegedly admitted to it to a girlfriend, who later retracted her statement, perhaps because she was afraid of him.

The attempt to charge him in 2000 failed when the CPS pointed out that the police had not shown they ever met. It is pretty clear from the nature of how she disappeared that she met a person she knew that Sturgis corporately did not. So the CPS are right to require proof that JC was known to her, IMO. "Mr Kipper" was not a random walk-in.

The reason the police case against Cannan is so profoundly unconvincing is that a number of key avenues of inquiry were overlooked or mishandled in 1986-7. Notably:

- they didn't check to see what sex offenders had recently been released from the 3 local prisons (there would have been 50 to 100 by that point in 1986), or where they now were.
- they didn't follow up on reports of an arguing couple in a dark LHD BMW and trace any local ones.
- they didn't identify every contact in SJL's diaries, even though she must have had some number for "Mr Kipper".
- they allowed the family to withhold evidence and misdirect the inquiry
- they assumed on Day 1 that HR's account was accurate and that she had been to 37SR, even though this was unravelling by the next day, when the house was forensicated and nobody had been inside*.
- as has been observed before, the really important scene was Stevenage Road and Langthorne Street, where someone like SJL and someone like Kipper were seen by MJ, a witness who lived at 139SR.
- the police assumed WJ's timings about the ditching of the car to be accurate. While it's just about possible, it is undermined by BW's account of SJL driving in her Fiesta at 2.45, and by a youth's sighting of a white Fiesta in that spot at 12 noon, which both undermine WJ.
- the police didn't explain these conflicting accounts; they explained them away.
- they do not seem to have considered the possibility that the seat position in the abandoned Fiesta resulted from someone ransacking it rather than someone tall having driven it.

By 2000, when the police were trying to pin this on Cannan, they faced the exquisite difficulty that none of the 1986 intelligence could be used. To do so would draw attention to why nothing had been done with it 15 years before. So the case they made against Cannan had to be confected from stuff gathered 15 years later, such as "I saw Cannan looking in an estate agent window" and "I saw a white Fiesta being driven erratically", as though anyone can remember the day this happened 15 years on.

AL was eliminated at the time because he manifestly had nothing to do with this. He was at work all day in the city and eleven statements taken showed as much.

* FWIW I still think that at least some of the sightings of Mr Kipper and TBN female near 37SR were in fact MG and SF, looking there for SJL

 

[su5ie]

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence putting JC in the frame for this, notably:

- he was on day release in the area for 6 months beforehand
- he was still an active criminal, stealing from the prop hire company he worked at
- he had access to a substantial amount of inherited cash
- he was mates with the hostel cook who had a council flat and possibly a garage around 6 minutes' walk from Shorrolds
- he made several payments on the cook's red Sierra
- someone drove the cook's red Sierra to Southampton the day SC was strangled; her possessions were found scattered along the obvious route back towards London from where she was left
- this killing happened the day SJL cancelled on someone unknown and went to Wales for the weekend instead
- his movements over the key days remain unknown
- he accidentally admitted to it when under police interrogation re SB
- he allegedly admitted to it to a girlfriend, who later retracted her statement, perhaps because she was afraid of him.

The attempt to charge him in 2000 failed when the CPS pointed out that the police had not shown they ever met. It is pretty clear from the nature of how she disappeared that she met a person she knew that Sturgis corporately did not. So the CPS are right to require proof that JC was known to her, IMO. "Mr Kipper" was not a random walk-in.

The reason the police case against Cannan is so profoundly unconvincing is that a number of key avenues of inquiry were overlooked or mishandled in 1986-7. Notably:

- they didn't check to see what sex offenders had recently been released from the 3 local prisons (there would have been 50 to 100 by that point in 1986), or where they now were.
- they didn't follow up on reports of an arguing couple in a dark LHD BMW and trace any local ones.
- they didn't identify every contact in SJL's diaries, even though she must have had some number for "Mr Kipper".
- they allowed the family to withhold evidence and misdirect the inquiry
- they assumed on Day 1 that HR's account was accurate and that she had been to 37SR, even though this was unravelling by the next day, when the house was forensicated and nobody had been inside*.
- as has been observed before, the really important scene was Stevenage Road and Langthorne Street, where someone like SJL and someone like Kipper were seen by MJ, a witness who lived at 139SR.
- the police assumed WJ's timings about the ditching of the car to be accurate. While it's just about possible, it is undermined by BW's account of SJL driving in her Fiesta at 2.45, and by a youth's sighting of a white Fiesta in that spot at 12 noon, which both undermine WJ.
- the police didn't explain these conflicting accounts; they explained them away.
- they do not seem to have considered the possibility that the seat position in the abandoned Fiesta resulted from someone ransacking it rather than someone tall having driven it.

By 2000, when the police were trying to pin this on Cannan, they faced the exquisite difficulty that none of the 1986 intelligence could be used. To do so would draw attention to why nothing had been done with it 15 years before. So the case they made against Cannan had to be confected from stuff gathered 15 years later, such as "I saw Cannan looking in an estate agent window" and "I saw a white Fiesta being driven erratically", as though anyone can remember the day this happened 15 years on.

AL was eliminated at the time because he manifestly had nothing to do with this. He was at work all day in the city and eleven statements taken showed as much.

* FWIW I still think that at least some of the sightings of Mr Kipper and TBN female near 37SR were in fact MG and SF, looking there for SJL

I agree re MG and SF being the man and woman that were sighted on Shorrolds . MG even looks like the sketch .

I have no doubt in my mind suzy met someone she knew that day that much should be abundantly clear and hold no question I imagine LE think exactly the same which is why they insist suzy must have known cannon .

I can't see suzy skipping work for a man she barely knew if we hypothesis the perp as cannon .

Suzy is portrayed as someone whom never skipped work and was someone whom could be relied upon and a lovely honest person. But this goes against the other known things about her such as her being secretive. In order to stimantanisely date four people, one must be able to not slip up ,a cunningness if you will . To me this speaks volumes about her personality and it appears quite cut throat. A type of narcissistic personality trait . I'm not judging her lifestyle she was entitled to do as she pleased and even with such relaxed dating etiquette nowadays . We still would frown upon someone who acted that way towards us .

She met up with someone that day for a reason that couldn't wait . Tbh I would look more closely at the 4 men she was stringing along at the time .

I have mentioned before about her going to the race track around the time she disappeared with an older man who she became afraid of that day . I think it was in the july He became very angry and frightened suzy prehaps he lost a lot of money I wonder was he looked at as a possible suspect .There was a lot of television crews there that day as it was the last time the major race was held there . And i would imagine a lot of archive footage exists I will see can I find my post .

 

[su5ie]

1986 British Grand Prix - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This was my previous post regarding the race

 

[Tombel]

I agree re MG and SF being the man and woman that were sighted on Shorrolds . MG even looks like the sketch .

I have no doubt in my mind suzy met someone she knew that day that much should be abundantly clear and hold no question I imagine LE think exactly the same which is why they insist suzy must have known cannon .

I can't see suzy skipping work for a man she barely knew if we hypothesis the perp as cannon .

Suzy is portrayed as someone whom never skipped work and was someone whom could be relied upon and a lovely honest person. But this goes against the other known things about her such as her being secretive. In order to stimantanisely date four people, one must be able to not slip up ,a cunningness if you will . To me this speaks volumes about her personality and it appears quite cut throat. A type of narcissistic personality trait . I'm not judging her lifestyle she was entitled to do as she pleased and even with such relaxed dating etiquette nowadays . We still would frown upon someone who acted that way towards us .

She met up with someone that day for a reason that couldn't wait . Tbh I would look more closely at the 4 men she was stringing along at the time .

I have mentioned before about her going to the race track around the time she disappeared with an older man who she became afraid of that day . I think it was in the july He became very angry and frightened suzy prehaps he lost a lot of money I wonder was he looked at as a possible suspect .There was a lot of television crews there that day as it was the last time the major race was held there . And i would imagine a lot of archive footage exists I will see can I find my post .

I agree that the four guys she was involved with should have been looked at closely. The AS book suggests that SJL did date a lot and that each time it ended amicably, with both parties remaining on friendly terms. I suppose that may have been the case, but I'd have thought that to be quite unusual. Maybe someone finally didn't take it well. I think she did have a narcissistic personality. Telling people that she had been placed in a window seat as the prettiest female in the office seems to support that as well. IMO

 

[WestLondoner]

To be scrupulously fair to SJL, she told her diary that, but I don't think we know if she said that to anyone IRL. Likewise the claim to have been hired on the spot by Sturgis appears in the diary but is not true.

 

[su5ie]

I agree that the four guys she was involved with should have been looked at closely. The AS book suggests that SJL did date a lot and that each time it ended amicably, with both parties remaining on friendly terms. I suppose that may have been the case, but I'd have thought that to be quite unusual. Maybe someone finally didn't take it well. I think she did have a narcissistic personality. Telling people that she had been placed in a window seat as the prettiest female in the office seems to support that as well. IMO

I would like a podcaster or a bbc/ freelance journalist to interview Andrew Stephens about his book and ask about what was left out of the book

I respect the remaining family members may still want to protect Suzy’s privacy but it may help in jogging people's memories or putting a piece together of the puzzle .

Many Internet sleuths help LE solve cold cases nowadays and surely enough time has passed to release all known information. Currently the Claudia Lawrence case is progressing due to independent podcasts and journalists on her disappearance . You cannot solve a case if only the good parts of a person's story are known . For all that we know ,suzy could have decided she had enough in life and committed suicide.

As there is nothing in the public domain to suggest she was taken and murdered . No evidence in her car of the property detail papers she allegedly had in her possession, no keys from 37 Shorrolds Road found. No evidence whatsoever of a stranger in her car .What use would they be to a potential murderer ? Even if she was taken from 37SR would they not be on the ground from a struggle. Allegedly one witness seen a blonde woman waiting outside 37 clutching said papers . I find it difficult to believe a perp would bother getting rid of those tbh . If your going to get rid of stupid things like these .why not burn the car out instead of leaving it in the open ? Is suicide not a possibility?

And if the road workers didn't notice anything unusual about her car or anything suspicious on that stretch of street at Stevenage. Could it be that there wasn't anything unusual?

 

[su5ie]

Can anyone access this article

 

[su5ie]

Was looking for old newspaper articles from end of July 1986 and came across this image of an article in the Scottish sun. It states a man was seen getting into the passenger seat of suzys car . Maybe the journalist was sensationalising the article but if its true it kind of changes a lot if anyone can find the rest of the article be greatly appreciated

 

[tes1984]

I have no doubt in my mind suzy met someone she knew that day that much should be abundantly clear

I can't see suzy skipping work for a man she barely knew if we hypothesis the perp as cannon .

She met up with someone that day for a reason that couldn't wait . Tbh I would look more closely at the 4 men she was stringing along at the time .

IMO it's far from abundantly clear that Suzy went to meet someone she knew.

She also wasn't necessarily skipping work, and might have gone to what she thought was a genuine viewing.

I'm not certain, but presumably Suzy's main squeezes made up quite a few of the eight major suspects who were seriously looked at.

 

[WestLondoner]

IMO it's far from abundantly clear that Suzy went to meet someone she knew.

She also wasn't necessarily skipping work, and might have gone to what she thought was a genuine viewing.

Never say never, but there are a number of reasons to think otherwise IMO.

First, probably no estate agent has ever gone to a viewing with an unknown party, not because of safety but because of timewasting. Then and now, if you walk into an estate agent saying you're a buyer, they want to know your budget, how you're paying, who's your solicitor, whether you have a mortgage offer, whether you have a property to sell and if so whom you've instructed, if you're dependent on that sale to be able to proceed, and what sort of area you are looking in. If they're not satisfied with all that they won't bother showing you any properties because it's not clear you're genuinely in a position to buy. In sales speak, I think this is called "qualifying the lead".

If Mr Kipper rang Sturgis out of the blue, he'd have had no way of controlling who he got connected to. It would have been whoever was not on the 'phone at that moment, so he had no certainty that he'd be able to speak to SJL. Ergo, either he was hoping to blag his way past all the above and speak to and entrap any female EA; or - which seems more likely - he must have known her extension already and called her directly. At the very least, he'd have known her name, so that if he rang and someone else picked up, he could say who he wanted to speak to. Nobody remembers connecting any call for SJL (that I have ever read).

There's thus no information about how that 12.45 came to be in her diary. If it was real, the obvious likelihood to me is that Kipper called her directly on her extension which he already knew, and made that appointment without anyone else knowing. Or, of course, it wasn't real at all. Either would explain how nobody at Sturgis knew anything about the name, or the supposed viewing.

From the timings I lean towards the idea that she went straight to 123SR and actually met someone there; both the name and 37SR entries were misdirections to explain why she was not at her desk. This points to some kind of personal errand otherwise she'd surely have said something to someone. Putting a porky in your diary isn't quite the same as lying to someone's face; she might complete her errand and get back unnoticed, in which case no porky would ever be detected.

 

[Konstantin]

There's thus no information about how that 12.45 came to be in her diary. If it was real, the obvious likelihood to me is that Kipper called her directly on her extension which he already knew, and made that appointment without anyone else knowing. Or, of course, it wasn't real at all. Either would explain how nobody at Sturgis knew anything about the name, or the supposed viewing.

And she trusted that he was a real appointment even though he apparently did not give her his first name, his surname sounds made up or like a prank call, and he did not give her any other details like a contact number to put in the Rolodex. Everything leans to it being a fake name that she made up to cover for her going to meet someone she knew -- "knew" doesn't have to mean a long term friendship or a boyfriend.

From the timings I lean towards the idea that she went straight to 123SR and actually met someone there; both the name and 37SR entries were misdirections to explain why she was not at her desk. This points to some kind of personal errand otherwise she'd surely have said something to someone. Putting a porky in your diary isn't quite the same as lying to someone's face; she might complete her errand and get back unnoticed, in which case no porky would ever be detected.

I agree with this. I don't think the sightings on Shorrolds mean that much. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I must have walked past hundreds of people this morning in central London and the only one I remember clearly or at all was a man dressed as a monk busking next to a sign asking people not to busk. People don't remember or notice much unless it stands out. The neighbour described someone being bundled into a car which he later retracted and he admitted he didnt see anyone actually going into or out of the house. I think she just put 37SR in as a cover, then popped over to Stevenage for something. The witness statements there suggest that the abduction most likely happened around there. As does fact her car was abandoned there.

 

[su5ie]

Never say never, but there are a number of reasons to think otherwise IMO.

First, probably no estate agent has ever gone to a viewing with an unknown party, not because of safety but because of timewasting. Then and now, if you walk into an estate agent saying you're a buyer, they want to know your budget, how you're paying, who's your solicitor, whether you have a mortgage offer, whether you have a property to sell and if so whom you've instructed, if you're dependent on that sale to be able to proceed, and what sort of area you are looking in. If they're not satisfied with all that they won't bother showing you any properties because it's not clear you're genuinely in a position to buy. In sales speak, I think this is called "qualifying the lead".

If Mr Kipper rang Sturgis out of the blue, he'd have had no way of controlling who he got connected to. It would have been whoever was not on the 'phone at that moment, so he had no certainty that he'd be able to speak to SJL. Ergo, either he was hoping to blag his way past all the above and speak to and entrap any female EA; or - which seems more likely - he must have known her extension already and called her directly. At the very least, he'd have known her name, so that if he rang and someone else picked up, he could say who he wanted to speak to. Nobody remembers connecting any call for SJL (that I have ever read).

There's thus no information about how that 12.45 came to be in her diary. If it was real, the obvious likelihood to me is that Kipper called her directly on her extension which he already knew, and made that appointment without anyone else knowing. Or, of course, it wasn't real at all. Either would explain how nobody at Sturgis knew anything about the name, or the supposed viewing.

From the timings I lean towards the idea that she went straight to 123SR and actually met someone there; both the name and 37SR entries were misdirections to explain why she was not at her desk. This points to some kind of personal errand otherwise she'd surely have said something to someone. Putting a porky in your diary isn't quite the same as lying to someone's face; she might complete her errand and get back unnoticed, in which case no porky would ever be detected.

I agree with all of this . I imagine if Mr kipper was a genuine client or a person who rang with bad intention to entrap a female estate agent . Suzy would have followed a protocol of logging at the very least a contact number .

I have mulled over numerous reasons she may not have logged any details if we hypothesis the diary entry is what suzy regarded as a genuinely interested client. . One being she had argued with NH over a property deal that morning with him winning the deal . That deal was worth a good commission rate to whomever sealed it . I had wondered if suzy concealed the details of a potential client for 37sr in order to earn herself commission that month and prevent one of the more senior agents "stealing "it from her . The property business can be quite cutthroat and I wouldn't be surprised if these kind of underhanded scenarios exist.

Overall though I do think it was a fake entry based on the name ,Kipper is not really a common surname. I do find it highly unusual that the bmw that was found was belonging to a Mr kiper and he was a business man , a diamond dealer to be precise.

This man was questioned and was cleared as to being in London on the day but his car being stolen was never explained. I did wonder if the police checked to see if he was in London at the time of the race meeting . Often these types of criminal businessmen don't get their hands dirty and he could have easily arranged from a distance suzys murder .

A far stretch of the imagination I know .but i feel people focus on what happened that day .whereas I feel the real details that should be looked at is the months ,weeks and days running up till the day of her disappearance. Suzy had vocalised her fear of individuals and although she didn't name names it doesn't change the fact she felt afraid enough to tell people

 

[su5ie]

Who is this woman whose skull was found in the North Sea?

Anyone see this ,I would like a few more details such as do they suspect the remains are historic

 

[tes1984]

I agree with all of this . I imagine if Mr kipper was a genuine client or a person who rang with bad intention to entrap a female estate agent . Suzy would have followed a protocol of logging at the very least a contact number .

Well Mr Kipper clearly wasn't a genuine client, but he may well have rang with bad intentions, and Suzy might have thought she was meeting a last minute, but genuine client.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

JC documentary on Sky Crime 8 and 9pm tonight.

 

[Konstantin]

JC documentary on Sky Crime 8 and 9pm tonight.

A new one?

 

[Kasparthecat1]

A new one?

No! It was disappointing really - it's one I've seen before. It was one of the "Worst Killers in Britain" series or some such. Mainly concentrated on SB and his rapes - sjl and SC getting some airtime at the end.

 

[lee sumner]

I agree re MG and SF being the man and woman that were sighted on Shorrolds . MG even looks like the sketch .

I have no doubt in my mind suzy met someone she knew that day that much should be abundantly clear and hold no question I imagine LE think exactly the same which is why they insist suzy must have known cannon .

I can't see suzy skipping work for a man she barely knew if we hypothesis the perp as cannon .

Suzy is portrayed as someone whom never skipped work and was someone whom could be relied upon and a lovely honest person. But this goes against the other known things about her such as her being secretive. In order to stimantanisely date four people, one must be able to not slip up ,a cunningness if you will . To me this speaks volumes about her personality and it appears quite cut throat. A type of narcissistic personality trait . I'm not judging her lifestyle she was entitled to do as she pleased and even with such relaxed dating etiquette nowadays . We still would frown upon someone who acted that way towards us .

She met up with someone that day for a reason that couldn't wait . Tbh I would look more closely at the 4 men she was stringing along at the time .

I have mentioned before about her going to the race track around the time she disappeared with an older man who she became afraid of that day . I think it was in the july He became very angry and frightened suzy prehaps he lost a lot of money I wonder was he looked at as a possible suspect .There was a lot of television crews there that day as it was the last time the major race was held there . And i would imagine a lot of archive footage exists I will see can I find my post .

i think office manager MG would have took a male staff member with him to 37 shorrolds rd. why does everyone assume it was SF. if there was trouble at 37SHRD, then MG probably took a male as back up.

 

[Cherwell]

i think office manager MG would have took a male staff member with him to 37 shorrolds rd. why does everyone assume it was SF. if there was trouble at 37SHRD, then MG probably took a male as back up.

In a situation where a female may be in distress, she may be more comfortable with another female. The police routinely do this.