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

[rvlvr]

My understanding is that he did give an alibi - he says I think that he went directly to his mother's home in the West Midlands by train. I'm not sure though at what point in the investigation he gave this statement, or even if he did at all, because by the time LE got around to checking it, the corroborating witnesses had passed away (sister and mother). Convenient.

Yep. Cannan told DV he was first questioned by the Met re SL’s disappearance in 1989.

From DV’s book (chapter 64):

We were particularly interested in Cannan’s whereabouts around the time Suzy had gone missing. We asked Cannan about his alibi and what he said next was rather interesting:

“My mother and I provided the Met with my simple alibi for 28 July 1986. We were in Birmingham nearly all day on Monday, 28 July. Had the Met acted quicker, my sister and brother-in-law would have provided 100 per cent watertight corroboration. Both, sadly, are now dead. What I do remember well is how frustrated and surprised we felt by the pedestrian pace of the Met to interview us all.”

DV later writes:

Back in the summer of 1990, following renewed media pressure about the case, the police had gone back to Cannan again and interviewed him at length over the summer months. They’d spoken with several people in the Birmingham area who’d confirmed that they had seen Cannan in the West Midlands on the day Suzy went missing. By September 1990, police said that no further questioning was planned, and by October 1990, police were adamant that there was no evidence to support a charge.

To say Cannan had selective amnesia doesn’t really seem fair. And throughout the 1990s the Met seemed completely uninterested in him as a suspect - understandably so, imo. Coincidentally or otherwise they seemed to do a complete u-turn at the same time DL wrote to them with her ‘tip’ from the ‘prison education system’ that turned out to be, as DV put it, “a twisting of the truth.”

 

[rvlvr]

The flak DV gets is weird, imo. His book is perfectly fine - neatly written and obviously well researched, he clearly spent a lot of his own time and money tracking down and re-interviewing witnesses who can’t have been easy to find. His theory isn’t outlandish and it certainly isn’t without evidence. I don’t know if I share his view of what happened but compared to the many TV shows dedicated to the case that simply regurgitate the same old rubbish I found ‘Finding Suzy’ a breath of fresh air.

For the public, I think the harsh reality is that without the Mr Kipper angle the story loses a lot of its lustre, while the police, the family and the media all have a vested interest in maintaining the official narrative. But in truth after 40 years of huffing and puffing they and we know about as much now as was known back then, which is - frankly - sod all.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Yep. Cannan told DV he was first questioned by the Met re SL’s disappearance in 1989.

From DV’s book (chapter 64):



DV later writes:



To say Cannan had selective amnesia doesn’t really seem fair. And throughout the 1990s the Met seemed completely uninterested in him as a suspect - understandably so, imo. Coincidentally or otherwise they seemed to do a complete u-turn at the same time DL wrote to them with her ‘tip’ from the ‘prison education system’ that turned out to be, as DV put it, “a twisting of the truth.”

I've often wondered about how much the interest in JC following DLs "tip" was as much about appeasing the Lamplughs as it was about nailing the perp. Is it DVs book that suggests the link between JC, his ex and the Lamplughs' lawyer Sir David Napley?

 

[rvlvr]

Correct. Cannan had had a relationship with a solicitor, AR. After the relationship turned sour, Cannan had made official complaints about AR’s behaviour, and this resulted in her “having to confess the adulterous affair to her husband and resigning from her law firm.”

AR was related to Napley. DV suggests (not unreasonably, imo) that Napley had planted the idea in the Lamplughs’ heads that Cannan was Suzy’s killer. And despite the Met finding no evidence to link Cannan to Suzy, never mind to her disappearance, Diana in particular wasn’t the type to simply let things lie. I think the Met had grown tired of her by the end of the 90s and wanted her off their backs.

Edit: sp

 

[Klclevi]

The flak DV gets is weird, imo. His book is perfectly fine - neatly written and obviously well researched, he clearly spent a lot of his own time and money tracking down and re-interviewing witnesses who can’t have been easy to find. His theory isn’t outlandish and it certainly isn’t without evidence. I don’t know if I share his view of what happened but compared to the many TV shows dedicated to the case that simply regurgitate the same old rubbish I found ‘Finding Suzy’ a breath of fresh air.

For the public, I think the harsh reality is that without the Mr Kipper angle the story loses a lot of its lustre, while the police, the family and the media all have a vested interest in maintaining the official narrative. But in truth after 40 years of huffing and puffing they and we know about as much now as was known back then, which is - frankly - sod all.

Completely agree .
I wonder if DV is contactable for a group teams discussion...

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Really? The guy’s dead, so presumably there’s nothing to stop this stuff being released now, if it exists.

I tend to think that the remaining Lamplughs will need to be long gone before this happens, sadly. I believe some tapings from the Fiesta are in existence, though, yet to be tested (or the results kept quiet, perhaps, for some reason...).

 

[Lucygem000]

Could you take a look at this Youtube I made on Sandra Court a case not as well known as Suzy's but also believed to have been killed by John Canan

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Yep. Cannan told DV he was first questioned by the Met re SL’s disappearance in 1989.

This aspect of the investigation has always intrigued me. In my mind, I'd always assumed that JC MUST have been in the frame as a suspect almost immediately in order for him to be named Prime Suspect later on. But apart from him "looking like Mr Kipper" (same could be said of many men, as has been repeated many times on here) what exactly is there to link him? What exactly makes LE so insistent that he's the perp I wonder?

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Could you take a look at this Youtube I made on Sandra Court a case not as well known as Suzy's but also believed to have been killed by John Canan

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Count me in! Another intriguing unsolved case.

 

[SteveH]

Yep. Cannan told DV he was first questioned by the Met re SL’s disappearance in 1989.

From DV’s book (chapter 64):



DV later writes:



To say Cannan had selective amnesia doesn’t really seem fair. And throughout the 1990s the Met seemed completely uninterested in him as a suspect - understandably so, imo. Coincidentally or otherwise they seemed to do a complete u-turn at the same time DL wrote to them with her ‘tip’ from the ‘prison education system’ that turned out to be, as DV put it, “a twisting of the truth.”

It isn't a question of "selective amnesia". Cannan was a liar, psychopath and fantasist. Why should we believe a word the man said?

He had the cheek to write to the Mirror in 2023 complaining about the police and rehashing his silly Birmingham alibi story:

"Now, weeks after being denied parole, Cannan has written to the Mirror insisting he did not kill Suzy and accuses the police of prejudice against him. He claimed detectives on the case had pointed the finger to “divert public attention away from themselves”.

He wrote: “I was not involved in the disappearance of London estate agent, Suzy Lamplugh. I have an alibi.” He claimed that on July 28, 1986, the day Suzy disappeared, he had been in Birmingham “treating my mother to a spot of lunch”.

He went on: “I think it’s to divert public attention away from themselves. I have been deeply suspicious of them.” He accused the police of “unfair and unjust” behaviour towards him. He wrote: “They have generated such huge prejudice against me that it has caused me to lose faith in the world. The evil in prejudice lies... in the very nature of prejudice itself. It’s a horrible and divisive thing. I know, I’m living under it.”

Cannan ranted that the “moral gods of our society” should “take note” of a biblical passage which reads: “There are those who are clean in their own eyes but are not washed of their filth.”

Signing off his letter J CANNAN, he wrote: “In my view, the greatest evil of all is the evil done in the name of freedom and the public good.”"

A more egregious piece of self-serving tripe it is difficult to imagine.

Suzy Lamplugh murder suspect's desperate plea as he insists 'I have an alibi'

Convicted rapist and murderer John Cannan claims that, on the day Suzy disappeared, he was treating his mother to lunch

www.birminghammail.co.uk

See Suzy Lamplugh murder suspect's desperate plea as he insists 'I have an alibi'

I haven't read DV's or any other books about the case. I don't intend to. I'm not shelling out good money for these when so much is available on the internet. But who are these "several people in the Birmingham area who’d confirmed that they had seen Cannan in the West Midlands on the day Suzy went missing." As this was in 1990 how in hell would they remember seeing Cannan on a particular day in 1986. Another fantasy methinks.

From the Property Industry Eye piece:

"Videcette said: “Like most people, I originally believed that Cannan must have been responsible for Suzy Lamplugh’s disappearance and murder, because that is the narrative that has been perpetuated by the police and in the media over the past few decades."

When anyone starts banging on about "narratives perpetuated by police and...media" my suspicions are immediately raised. Not that I am a fan of the police or certain sections of the media. But it seems to me that DV has to present a new take on the case in order to get attention for his book. And like he says about Cannan's involvement is there really a "shred of evidence" to support his theory? Just because the "official" line is tiresome, boring and has been "regurgitated" endlessly doesn't make it wrong. But I suppose some people like to take up an alternative, rather outré theory as it makes them feel superior to the rest of us "sheeple".

DV reminds me of other publicity seeking, disgruntled ex-detectives with a grudge like Bleksley and Williams-Thomas who seem to spend their entire lives popping up on "the media" slagging off the rozzers and trying to promote their books, lecture tours etc. And don't mention "The UK's top criminologist" (make that the UK's most over-exposed criminologist) David Wilson. Do he and his sidekick Mils rally believe that Cannan dropped a suitcase with Suzy's body in it in a four feet deep canal in broad daylight in front of a witness who heard a big splash? C'mon! Was he THAT stupid?

No idea what happened to Suzy. Maybe she committed suicide by jumping in the Thames. Maybe Cannan DID kidnap and kill her. Maybe she choked on a ham sandwich in the Prince of Wales when she went to collect her stuff and they buried her in the cellar or she ended up in their meat pies.

PS Anyone else remember dreadful "Fulham" punk band the Lurkers?

Their hardcore fans were called "The Fulham Boys" - despite many of these followers coming from places like Southall and Kingston.

"Contrary to popular myth, only Arturo their bassist came from Fulham – the reason their debut LP was called Fulham Fallout was because they had a massive fan base there."

The Lurkers - Punk 77

The Lurkers were a London punk band formed in 1976, playing minimalist 3 chord tunes in a Ramones style and did 2 albums and numerous singles.

punk77.co.uk

The punch line.

In 1979 the band released a punk-by-numbers song called 'Suzie Is A Floozie" on their four-track single 'Out In The Dark'. Check it out on YouTube if you are a masochist.

"****** around with all and sundry
Different boyfriend every day"

Misogynists!

 

[Kasparthecat1]

Didn't someone, thought to be Cannan, write to a paper (Mirror again, perhaps?) in the aftermath of the Sandra Court murder, claiming that "he didn't mean it - it was an accident" ? (Yet to watch the vid posted above).

 

[rvlvr]

He had the cheek to write to the Mirror in 2023 complaining about the police and rehashing his silly Birmingham alibi story

On what basis are you calling it silly?

DV reminds me of other publicity seeking, disgruntled ex-detectives with a grudge like Bleksley and Williams-Thomas who seem to spend their entire lives popping up on "the media" slagging off the rozzers and trying to promote their books, lecture tours etc.

When was the last time you saw DV doing this?

Play the ball, not the man, as my old man would say.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

For those of us in the UK, note that The Suzy Lamplugh Mystery is on Sky Crime at 4pm today.

 

[rvlvr]

Yep. Cannan told DV he was first questioned by the Met re SL’s disappearance in 1989.

This aspect of the investigation has always intrigued me. In my mind, I'd always assumed that JC MUST have been in the frame as a suspect almost immediately in order for him to be named Prime Suspect later on. But apart from him "looking like Mr Kipper" (same could be said of many men, as has been repeated many times on here) what exactly is there to link him? What exactly makes LE so insistent that he's the perp I wonder?

I think it’s worth looking at what ‘Albert Clyne’ (Clearly Bent?), “a former senior member of the [2000] reinvestigation team”, told DV in chapter 51 of his book:

Police found and forensically examined the red Ford Sierra that John Cannan had had access to back in 1986 but “apart from saying Cannan had been in the car, there was nothing else”.

They also had some witnesses come forward to say JC had been in Fulham at the time:

One witness claimed to have been persistently asked out by Cannan after he saw her in a shop. Another claimed that they’d seen Cannan looking through the window of Sturgis estate agency. A taxi driver claimed that he’d dropped Cannan off in Fulham near to Shorrolds Road on the day of Suzy going missing. And the last witness claimed that Cannan had looked round her house for sale, in Shorrolds Road, without booking an appointment. Albert told us she claimed that Cannan had been scared off when he became aware of her husband’s presence in the house.

Some of these are clearly more credible than others - isn’t it more likely that the man ‘looking through the Sturgis window’ was actually just looking at property listings which were displayed in the Sturgis window, and would Cannan have required a taxi given we know he’d had access to a vehicle?

Clyne also goes over the photofit ‘evidence’, though he apparently concedes that HR - the star Shorrolds Road witness, no less - was never asked to identify Cannan (Clyne apparently incorrectly thought HR was dead in 2000).

But I think the most important part of this chapter is when Clyne explains on what basis suspects were ruled out:

“Were they in Fulham at the time? Did they know Suzy? Were they in a relationship or previous relationship with her?”

This criteria is oddly narrow but even then Cannan doesn’t tick any boxes - there’s nothing placing him in Fulham on the day of Suzy’s abduction, and no evidence that he knew her, never mind that he’d been in a relationship with her! The whole thing is utterly preposterous.

 

[rvlvr]

Didn't someone, thought to be Cannan, write to a paper (Mirror again, perhaps?) in the aftermath of the Sandra Court murder, claiming that "he didn't mean it - it was an accident" ? (Yet to watch the vid posted above).

The letter was sent to police, and the handwriting style apparently bore clear similarities to Cannan's.

FWIW I think it’s very likely he killed Sandra - a pay and display parking ticket was supposedly found amongst his things, placing Cannan’s Sierra in Bournemouth around the time of the murder. Hair belonging to Sandra was found in the car, too. I’m guessing police couldn’t rule out the possibility someone else had had access to the vehicle at the time - DV says in his book that, according to Clyne, the car had been purchased with another inmate.

But there are similarities with the murder of Shirley Banks, such as the opportunistic nature of the attack - Sandra was alone and vulnerable - and the fact that, like Shirley, her body was discovered in water.

Sandra’s case is a good counter imo to the idea that police don’t reveal evidence - we know what they have in relation to Sandra’s murder, but still a prosecution wasn’t pursued. It’s been 23 years since they named him as Suzy’s killer, JMO but if the Met had anything on JC we’d know about it by now.

 

[tes1984]

If Sandra's hair had been found in JC's car, then he would definitely have been prosecuted for the murder.

 

[rvlvr]

If Sandra's hair had been found in JC's car, then he would definitely have been prosecuted for the murder.

But it wasn’t just ‘his’ car.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

If Sandra's hair had been found in JC's car, then he would definitely have been prosecuted for the murder.

I get the sense that although it could indeed have been Sandra's hair, it could also have been any number of other people's.

He shared the car with another man, JT, so although the parking ticket placed he car in Bournemouth, it could be argued that it was being driven by either of the men. And even if it WERE Sandra's hair iirc both Sandra and JC would need to be placed together at the same time in the vehicle.

I think the crucial element of this story is the timing. JC would have been under curfew at the Hostel at the time; as the crime likely took place in the early hours of the morning g we have to believe that the curfew was not being applied as it should have been that night.

From reading CBD's book on JC, it was believed he was visiting a girlfriend at the time. GP the iceskater perhaps.

I think he's a good candidate for this murder, although other commentators believe it was a local man.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

I think it’s worth looking at what ‘Albert Clyne’ (Clearly Bent?), “a former senior member of the [2000] reinvestigation team”, told DV in chapter 51 of his book:

Police found and forensically examined the red Ford Sierra that John Cannan had had access to back in 1986 but “apart from saying Cannan had been in the car, there was nothing else”.

They also had some witnesses come forward to say JC had been in Fulham at the time:



Some of these are clearly more credible than others - isn’t it more likely that the man ‘looking through the Sturgis window’ was actually just looking at property listings which were displayed in the Sturgis window, and would Cannan have required a taxi given we know he’d had access to a vehicle?

Clyne also goes over the photofit ‘evidence’, though he apparently concedes that HR - the star Shorrolds Road witness, no less - was never asked to identify Cannan (Clyne apparently incorrectly thought HR was dead in 2000).

But I think the most important part of this chapter is when Clyne explains on what basis suspects were ruled out:

“Were they in Fulham at the time? Did they know Suzy? Were they in a relationship or previous relationship with her?”

This criteria is oddly narrow but even then Cannan doesn’t tick any boxes - there’s nothing placing him in Fulham on the day of Suzy’s abduction, and no evidence that he knew her, never mind that he’d been in a relationship with her! The whole thing is utterly preposterous.

I've just finished watching the Sky Crime doc - seems to be a composite of earlier stuff spliced with overhead drone shots, perhaps to make it look more modern. Clyne appears along with Mike Barley and Pete Johnstone, and they seem to be at odds with one another in their conclusions. Barley thinks Sjl drove directly to Stevenage to meet "Kipper" to save the hassle of parking at Shorrolds, which was busier. They then both travelled, presumably in Kipper's vehicle, to Shorrolds to be seen by the witnesses there. This makes WJs sightings correct regarding the Fiesta (but does not address why the car was parked with the handbrake off, the purse in and unlocked.

Clyne thinks they did indeed go to Shorrolds first, then to Stevenage to view another property. He is not pressed on which property that could have been.

Barley (I think) admits that JCs name was indeed in police files at an early stage (pethaps as a recently-released sex offender) but not followed up. Malcolm Hackett gets flack for not taking JC seriously in 1986 when he was questioned about the Reading Rape in 1986. So opportunities missed to rule JC in/ out of the investigation pretty early on it seems.

 

[Klclevi]

For those of us in the UK, note that The Suzy Lamplugh Mystery is on Sky Crime at 4pm today.

I wish this doco was available outside the UK I am in Aus.