Yep. This is the big problem with this case, really. We can’t even say with any certainty that Mr Kipper was real, never mind that Suzy was the intended target.
AS appears to suggest that police settled on the idea that ‘Kipper’ made the appointment in person on the Saturday, and theorises: “A client came in, and they had a few minutes’ banter. Lightheartedly, she wrote the name ‘Mr Kipper’ in her diary, perhaps unclear herself whether the man was being serious or not.”
I find this hard to believe. Anyone doing this - in person - would be taking a huge risk, the potential for being identified is surely too high. Who else was in the office on the Saturday? I’d be amazed if Suzy was alone. If she had been, and knowing JC’s previous, why wouldn’t he - if he was Kipper - just commit the crime there and then?
It’s far more likely imo that, if an appointment was made, it was made on the phone. But how could the caller be sure who he’d be speaking to? What if his call had been put through to SF instead? Would she have sufficed? Ultimately we’ve no idea, for forty years police have been looking at this, these are fairly basic questions that they/we don’t know the answers to, yet we’re supposed to believe they’ve cracked the case!
