UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #8

[WestLondoner]

I often think she is just in plain sight all these years. Buried behind some wall or cellar/ cupboard thing in a house in Fulham. God forbid its actually 37SR .

I think Suzy was killed by someone she knew, most probably an unwanted admirer, who got firmly rejected that day and did not take it well. Where she is? Not in Fulham, I think.

Tend to agree. I doubt she is in plain sight. If you look at what we know then she was either at 37SR and / or she was at 123SR, and then she disappeared, that afternoon. This points very strongly to her being taken inside some premises close at hand and never leaving.

1 DV hypothesises a pub.

2 JC was extensively informed on by the red Sierra's owner, his mate at the hostel, who had a council flat on the corner of Sun and Star Road, seven minutes' walk north from 37SR, in a block that has attached garages.

3 JC worked at Superhire, which had a warehouse in the area (still does, tho not on the 1986 site), likely big enough to drive into. They lent theatrical and movie props - presumably in big packing cases. Did he keep a key?

4 The perp could have rented a property nearby and got SJL to go inside on the basis that he was the owner and thinking of flogging it.

In case 1, and perhaps case 4, SJL never left (if case 4 entailed a ground-floor flat in a typical Fulham terrace, under the floorboards there would be a crawlspace and the dirt the house stands on; easy enough to dig a shallow grave or simply hide a body). I don't buy 1 and in case 4 she'll never be found, unless the street is demolished or someone tries to build a basement.

In cases 2 and 3 the premises are a place to contain or kill her, then put her into a car boot unobserved. If that happened, she could be anywhere.

 

[dotr]

Oct 6 2025 rbbm

New map shows thousands of stalking and harassment cases in London last year

Official Met Police figures show the number has gone down

www.mylondon.news

'The Met Police recorded thousands of stalking and harassment offences across London last year, recent figures show. However, the number of recorded offences has declined compared with the previous year. It comes as the number of offences also declined across England and Wales, while continuing to disproportionately impact women.'

''The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, a stalking and personal safety charity, warned stalking is an "underreported and therefore under documented crime", and called on the Government to publish its new Violence Against Women and Girls strategy and provide more funding towards specialist support services.''

 

[Hexe]

It's all highly circumstantial, of course. But it is consistent with Cannan being angry at getting blown out by SJL, killing SC in a rage and then dumping her stuff out of a car window.

Strangulation with minimal force and without beating the victim does not look like something furious Cannan would do. This guy was brutal.

 

[tes1984]

Strangulation with minimal force and without beating the victim does not look like something furious Cannan would do. This guy was brutal.

He had previous for strangling one of his ex girlfriends until she lost consciousness.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm not sure we know enough to be sure about this. He raped two women whom he subdued with threats, but with no actual violence (other than the rapes themselves, obviously). He murdered SB, but that's the only one we know he did. So I am not sure one can generalise about what he usually did or did not do. He's plausible for SC given his proclivities and whereabouts that day, and that's about as far as one can go I think.

 

[tes1984]

I'm not sure we know enough to be sure about this. He raped two women whom he subdued with threats, but with no actual violence (other than the rapes themselves, obviously). He murdered SB, but that's the only one we know he did. So I am not sure one can generalise about what he usually did or did not do. He's plausible for SC given his proclivities and whereabouts that day, and that's about as far as one can go I think.

I think this is a funny take on things. His violence when challenged was off the scale.

 

[tes1984]

I still cannot quite wrap my head around how (and why ) JC would murder SJL only 3 days after being released from prison. Totally nuts (but then again I guess he was).

He was in a hostel and free to do pretty much what he wanted six months before Suzy disappeared.

 

[WestLondoner]

I think this is a funny take on things. His violence when challenged was off the scale.

In which instances? He had been carrying out assaults since the age of about 15 but other than against his wife / partner I don't recall - offhand - explosions of violence (although given who we're talking about you'd not be surprised, obvs).

In the Reading and Solihull rapes and the attempted Holman rape his MO was to force his way into a car or shop and try to terrify his victim with a weapon. There was a report of someone hearing, from her car a violent assault near a road in Bristol, but IIRC something about this did not fit the circumstances of SB's murder.

 

[lee sumner]

I still cannot quite wrap my head around how (and why ) JC would murder SJL only 3 days after being released from prison. Totally nuts (but then again I guess he was).

i thought the same. was JC really that stupid.

 

[lee sumner]

What grounds exactly? Sandra was found fully dressed, there was no evidence she was raped or beaten and the murderer used minimal force required to strangle her. That's very much unlike Cannan who was primarily a rapist, with penchant for brutal violence. He bludgeoned Shirley Banks to death with a stone. Also, he was checked by the police as a potential suspect in this case and no ties were found.

i believe they have a fingerprint in the SC case. JC has been ruled out. he did not kill sandra court.

 

[lee sumner]

Strangulation with minimal force and without beating the victim does not look like something furious Cannan would do. This guy was brutal.

the strangulation was enough to kill poor sandra, yet they say it was minimal force. how patronising.

 

[lee sumner]

I am no statistician and I also do not know the crime stats in the UK . But pretty much- overall statistically - alot of crimes of this nature are committed by someone the person knew. You do not just disappear off the street in the majority of cases . Having said that there is not alot of information that I can find about how SB was actually abducted ( and the lead up to that - did he know her? did he send her flowers and stuff? or did he just see her at Debenhams and go - oh right she is the one tonight ? I guess that is totally possible.

There is evidence SJL knew TS. There is really no evidence that she had any involvement with JC at all.

Have a look at this statement (thanks Steve H) . Draw any comparisons? If SJL was having an affair with him (herself being highly sexual by all accounts we have read - this could (could) be a betrayal by a friend with her husband??

I went through a painful split from my first husband and as I licked my wounds, having divorced on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour, I thought, “I’m not being treated badly by another man again"....
It was not a decision I came to lightly, especially as I am a highly sexed woman who loves passion and intimacy.

Why would PSS hide it all these years if she knew or had any inkling that he had anything to do with it? No disrespect to her in any way if she has had to raise two kids on her own with a bankrupt philandering husband. I would have kicked him to the curb as well.
It smacks of him being a shady character all around and I can only guess she does not want to be implicated in a crime she did not commit but would likely be associated with. It makes you wonder if (as per the AS book she showed up at East Sheen Av on I think the Tuesday after SJL disappeared - if this was fake because she knew something or was trying to find something out from the family)

Its a thought dear fellow SJL peeps!

PSS has never done one media interview in nearly 4 decades, which is strange if she was so close to her.

 

[RichardKimble]

the strangulation was enough to kill poor sandra, yet they say it was minimal force. how patronising.

Isn't it to do with the damage to the hyoid or similar named bone ?

 

[Hexe]

the strangulation was enough to kill poor sandra, yet they say it was minimal force. how patronising.

It's not patronising. The minimal force in question is the minimal force required to strangle the victim to death.

 

[SteveH]

Anyone who doubts how devious, dangerous and disturbed John Cannan was should watch the 1989 Crimewatch File programme on the Shirley Banks murder:

Note that the press were speculating about JC's possible involvement in the SL case back in 1987. Avon & Somerset Police could find no evidence of a link between him and Suzy.

Also note how JC concocts alibis - changing his story when the initial one is disproven. In the instance of the rape in Reading he claimed he was in Sutton Coldfield. Sound familiar? It was proved through his bank records (cashpoint withdrawals in particular) that he was lying. One of the detectives said he had a technique of mixing facts - such as places he had visited - with lies - giving false times and dates. Advances in DNA analysis in the late '80s also helped prove Cannan had carried out the Reading rape.

Interesting comment on another video about Shirley:

"Get this: Suzy lost the contents of her handbag a few days prior to the 28th and the landlord at the pub found them. Not sure how they ended up out of her bag and on the floor in the pub but Cannan may have been in there and stalked to see her diary which mentioned a boyfriend of hers called Mr Hodgkinson. Cannan claimed Hodgkinson was the name of the guy who sold him the Mini."

You will have noticed that the name was mentioned on the linked video by the actor playing JC as Hodgson or Hodgkinson. Of course D*** Hodgkinson was described by Andrew Stephen in The Suzy Lamplugh Story as "the most enduring boyfriend of her life"; he was "tall. bronzed and very handsome" (pp57-58). Suzy called him Hodge or Splodge. Another astonishing coincidence or a Freudian slip by JC?

On page 96 of the book incidentally Stephen writes that SL told PSS that DH had been unfaithful to her and asked for her advice. She also confided in PSS about her worries about an "older boyfriend." Maybe the future Dr P** should have given Suzy the advice she talked about in the Sun article I quoted from in a previous comment.

"Celibacy helped to clear my emotional slate and I learnt to stand on my own two feet.

And what about my need for sex? The answer is through self-pleasure.

You can satisfy your sexual needs while discovering what really works for you.

Celibacy prepares you for having great sex because you then know what you want in bed."

After he was charged with Shirley Banks' murder Cannan even said in court that he wanted to have a press conference to complain about his lack of rights:

Blimey - I haven't seen Chris Vacher in years!

I have mentioned on one thread - can't remember which (old age!) - that my aunt told me that her best friend's son-in-law was talking to a man in a pub in Clifton. Bristol, and when he told him about his marital problems this feller said he could get rid of her for him. Later he identified the bloke as John Cannan. Coincidentally his wife worked for the same company in Patchway as Shirley Banks and they lived in Clifton at the time (mid '80s) - he was himself a slightly dodgy "Bristol businessman". They divorced in the end.

If you have any queries about any Bristol locations I'm your man - I know 'em all like the back of my hand including Leigh Woods In fact I've been lost in the woods there more than once and had to scramble up and down the steep slopes to the river on my hands and knees/backside whilst I was at school. No Health and Safety in those days.

This is a detailed timeline of Cannan's "career" and love life up until July 1991:

https://murderpedia.org/male.C/images/cannan_john/info.pdf

As yet, without conclusive forensic evidence it can't been proven that JC did abduct and murder SL. Without a body some other evidence would be needed but I do not think it insignificant that the police, Suzy's family and Cannan's own family believe he is guilty in this case.

"The family of Suzy Lamplugh suspect John Cannan have said they were 99% certain the "evil and monstrous" rapist was responsible for her murder...

Cannan always denied involvement, but his own family have said he was a manipulative criminal who revelled in his crimes. A family member - who the Mirror agreed not to name - said: "On my last visit [to prison] with my mother in 2000, I asked him to own up but I’m afraid he hadn't got it in him to come clean.

"We are 99% sure he was involved in this poor girl's abduction. I’m sure John delighted in taking his secrets to the grave and gave him a feeling of perverted power. He was always bereft of responsibility, humility and engulfed in his own deluded selfishness and importance.""

Family of 'evil' rapist John Cannan are '99% sure' he killed Suzy Lamplugh

A family member of John Cannan said they are 'sure' he was involved in Suzy Lamplugh's abduction and presumed murder - and he 'delighted in taking his secrets to the grave'

www.mirror.co.uk

I believe David Videcette has said that the fact that Cannan didn't make a deathbed confession in some way supports the theory that he wasn't involved. What incredible naivety and ignorance of criminal psychology. As for his claim to believe Cannan's alibi that he was at home with his mum having a nice meal on the day Suzy disappeared - pull the other one mate!

 

[tes1984]

In which instances? He had been carrying out assaults since the age of about 15 but other than against his wife / partner I don't recall - offhand - explosions of violence (although given who we're talking about you'd not be surprised, obvs).

In the Reading and Solihull rapes and the attempted Holman rape his MO was to force his way into a car or shop and try to terrify his victim with a weapon. There was a report of someone hearing, from her car a violent assault near a road in Bristol, but IIRC something about this did not fit the circumstances of SB's murder.

He showed extreme violence in the attack on his girlfriend, and of course in the murder of SB. David Canter described him as violent and barbaric.

He claimed to be non violent, unless provoked, which is his way of trying to excuse things. Who knows if Suzy 'provoked' him somehow the day she disappeared?

 

[tes1984]

i thought the same. was JC really that stupid.

He was really stupid when he kept Shirley's car in his own garage, leading to his make believe Hodgeson story about buying the vehicle.

 

[tes1984]

i believe they have a fingerprint in the SC case. JC has been ruled out. he did not kill sandra court.

I don't think he's been ruled out. Isn't the fingerprint from the letter sent ten days after Sandra's murder?

 

[rvlvr]

Respectfully, if people are going to discuss an author’s views, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that they read their work first. Nowhere in DV’s book does he claim to ‘believe’ Cannan’s alibi. The issue is that those who ‘believe’ in Cannan’s guilt need to disprove it - the Met have spent much of the past 25 years trying to do just that, amongst other things, and have failed. Such a meagre return on their investment (all paid for by the public, of course) seems quite pitiful, imo.

The yarn about Suzy’s lost property is a good one but the issue is that even if these items were lost on the Friday night there’s no evidence that they were stolen, never mind by Cannan. Also, Adam Leegood claims in DV’s book that he and Suzy “never, ever” went to the Prince of Wales pub, so if they were stolen from Suzy on the Friday the theft must’ve happened at the restaurant next door, which seems fanciful, or somewhere else after they left - in which case, how and why did they end up outside the pub?

No one apparently recalls Suzy mentioning having lost any belongings over the weekend, but her colleagues do recall her being preoccupied with finding them on the Monday morning. Together with AL’s claim about never having visiting the pub, and the relief landlord’s claim that he found these items outside of the pub on the Sunday night, the evidence suggests they became lost - not stolen - on the Sunday, rather than the Friday.

 

[Klclevi]

Respectfully, if people are going to discuss an author’s views, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that they read their work first. Nowhere in DV’s book does he claim to ‘believe’ Cannan’s alibi. The issue is that those who ‘believe’ in Cannan’s guilt need to disprove it - the Met have spent much of the past 25 years trying to do just that, amongst other things, and have failed. Such a meagre return on their investment (all paid for by the public, of course) seems quite pitiful, imo.

The yarn about Suzy’s lost property is a good one but the issue is that even if these items were lost on the Friday night there’s no evidence that they were stolen, never mind by Cannan. Also, Adam Leegood claims in DV’s book that he and Suzy “never, ever” went to the Prince of Wales pub, so if they were stolen from Suzy on the Friday the theft must’ve happened at the restaurant next door, which seems fanciful, or somewhere else after they left - in which case, how and why did they end up outside the pub?

No one apparently recalls Suzy mentioning having lost any belongings over the weekend, but her colleagues do recall her being preoccupied with finding them on the Monday morning. Together with AL’s claim about never having visiting the pub, and the relief landlord’s claim that he found these items outside of the pub on the Sunday night, the evidence suggests they became lost - not stolen - on the Sunday, rather than the Friday.

I have to agree. So begs the question. Why was she there (at POW) on the Sunday night so late? If she got back to London at say 8ish , spends an hour with her parents , dumps her washing etc and goes back to Putney it probably puts her back there somewhere between 9-9.30pm. Then makes a call from the phone box - how her belongings come to be left outside who knows. For her to be there it can only be to make a call she did not want heard by NB her flatmate before she went home and proceeded to call AL . Surely shes not going to nip in for a pint on the way home by herself.

I would think in 1986 you would be able to tell if a call was made from a phone box not a home phone? But - who knows the call at 10.15pm with AL (if its true could have been all of 1 minute if that) She could have very well have blown him off again for the umpteenth time that weekend. What AL says about meeting up for a party etc in the next day or so seems very unlikely also. I think this is probably untrue.

I am Gen X (born 72) so I am not up with the current slang regarding blowing someone off and all that . Ghosting I guess you call it?
But you only have to look at her behaviour on the weekend prior to say she was not in love with AL. She was on the way out of that big time. No one who is barely 3 mths into a relationship and is really interested in the person does that unless you are dumping them. Otherwise you would be busting your butt to get them to come to the party on the Saturday night ( I understand he may have not been invited but then , you would be just so excited to hang out with them Sunday and probably going home to visit your M&D on the way home Sunday night and bringing them along. That scenario in itself is weird to me , especially if he was DL and PL's 'type'. Either way he must have met them at some point ?

I guess what I also find interesting is that DL in many interviews said that SJL had 'lots of boyfriends'. Does that mean she thought SJL was exclusive with these many boyfriends (to me I would think so, otherwise why would she bring AL into the picture, and more so, why wouldn't he be truthful after all these years - if she messed him around it still does not mean he did it. So why not just tell it as it was? )