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

[lee sumner]

If Suzy can be shown to have never been at the PoW that day then I agree, DV’s *conclusion* will have been conclusively disproven. It wouldn’t alter the reliability of the *evidence* he uncovered prior to reaching that conclusion, though - the two things imo are obviously quite separate. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.

This case is as much about Mr Kipper as it is Suzy Lamplugh. DV’s research provides a decent basis for us to conclude that Mr Kipper very possibly didn’t exist - at least not in the form of a murderous cold-calling pseudo-house viewer, anyway. And that conclusion can still be correct even if Suzy isn’t buried at or near the pub.

I wonder which bit of the West Midlands the Met will fruitlessly dig up next year at taxpayers’ expense to mark the 40th anniversary?

i think DV just made the case more complicated. i dont believe SL faked the appointment that day. why would she when her lunch break was at 1PM. she can go anywhere she wants at 1PM with 30 MINS to spare. i also think she took the keys and paperwork to 37 shorrolds rd.

 

[WestLondoner]

The case that could have been made against Cannan goes back to 1986. Had the police looked at what sex offenders had been released, say, that year, from the three local prisons - Wandsworth, Wormwood, Brixton - they'd have had a list of 100 possibles (4,000 rape convictions a year implies 80 jailed and also 80 released per week; those three prisons held about 2% of the prison population; so that year they must have released about 160 of them, so about 80 to 100 by the end of July).

They then get those people to say where they were. Prison authorities would be able identify associates, so JT gets interviewed to see if he can support Cannan's account of what he supposedly did that day. JT can't, JC has not yet concocted an alibi and so Star Road gets forensicated and JC taken in probably that week.

This was all possible off what was knowable in 1986 and the timeline and geography take you straight to JC. No fanciful sightings from 14 years later required. This, of course, is not the case you're going to want to make in 2000 if you're the Met - had they done these quite obvious things, then would would likely have stopped a rape and a murder and solved the SJL case.

 

[lee sumner]

Has anyone ever asked PSS directly about SJL? Given the nature and scope of her work, there mustve been times where the discussive nature of problems/emotions required openess and honesty, which couldve left her in a position where someone would feel possibly able to do so. Her response wouldve been v telling.

iam baffled at why if SL was such a close friend of hers why has she never done a single interview about her. like you said, given the nature of her work you would think she would have talked about SL, but she never has. no media interviews in nearly 4 decades is odd.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

According to Wiki it’s in Christopher Berry-Dee’s book about Cannan, which I confess I’ve not read. If the Met had anything that could link Cannan to Suzy they’d be shouting it from the rooftops imo, it’s also interesting I think that whereas the media are usually happy to repeat the dubious claim that Cannan’s prison nickname was Kipper for instance, they seem very reluctant to regurgitate CBD’s ‘evidence’ regarding the DNA - I get the feeling it’s widely accepted as

Yeah true ....oh Finding suzy got real interesting at the halfway mark...the temp manager at POWs wife refusing to talk to them ......really intriguing .....did LE look into this theory post the book's publication.....

I think the book is an entertaining read (if that's your thing) but DV, to me, is ramping up drama for the sake of it, and disses stuff that doesn't fit his narrative. The books reads more like a novel than serious research, with himself as the avenging crimesolver and his partner as his faithful, dogged sidekick. He ignores BW's "sighting" completely, he undermines WJ - not just to undermine her, but to make her look foolish. He goes out of his way to make CV look dodgy, and his ex-wife too; he makes a drama out of his aborted meeting with AL.

If DV had turned up on my doorstep wanting to discuss a 40 year old unsolved disappearance I think I'd tell him where to stuff his research too. .

I think he makes some interesting points, especially around the behaviour of the Lamplughs and the pursuit of Cannan, but I find his conclusion rather hard to believe, personally.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

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

Yeah he's brutal, in the crimes we know about. But if Sandra was incapacitated through drink, perhaps she was unable to put up a fight. Not much force needed, perhaps. And there was that weird letter to the press - perhaps heavily disguised - which smacks of the kind of thing JC may do. And Sandra was dumped in water (as was SB) so useful evidence may have been washed away.

I think she may have rejected his advances and he killed her in anger.

And, depending what sources you read, the dna found in the Sierra was thought to be Sandra's, not Sjl's (but probably fitting millions of other people too, so pretty useless as evidence).
However one still has to believe that security at the Scrubs Hostel was so lax that it allowed for JC to be out and not missed overnight.

Not sure if anyone else has ever been in the frame.

 

[Konstantin]

I think the book is an entertaining read (if that's your thing) but DV, to me, is ramping up drama for the sake of it, and disses stuff that doesn't fit his narrative. The books reads more like a novel than serious research, with himself as the avenging crimesolver and his partner as his faithful, dogged sidekick. He ignores BW's "sighting" completely, he undermines WJ - not just to undermine her, but to make her look foolish. He goes out of his way to make CV look dodgy, and his ex-wife too; he makes a drama out of his aborted meeting with AL.

I don't think he realises how he comes across, tbh, which is quite narcissistic in my view.

He is unpleasant to both AL and WJ and not very nice either to SF; and also to the landlady of the bloke he thought was the eyewitness who he got off the electoral roll (but went on a bit about his clever detection methods).

Reading his account of his interview with AL, it is clear he upset him and it is not really surprising he walked out.

 

[Konstantin]

I wonder if, even if the Met had managed to make a list of local sex offenders in 1986, they still would not have got to JC because as the CPS pointed out there is nothing to show that he and SJL ever met.

I suppose there might have been some opportunity to explore if they had ever crossed paths back in 1986, but who knows, she was very secretive and none of her friends said they had seen her with a man looking like the efit of Kipper.

It does point to the abductor being someone she knew, somehow, so probably the best place to start looking would be her diary/address book.

 

[Hexe]

Yeah he's brutal, in the crimes we know about. But if Sandra was incapacitated through drink, perhaps she was unable to put up a fight. Not much force needed, perhaps.

[CUT]

I think she may have rejected his advances and he killed her in anger.

Either he was brutal, or he was not. Strangulation with minimal force does not look like an intentonal killing, commited by a brutal angry perpetrator.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

[CUT]


Either he was brutal, or he was not. Strangulation with minimal force does not look like an intentonal killing, commited by a brutal angry

i think DV is a conspiracy nut. the landlord of the POW was filling in, so he was being trained on how to run the pub, yet DV wants us to believe the landlord would use the pub to dispose of SL body. to use the pub as a deposition site

I wonder if she was abducted, or if she willingly gave him a lift back to Clifton.

So many oddities in this case. I suppose we'll never know the answers...I think it's possible that SB and JC may have been known to each other - both lived in/close to Clifton, both frequented the Avon Gorge Hotel. I read somewhere that Richard, SB's husband , recognised JC from there.

I've always assumed, because SB's driver door was broken, that she was carjacked against her will and could not escape. But now I'm not so sure. JC lived in a block of flats. How did he manage to keep SB quiet overnight? How did he get her into his flat without disturbing the neighbours? And out again, the following morning, in daylight? We know she rang her work in the morning. So she was alive at that point. So when did she die, exactly? Was she alive still on the 40 mile journey to Dead Womans Ditch? Once there, how did JC get her out of his car to where she was dumped without being seen?

SB was identified by remnants of the dress she'd bought in Debenhams the night before. At some time she must've changed her clothes. Why?

She