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

[WestLondoner]

The response Barley gave when questioned about the possibility of Cannan using said flat in the special episode of the True Criminals podcast was genuinely laugh out loud funny, a complete non-answer. I’d urge anyone who hasn’t listened yet to give it a blast, what Barley doesn’t say is as revealing as what he does, imo.

Agree, and we know why. Three questions the inquiry never asked in 1986:

1/ have any sex offenders been released from (or allowed out of) Wormwood Scrubs, Wandsworth, or Brixton prisons recently?
2/ if so, where are they now?
3/ who were their known associates, and where do they live?

If they started by looking back one working day before 28/7/86 they'd have lit on Cannan under question 1.
Under 2, the probation service would have said Sutton Coldfield, and a 'phone call would verify that.
Under 3, there can't have been many, but there was this Taggart guy who lent Cannan a Sierra and had a flat half a mile from Shorrolds.

All that would have brought Cannan in for questioning, at which point you're a lot closer to eliminating him or not. Maybe it wasn't him; the thing is that if you question him in August 1986 you're going to find out.

This is the stuff retired LE absolutely does not want discussed. It's not that DV was onto a better answer - he's wrong about KH. But he exposed the ineptitude, confirmation bias, oversights and groupthink of the original and subsequent inquiries, and thereby discredits those inquiries' conclusions, including that this was Cannan.

The trolls' rationale for wanting to discredit DV's theory was that to discredit him was to discredit his work discrediting them. That was the game, I think.

 

[Konstantin]

But he exposed the ineptitude, confirmation bias, oversights and groupthink of the original and subsequent inquiries, and thereby discredits those inquiries' conclusions, including that this was Cannan.

The ineptitude was covered up or glossed over and yes he did do good work in picking it apart. The issue of the keys is a good question especially when you consider there's no real reason to believe she ever went inside 37SR.

And AS didn't know or didn't report - because I think he just used police sources for this bit - that there'd been tension, even a row relating to a commission that morning, which may perhaps have influenced SJL's mood or judgement.

Why didn't they ask those questions though - ineptitude or simply manpower or tunnel vision on trying to track down the man HR says he saw?

 

[WestLondoner]

The ineptitude was covered up or glossed over and yes he did do good work in picking it apart. The issue of the keys is a good question especially when you consider there's no real reason to believe she ever went inside 37SR.
...
Why didn't they ask those questions though - ineptitude or simply manpower or tunnel vision on trying to track down the man HR says he saw?

Per DV, they went public with their whole Mr. Kipper take before they had taken a single witness statement. One thinks of the clot in charge of the Ripper hunt, who ruled out any suspect (including Peter Sutcliffe) who did not speak with a Wearside accent. Perhaps any witness who did not in 1986 remember SJL taking keys was likewise ignored.

It does look like ineptitude though. There's no reason Mr Kipper could not have been a recently-released lag. So even if wrongly preoccupied with him it was still worth contacting prisons. In fact they could have asked them a fourth question: have you released any rapists who look like this artist's impression?

 

[Konstantin]

And once they twigged that HR was at the very least an exaggerator they should have looked at other theories than just she went to 37SR. Especially as no evidence she went inside. And her car somewhere else.

 

[Klclevi]

Has anyone seen this article (published 5.2.26) (I always do a daily 'google' for SJL news and this came up

From Daily Express 5.2.26 (Ask my ex about Suzy Lamplugh) (SW's ex wife calling for a

PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

I hope this link is ok to publish ?

Do you think the MET statement is recent?

 

[WestLondoner]

I read it as being their usual boilerplate.

One very odd thing about the various docus you see about SJL is that when they get a plod talking head on, for all these are supposedly documentaries, the plod are never challenged. They simply state why it's Cannan and nobody ever, ever, ever says "Well what about..."

I reckon plod only agrees to be in these if they're allowed to accuse Cannan without challenge.

 

[Klclevi]

I read it as being their usual boilerplate.

One very odd thing about the various docus you see about SJL is that when they get a plod talking head on, for all these are supposedly documentaries, the plod are never challenged. They simply state why it's Cannan and nobody ever, ever, ever says "Well what about..."

I reckon plod only agrees to be in these if they're allowed to accuse Cannan without challenge.

Agree with you. Just ridiculous after nearly 40 years.

Interestingly this article from the Mirror on 4/2 has RL saying something I have never heard him say before (see below) which is interesting .

Makes you wonder if the family are starting to question things..

'Suffolk Strangler should tell the truth about Suzy Lamplugh disappearance'

From the Mirror article above

Suzy's brother, Richard Lamplugh, 65, said: "I don't know who killed Suzy. As far as I'm concerned, it does look like everything points to John Cannan and that's what the police have said.

"But are we just trying to fit everything up so Cannan meets the case? I don't know. It wouldn't hurt to question Wright or to investigate him. But would he remember what he did with the body after such a long time? It's very strange that he worked with Suzy on the QE2."


The Met Police said in a statement when approached by The Mirror about Suzy’s case: “The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into the disappearance and murder of Suzy Lamplugh is ongoing, and detectives remain committed to securing justice for her family.

 

[Klclevi]

Sorry to jump all over the place I have not been on much the last few days

@WestLondoner
Are you able to tell us more about the Disraeli road reno at all.
Did people have specified carparks outside their houses in London in 86? I am assuming not, that it was a permit zone but park where you can?

If she was in fact headed for the POW (this does make sense) but took a left first at Putney Bridge road, left into Disraeli (ie going to the flat first and then doing the loop round) would this make any sense? Could explain the purse in the car left as she might have thought 'it will be right, this is my street, no one is going to steal it. But then I am not sure if you can hang a right at the end of DR back over Putney Bridge?

I do not know much about SW only that he was on the QE2 with her. I understand where the ex wife is possibly coming from, but on the whole IMO it seems very unlikely.

I still do not get this 'milkman' sighting either. Anyone able to elaborate?

 

[Klclevi]

The response Barley gave when questioned about the possibility of Cannan using said flat in the special episode of the True Criminals podcast was genuinely laugh out loud funny, a complete non-answer. I’d urge anyone who hasn’t listened yet to give it a blast, what Barley doesn’t say is as revealing as what he does, imo.

And credit to WL and Klclevi for getting these questions on the show.

Begins around the 26 minute mark:

Thankyou rvlvr so much.

And most importantly @WestLondoner

The Biggest Thankyou xx I will buy you a beer when i get to London x (or coffee, whatever the beverage of your choice.)

The questions put forward were (8 qns in detail ) (we were limited to 3 but put them up anyway). ( Based around either 1. JC did it or 2. He did not.

I in my Heart of Hearts thought just maybe we might get some nugget , some recognition that there are likely to be other avenues to finding the outcomes of Suzys case after 39 years.

It was not to be. No disrespect to HF, MBrunt or MBarley at all in this post.

 

[rvlvr]

Note how in the TC Q&A episode Barley again mentions that someone (who?) told the police (when?) that they saw Cannan (when, where?) in possession of a train ticket to Bristol, suggesting he didn’t actually go home to the Midlands on the weekend prior to Suzy’s disappearance. Aside from the who, what, where and when, an obvious question to ask is, ‘how does Cannan being in Bristol, rather than near Birmingham, put him in the frame for Suzy’s abduction, in London?’

It ties in with what RL says above, about trying to fit everything around Cannan. It’s often theorised that Suzy’s lost belongings were pinched by Cannan, but if he goes to Bristol on the Friday evening then how does he nick them later that night from a London pub? Some theorise he visited Sturgis on the Saturday to make an appointment with Suzy in person, but he can’t do this if he’s in Bristol, unless he travels to Bristol afterwards, on the Saturday afternoon, in which case where did he spend the Friday night? It’s suggested Suzy may have secretly rendezvoused with Cannan on the Sunday night and arranged a further meeting on the Monday - it’s possible he returned to London on the Sunday, but then, where did he spend the Sunday night? And where did he stay while he was supposedly in Bristol? With his solicitor girlfriend? If she’d spent the weekend with Cannan in Bristol we’d almost certainly know about that, but instead we’re spun some yarn about an unnamed lag who supposedly saw Cannan with a train ticket to Bristol. It’s so weak! And the interviewers appear so credulous and incurious! I find it utterly baffling, but there we are.