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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

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:

Thank you for posting this.

A few things jump out…

1. AS said in 80s the police asked him to change an inconsequential detail in his book - I had thought on timeline. I’d picked up on contradictions, sensitivity & confusion about where she went on Sun night AFTER SL left her parents.

It’s interesting then, Barley seems to admit SL did see someone later on, on the SUNDAY (after visiting her parents) as I’d & others had surmised. Barley adds that SL seemingly gave AL a false alibi - seeing ‘friends’ when she didn’t. IF she saw another man later on Sun eve - as was implication - it might tarnish SL’s reputation & lose her much needed public sympathy & support. Poss the wealthy expat she’d seen in AL’s absence according to AS (?)

For this reason I think AL said they met up & diary lost on FRI & not SUN & poss had been green-lit & sanctioned therefore to legitimately do so. THIS ‘inconsequential’ detail - the switch of the day - being perhaps what the police had requested from AS (?) We do know they requested something in this vein. Like the butterfly effect though, it did serve to confuse & change the narrative around the timeline if so.

This fits with AL saying in a 2000 approx doc that things lost in POW on the FRIDAY later seeming to contradict himself with DV. The police had by then named JC as only suspect too (unprecedented!) if so, just going legitimately with party line re: earlier doc then. AL was then later telling the truth when he said he didn’t go to the POW.

This also fits with the temp landlord finding lost diary etc on SUNDAY night by phone-box when he arrived for his handover at POW. Source: DV.

This also fits with Brookner in. early review before edits, making an uncharacteristic mistake, in saying things lost on SUNDAY night. She was working from an early, unedited version perhaps (?)

This also accounts for SL’s tense ringing around on MON am to try to locate her things and not detouring much earlier & going hot on trail days before.

2. SL was apparently doing a deal re: joint ownership on a property she couldn’t otherwise afford. The deal being the other purchaser being able to use her address for mail, or similar. Her last words to her parents, to paraphrase, included “I will tell you all about it when I am able to”. There was some tension here. Again this was on Sunday eve.

The police did not know about this at time as the L family didn’t tell them and police were apparently very annoyed so the press said later in 1986. The L family assumed the police knew. The police needed to identify this person who presumably never came forward. Was it JC (?) he had form…

3. GP was raped by JC next to Norton Barracks. New info? After SL was discussed by GP (?)Was it “Mr Knight or Day?” asked GP NO “Mr Kipper” says JC. NB: earlier podcast on SL by team above.

4. Barley believes JC to have confessed & he’s powerful and compelling on this. SA - fellow policeman - with him in JC interview -.didn’t believe he’d witnessed JC’s confession he said in a doc. SA DID however, eventually come to believe JC guilty despite keeping an open mind - agreeing with Barley.

 

[StillDiggin]

Cold case police probe missing Suzy Lamplugh's links to notorious serial killer

The Metropolitan Police is examining the relationship between serial killer Steve Wright - The Suffolk Strangler - and missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, after they worked together on a luxury liner

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[Klclevi]

I think Point 2 has absolute relevance to her disappearance somehow. How this relates back to a perp by JC as the prime suspect is really baffling though. BUT, its not impossible . BUT, his means of wooing her into some relationship I think are pretty low TBH.
If what she has said to her parents on the Sunday night about taking him to lunch and basically giving him the bird (In Aus we call it the middle finger - rack off dude not interested anymore sorry) , well could this be what occurred on the Monday?) JC did not have the means IMO. He had no money until his inheritance from the Uncle came in later which enabled him to rent the flat in Bristol, finance the BMW, etc. This all happened post SJL.

There is also an interesting piece (Apologies - to be transparent i have been researching every article i have been able to since1986 ) which in one says JC had no cash to buy clothes once he left prison and moved to Bristol (at which time he came into the inheritance) so he was existing on his 70's style clothing (ie the Kipper ties)



What i find it tad odd is that PL only remembered this information about the joint house purchase in Feb 87 (according to the news articles) and it p*d off the detectives at the time. Or maybe it bugged him but he did not think it was relevant ? That is entirely possible I guess.

Then this angle disappears from the news narratives to be replaced by something else. ( In Jan 87 it was the Belgian BMW Kipper sighting then in early Feb it was around the combined house purchase sighting)

Of course I know this is all from the media so its to be treated with caution and its clear that over the months and years that information has been changed to suit how the narrative is to be presented to some degree , or its just plain missed.

Is anyone able to tell me where the Boulevard Restaurant was located in 1986 please was this in Fulham?

I will reference these articles in the coming days for you.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@Klclevi he had some money from father’s will/death (died 1985) there was some evidence he’d been saving & splurged in a short window before SL went missing apparently. Need to find source. Prime Suspect. CBD. I think.

His father had apparently set aside a generous amount to help him ‘go straight’ & get life together on release. If he spent all in a short window it might have been enough to give a brief impression of an affluent life to impress, reassure or at least not alarm SL.

AS tells us SL was in an unusually good mood early on (via SF) & later DV tells us she lost a hoped for or expected commission to NH & there was an argument. Could this have influenced a later decision? That final call ‘half sitting half standing’ at desk (AS) springs to mind. There were also x3 failed attempts to sell flat & lack of funds had prevented her travelling to NZ to see her sister although that obviously ££. She’d looked into being a courier to facilitate legitimate cheap travel to NZ (AS).

JC had discussed setting up a management consultancy & similar with AR & was looking at poss offices (Prime Suspect: CBD). So may have done similar here with SL.

 

[rvlvr]

Some excellent points on this page and the ‘confession’ by Cannan was definitely the highlight of Barley’s interview, though of course police are always keen to stress that we should never believe a word convicted prisoners say - except for when they’re saying what police want to hear! Was Cannan being genuine or was he toying with police? Without corroborating evidence it’s very difficult to say.

 

[rvlvr]

This also accounts for SL’s tense ringing around on MON am to try to locate her things and not detouring much earlier & going hot on trail days before.

I agree. It seems difficult to believe she lost these items on the Friday but it took until the Monday for her to become ‘preoccupied’ with finding them. Surely a smart, proactive woman would’ve called the restaurant and the pub on the Saturday morning to see if they’d been found there? Even with a busy schedule I suspect she could’ve found the time to retrieve them on the Saturday or Sunday. And apparently she didn’t mention being without these items to anyone that weekend?

Even harder to believe is that they were stolen from her, only to be found in the same place they were supposedly stolen from. The only way I can make it fit is if someone wanted to find something amongst these possessions but didn’t want to inconvenience the victim by not returning the items. But leaving them outside the pub doesn’t guarantee they’ll be handed in at the pub, someone could’ve come along, found them and taken them away?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I agree. It seems difficult to believe she lost these items on the Friday but it took until the Monday for her to become ‘preoccupied’ with finding them. Surely a smart, proactive woman would’ve called the restaurant and the pub on the Saturday morning to see if they’d been found there? Even with a busy schedule I suspect she could’ve found the time to retrieve them on the Saturday or Sunday. And apparently she didn’t mention being without these items to anyone that weekend?

Even harder to believe is that they were stolen from her, only to be found in the same place they were supposedly stolen from. The only way I can make it fit is if someone wanted to find something amongst these possessions but didn’t want to inconvenience the victim by not returning the items. But leaving them outside the pub doesn’t guarantee they’ll be handed in at the pub, someone could’ve come along, found them and taken them away?

Absolutely, especially as the contacts book may have had sensitive & personal details in it NB: DV book. It’s the equivalent of losing your phone today. An additional question for Barley might be did the police go back to this contact book & trace everyone? AS said they gave up as too many to track - the same on BMW model seen outside Shorrolds. The task uncompleted as too many resources required & stronger leads to follow.

On contacts/address book, a newspaper search on phone numbers listed might yield a clue even now (?) -they certainly can be found in some cases. The joint purchaser presumably had some contact details noted somewhere (?) too.

AS said SL relayed stress at losing things to SF at time.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Some excellent points on this page and the ‘confession’ by Cannan was definitely the highlight of Barley’s interview, though of course police are always keen to stress that we should never believe a word convicted prisoners say - except for when they’re saying what police want to hear! Was Cannan being genuine or was he toying with police? Without corroborating evidence it’s very difficult to say.

On JC’s ‘confession’ a few interesting points…

1. He mentioned this ‘Bristol business man’ buying SB’s mini from him & killing x3 women. SC additionally has long been thought to be a JC victim & evidence for this more compelling than SL IMO. Source: Prime Suspect, CBD.

2. JC gave the man’s name as H (not the most common surname) - same surname as DH - DH described by AS as SL’s most enduring love. Source as above. If JC a stalker & obsessed with SL with access to personal things he might have known this. IF the lost postcard was from him (DH) for example - he was overseas teaching sailing or similar at time. The police will know who the card was from or to, we don’t.

3. Barley said in podcast that on balance he thinks JC invented ‘Kipper’ as an alias. If so, not as other pedestrian aliases he’d used before: ‘John Peterson’ & H as flagged & similar others.’Kipper’ quite a marked deviation from MO if so.

 

[lee sumner]

@Klclevi he had some money from father’s will/death (died 1985) there was some evidence he’d been saving & splurged in a short window before SL went missing apparently. Need to find source. Prime Suspect. CBD. I think.

His father had apparently set aside a generous amount to help him ‘go straight’ & get life together on release. If he spent all in a short window it might have been enough to give a brief impression of an affluent life to impress, reassure or at least not alarm SL.

AS tells us SL was in an unusually good mood early on (via SF) & later DV tells us she lost a hoped for or expected commission to NH & there was an argument. Could this have influenced a later decision? That final call ‘half sitting half standing’ at desk (AS) springs to mind. There were also x3 failed attempts to sell flat & lack of funds had prevented her travelling to NZ to see her sister although that obviously ££. She’d looked into being a courier to facilitate legitimate cheap travel to NZ (AS).

JC had discussed setting up a management consultancy & similar with AR & was looking at poss offices (Prime Suspect: CBD). So may have done similar here with SL.

JC would also commit armed robbery to make money. small building society/post office and late night petrol stations were often targets. he was found to have a lot of money on him when arrested for the SB murder, and the SIO in charge of the case said this is where the money came from.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

JC would also commit armed robbery to make money. small building society/post office and late night petrol stations were often targets. he was found to have a lot of money on him when arrested for the SB murder, and the SIO in charge of the case said this is where the money came from.

Was he doing those whilst at scrubs though in hostel (?) Harder.

interestingly, there was a robbery at Superhire around May 1986 when JC working there I believe. Carpets/valuables taken. Reported in press at time. Only robbery I could find ever to take place there. X2 they thought involved they let off fire extinguishers etc & larked around too.

 

[lee sumner]

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?

SL arranged to pick up her missing items at 6pm, so this means she was not in a rush to get her items back. if she was she would have arranged to get them ASAP. this simple arrangement SL made gets overlooked in my opinion.

 

[lee sumner]

Was he doing those whilst at scrubs though in hostel (?) Harder.

interestingly, there was a robbery at Superhire around May 1986 when JC working there I believe. Carpets/valuables taken. Reported in press at time. Only robbery I could find ever to take place there. X2 they thought involved they let off fire extinguishers etc & larked around too.

not while in the scrubs. after his release in july 1986.

 

[lee sumner]

Hi everyone hope you had a wonderful Christmas and New year.
I have been giving a little bit of thought as to moving this thread forward leading up to the 40th anniversary on July 28th and would welcome anyones thoughts.
A couple of us have recently been able to contribute t osome recently published podcasts Q&A (admittedly edited to how they saw fit so PLEASE remember that if you happen to listen to it - what was submitted is not what is necessarily relayed.)

There are also some independent researchers in the UK that are actively still on this case.

Also before I go any further, those who have not read the updated rules regarding posting should do so please.

I thought maybe we could move forward based on two schools of thought ( simple as they are, and i do not know in a thread how this would work but i am just putting it out there!)

1. JC was responsible for her abduction and murder
2. JC was not responsible and the answer lies in other areas of her life.

Either scenario is completely possible .

Every person on this thread is either one of three minds
1. JC did it
2. JC did not
3. On the fence (for want of a better word)

I read somewhere (it may have been on a very early post in this thread ) that this case is like a rubiks cube. It lines up suddenly but then it takes you down a rabbit hole of other possibilities.

Obviously there are people on this thread that are from the UK of that time and possibly (and do) have information about her life that would never have otherwise been known in the public domain. That information is to be trusted as a gift to your knowledge and I thankyou for that. It also it provides an insight into life in London in the 80s that we from far flung parts of the word have no idea about but what was only relayed by what TV broadcast at the time (Countdown music show here in Aus (like Top of the Pops I guess) and we only had like 2 tv stations in 86! I mean Wham was just the best thing I had seen ever. haha

I love hearing your stories about that time and I think all of us here who are really invested in an outcome respect that.

Happy for anyones thoughts on this. I have known about this case for a long time, but it is only in the last 12 mths I have been able to read and research it. This thread has been invaluable to me re schools of thought and I thank many of you for that.

It certainly doesnt mean Suzy will be found (we can only hope so) . It is possible. I am in Aus, and just 3 weeks ago a plumber found the remains of a woman that disappeared 40 years ago buried in a backyard.

In all due respect to the Lamplugh family who might want this case closed after 40 years of pretty much heartache I completely understand their position. However, I highly doubt Suzys case is ever going to go away whilst real questions continue to be unanswered. Is this in the best interests of the family? I guess we should think about that a bit more.

i think SL remains are still in the south/w/london area. not in fulham, but not that far away.

 

[lee sumner]

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!

interesting point. there were 6 phones in the sturgis office, and whichever EA took the call arranged the viewing. there were no calls asking for SL, so how could mr kipper know SL would show up for the viewing at 37SR.

 

[rvlvr]

Absolutely, especially as the contacts book may have had sensitive & personal details in it NB: DV book. It’s the equivalent of losing your phone today. An additional question for Barley might be did the police go back to this contact book & trace everyone? AS said they gave up as too many to track - the same on BMW model seen outside Shorrolds. The task uncompleted as too many resources required & stronger leads to follow.

On contacts/address book, a newspaper search on phone numbers listed might yield a clue even now (?) -they certainly can be found in some cases. The joint purchaser presumably had some contact details noted somewhere (?) too.

AS said SL relayed stress at losing things to SF at time.

I think someone mooted the idea that AL might have reason for wanting to have a look through her belongings, if he was getting chucked and perhaps suspected that she was seeing other men. All JMO, obviously.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

My view is he stepped up as a defender of her honour fast & ‘official boyfriend’ for the press - hence the glossing of problematic Sunday night etc. I think he knew she didn’t see him as love of life & saw & accepted writing on wall. SL stayed on good terms with all exes to date & would have done so with him too, eventually.

I think someone mooted the idea that AL might have reason for wanting to have a look through her belongings, if he was getting chucked and perhaps suspected that she was seeing other men. All JMO, obviously.

 

[lee sumner]

Yeah, this bit was really interesting, or had the potential to be anyway. For anyone that hasn’t listened, Barley describes Suzy’s movements on the Sunday evening as ‘clandestine’ and states his belief that she was already ‘seeing’ Mr Kipper at this point, prior to the Monday ‘appointment’.

Frustratingly they don’t really explore this angle much - it’s largely just a way of Barley shoehorning Cannan into the conversation, with Cannan supposedly being the guy she was ‘seeing’ on a ‘clandestine’ basis.

There are so many obvious issues with this. Why would she need to see Cannan on the Monday lunchtime if she’d seen him as recently as Sunday night? If she’d faked the diary entry in order to get out of the office and meet up with Cannan, then it could also be argued she might’ve faked the diary entry to go off and do something else, possibly with someone else? What/who/where might that have been?

But the hosts clearly aren’t interested in anything like that - instead, we get treated to all the hits, the ‘Bristol businessman’ guff, the stuff about buying flowers being Cannan’s MO, with the promise of more to come in part 2!

The most revealing thing Barley says is towards the beginning of the episode: “Late on that Monday evening we knew three things… Suzy left the office at about 12.40 … her car had been found at one minute past 10 in Stevenage Road … and she hadn’t been seen since. And really, 39 years on we only really know those same three things.”

It’s really difficult to think of another UK case where such a major investigation spanning numerous decades has uncovered so very, very little.

DS barley is convinced JC is there man. i think both barley and DI johnstone think JC is mr kipper, but to imply SL is dating JC is madness. the CPS could not link SL to JC, so why would they think they were dating. its just more BS. DS barley interviewed JC yrs later and JC said yes when barley asked him if he killed SL. barley said he confessed to him then back tracked saying no. JC loves playing mind games, and iam sure barley knows deep down JC was probably telling porkies.

 

[lee sumner]

One of the reasons to doubt the sightings at 37SR is that they are quite possibly of several different men. He is described as smart and scruffy, with and without a broken nose, with long short hair and aged 25 to 30 but also 44, which was the Belgian diamond dealer's age. Rigging said he was a dead ringer for Kipper which is very odd considering he bore no similarity to the description he previously gave.

For my money at least one of the sightings is MG. Not all, but MG was smart and dark haired and went there that afternoon. One witness wasn't sure when he saw 'Kipper' except it was between 12 and 4. It seems quite plausible that this "corroborating" sighting was of MG.

MG looks nothing like mr kipper. he has a round face and curly dark hair.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

SL arranged to pick up her missing items at 6pm, so this means she was not in a rush to get her items back. if she was she would have arranged to get them ASAP. this simple arrangement SL made gets overlooked in my opinion.

SL arranged to pick up her missing items at 6pm, so this means she was not in a rush to get her items back. if she was she would have arranged to get them ASAP. this simple arrangement SL made gets overlooked in my opinion.

She had an apt at 6pm & may in reality have planned to go when she discovered where they were. Asap.

 

[lee sumner]

I think someone mooted the idea that AL might have reason for wanting to have a look through her belongings, if he was getting chucked and perhaps suspected that she was seeing other men. All JMO, obviously.

if she wanted her lost items back ASAP why did she arrange to pick them up at 6pm. this is something DV does not seem to understand. occams principle way of thinking. she was not in a hurry to collect her items. she was going to get them on the way home from work, so to think she suddenly changed her mind then falsified the appointment in her diary makes no sense.