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

[RichardKimble]

Point 1 - I understand. ‘Trial by media’.

Point 2 - The only way an investigation can progress is if it can be proven an earlier one didn’t make mistakes or lose clues?

What’s your interpretation here on point 2?

Thank you for posting this.

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored or didn't use clues from the first investigation, why? This is from JD himself , not another detective.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored evidence from the first investigation, why?

Thank you. JD in TMWKSL doc seemingly shows he’s unfamiliar with the 86 case, he gets details wrong. It seems the 86 case wasn’t reviewed in detailed & objective way? Did anyone re-scrutinise SL’s contact book. Why no effort or mention to find key joint purchaser? JD did computerise all early index cards.

JD has said he thinks first investigation poor & exhibits lost. Also there seems to be shock JC not noted as suspect from off & it feels almost as if SB abduction happened in parallel or before SL going missing. There’s a timeline confusion. Ofc JC should have come up as someone of interest from off but not so easy then.

I almost thought on point 2 JD was saying because of all ups first investigation made they couldn’t prosecute JC?

 

[RichardKimble]

Thank you. JD in TMWKSL doc seemingly shows he’s unfamiliar with the 86 case, he gets details wrong. It seems the 86 case wasn’t reviewed in detailed & objective way? Did anyone re-scrutinise SL’s contact book. Why no effort or mention to find key joint purchaser? JD did computerise all early index cards.

JD has said he thinks first investigation poor & exhibits lost. Also there seems to be shock JC not noted as suspect from off & it feels almost as if SB abduction happened in parallel or before SL going missing. There’s a timeline confusion. Ofc JC should have come up as someone of interest from off but not so easy then.

I almost thought on point 2 JD was saying because of all ups first investigation made they couldn’t prosecute JC?

It's the order he says it, point two being what the judge told them.What I take from that is, the CPS had presented both investigations to the judge and no doubt after much scrutiny the judge concluded his/ her findings that the second investigation hadn't considered some clues, quite possibly deciding a good defence would soon pick up on it, especially if said clues led elsewhere or not directly to JC.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Point two, JD himself says he led the second investigation, then basically says the judge concluded he'd ignored or didn't use clues from the first investigation, why? This is from JD himself , not another detective.

There’s a letter shown that points out the errors of ‘first’ (?) investigation but it’s not in July 86 days of Barley, Carter, Johnstone. Etc.

All the good information there & some leads feel lost to winds of time (?) Scrutinise contacts etc. BW.

It’s post JC arrest for SB…Hackett’s time (?)

Failure to interview JC under caution whilst in custody of Avon & Somerset Police.

Failure to stand JC on an identification parade.

Failure to debrief witness GP

Failure to search Norton Barracks

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It's the order he says it, point two being what the judge told them.What I take from that is, the CPS had presented both investigations to the judge and no doubt after much scrutiny the judge concluded his/ her findings that the second investigation hadn't considered some clues, quite possibly deciding a good defence would soon pick up on it, especially if said clues led elsewhere or not directly to JC.

It looks like in main too many procedural errors to bring to court? NB: above.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@WestLondoner Peabody Estate FPR from memory close to Hammersmith. Where BW saw fiesta headed (?)

 

[Konstantin]

@WestLondoner Peabody Estate FPR from memory close to Hammersmith. Where BW saw fiesta headed (?)

I'm curious about where the Fiesta was heading. Let's assume BW was right and that was SL. She claims she recognised her, not just the car.

Where is the alleged BMW in all this? Was there even one involved in the abduction?

Where and why was SL driving them at that time? A viewing elsewhere? A premises for another reason? Was she under control at this point? Being threatened? If they drove somewhere and then SL held there, when did kipper drive her car back to Stevenage road?

It's a credible sighting but it doesn't easily fit the narrative of "something went wrong after a viewing" and definitely not the "house for sale rapist MO".

 

[lee sumner]

I'm curious about where the Fiesta was heading. Let's assume BW was right and that was SL. She claims she recognised her, not just the car.

Where is the alleged BMW in all this? Was there even one involved in the abduction?

Where and why was SL driving them at that time? A viewing elsewhere? A premises for another reason? Was she under control at this point? Being threatened? If they drove somewhere and then SL held there, when did kipper drive her car back to Stevenage road?
S
It's a credible sighting but it doesn't easily fit the narrative of "something went wrong after a viewing" and definitely not the "house for sale rapist MO".

BW said she seen SL at 2.45pm with mystery man/mr kipper driving up FPR, this is 2 hrs after viewing 37SR. if mr kipper set a trap for SL to walk into he would have his own schedule to meet. he would not be driving around with her 2 hrs later, and risk being seen by a witness like BW.

 

[lee sumner]

The article said the superhire ones were blue. This is probably indeed why JD so confident. It's definitely interesting. But what then is the sequence with the cars. Did she drive to Stevenage and he drove her up to Shorrolds? But how did they end up back in the fiesta later? He drives them back to Stevenage, they go to lunch in the fiesta?

SL driving to stevenage rd after leaving the office does not make sense. to me her car was ditched there later on that day, possibly early evening. why else would it be parked in a hurry. because time is getting on. he then picks up his own vehicle around the corner from stevenage rd, and back tracks to the location where he has SL held captive.

 

[Rookie D]

It seems possible that the man who abducted and murdered SL, convinced her to go and look at other properties for sale.

He chose not to attack her at 37SR, because he would have been more more easily traced.

But by having SL driving around, it is a tactic to confuse and deflect.

Having the car parked outside 123 Stevenage road isn't a coincidence, as it was also for sale under Sturgis.

It would have been a good investigative tactic to have made a map of every Sturgis property for sale within a 3 mile radius, and see whether there were any garages or lock ups that were within proximity of any given house for sale.

We know for sure that SL was either abducted in another vehicle, murdered and then deposited in another location, or she was taken to a location WITHIN that 3 mile boundary, and then murdered and deposited at a later date.

I would also include any other individuals from other local rival estate agent firms, and also the local pub that SL had supposedly lost her belongings at.

It seems that JC's BMW that was found on the 29th October 1987 after the botched Leamington Spa incident, was a right hand drive; based on the archive footage/reconstructions.
This doesn't match the BMW allegedly witnessed by the man who had just come out of the park, and saw a left hand drive BMW.

Unless JC drove more than one BMW over that 15 month time period.

 

[lee sumner]

Possibly, but no one could confirm a sighting for 6 approx days. This didn’t serve him & he was trying hard to convince police (unsuccessfully) re: any solid alibi.

Same happened re: SB. He was back in circulation around time approximately apparently seen by canal dumping witness - early hours for them & then late afternoon in Birmingham. Barley says he might have had a train ticket for Bristol in this unaccounted for period (podcast). Flimsy.

For me it’s one of the better pieces of evidence that he’s poss guilty. Financial records, bank acc not helpful to pin down? Presumably they checked. This helped place him in Reading re: DT rape & they could track his movements re: SB via ‘hole in wall’ cash withdrawals.

it was more difficult to pin down JC movements because it was the 1980s. no cctv, cell towers, etc. if cctv did exist back then, what would it have shown. what route was SL taken on.

 

[Rookie D]

SL driving to stevenage rd after leaving the office does not make sense. to me her car was ditched there later on that day, possibly early evening. why else would it be parked in a hurry. because time is getting on. he then picks up his own vehicle around the corner from stevenage rd, and back tracks to the location where he has SL held captive.

The issue being that the car was seen parked there for quite some time throughout the day, and as early at 12.30pm IIRC?

I think that the car was parked there by SL, but then RE-PARKED again by the killer.

This is evidenced by the fact that the witnesses who saw the car parked in Stevenage road, stated that the back of it was encroaching partially onto the garage door.
But the footage taken after the car was discovered clearly shows that the car ISN'T as far back as was initially witnessed.

So unless the police moved the car slightly forwards, then the car seems to have moved forwards; ergo, it was parked in the same spot again after the killer had abducted SL.

The killer misjudging the fact that he had parked it too far forward.

 

[lee sumner]

It seems possible that the man who abducted and murdered SL, convinced her to go and look at other properties for sale.

He chose not to attack her at 37SR, because he would have been more more easily traced.

But by having SL driving around, it is a tactic to confuse and deflect.

Having the car parked outside 123 Stevenage road isn't a coincidence, as it was also for sale under Sturgis.

It would have been a good investigative tactic to have made a map of every Sturgis property for sale within a 3 mile radius, and see whether there were any garages or lock ups that were within proximity of any given house for sale.

We know for sure that SL was either abducted in another vehicle, murdered and then deposited in another location, or she was taken to a location WITHIN that 3 mile boundary, and then murdered and deposited at a later date.

I would also include any other individuals from other local rival estate agent firms, and also the local pub that SL had supposedly lost her belongings at.

It seems that JC's BMW that was found on the 29th October 1987 after the botched Leamington Spa incident, was a right hand drive; based on the archive footage/reconstructions.
This doesn't match the BMW allegedly witnessed by the man who had just come out of the park, and saw a left hand drive BMW.

Unless JC drove more than one BMW over that 15 month time period.

yes, i agree about car being ditched on stevenage rd. it was facing the large yellow sturgis for sale sign. across the road from the sturgis sign. this location was chosen in advance by mr kipper which means he knew 123 stevenage rd was for sale, and the sturgis for sale sign was already up outside the property.

 

[lee sumner]

The issue being that the car was seen parked there for quite some time throughout the day, and as early at 12.30pm IIRC?

I think that the car was parked there by SL, but then RE-PARKED again by the killer.

This is evidenced by the fact that the witnesses who saw the car parked in Stevenage road, stated that the back of it was encroaching partially onto the garage door.
But the footage taken after the car was discovered clearly shows that the car ISN'T as far back as was initially witnessed.

So unless the police moved the car slightly forwards, then the car seems to have moved forwards; ergo, it was parked in the same spot again after the killer had abducted SL.

The killer misjudging the fact that he had parked it too far forward.

it was badly parked, but it was not blocking mr mahon from getting in.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

it was more difficult to pin down JC movements because it was the 1980s. no cctv, cell towers, etc. if cctv did exist back then, what would it have shown. what route was SL taken on.

True. Although I think the tech there to do some forensic type accounting.

They did a brill job with SB in October 1986 where JC’s financial records & cash point withdrawals painted a really helpful picture. That & examining bank account. They had receipts from off licences etc - a great deal. They could map his day in Bristol to some extent & time stamp it on day & days after SB went missing. They did this just by plotting his ‘hole in the wall’ withdrawals.

Following the money & any cash withdrawals Jan-July 86 would have been very helpful too. They either couldn’t or didn’t do it and/or didn’t shed illuminating light. Any re investigation should have tried to do this. I’d be amazed if more cash machines in Bristol than London in 1986.

 

[lee sumner]

SJL has made her own admission to JH a month before she disappeared that she was seeing someone that was "unobtainable'". Thats not JC. Its a married man. You do not say that to someone just off the cuff. That was SJL basically admitting she was having an affair with someone and it was not AL obviously.

' But Jon believes something Suzy told him may hold the key to her vanishing without a trace. She said she was seeing another man who was "'unobtainable". Jon says , "I'm sure she meant she was having an affair with a married man. Maybe she got into something she couldn't get out of, maybe she made too many demands on him and he ended by killing her.

I also think that the witness statements from Marianna Jagoda are interesting - now this house in Langthorne street (105 I think) that she saw a woman fitting SJL description in the front yard of. Has this ever been searched or investigated more ? IMO it makes way more sense to the car scenario being left around the corner at Stevenage .

It could be that the drivers seat was pushed back to reach the hat on the back shelf in the first instance (if the MJ sighting is correct and SJL had a hat on - but it does not explain how it got back there.

The car - with no other obvious prints or fibres or hair ( if the perp was in the car it is likely he has left something somehow its not just about prints) is the key here. She has pulled up that lunchtime probably just behind another car (could even have been his) and badly parked in haste. She may (or may not have pushed the drivers seat back to reach the hat on the back shelf) and proceeded to meet him (hence the MJ sightings)

The only other explanation is she had more than one hat. DL said she loved hats, so its not totally out of the question.

JMO

original investigation does not mention SL wearing any hat that day. i doubt she would wear a hat for a viewing. it would be distracting to the client in my opinion. the reconstruction showing SL wearing a hat was aired 14 yrs later, so i dont buy it.

 

[Klclevi]

Fulham Palace Road. If ‘Sue’ lived here likely not affluent. It’s interesting that JC told the police he didn’t know Fulham at all & had never been. That does make me suspicious.

Ah, just noted this ‘Sue’ from Peabody - ‘helping’ JC buy a house.

Technically, it’s more Hammersmith re: Peabody.

In the doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ all evidence seems to be twisted to favour JC although it’s very title suggests not objective! Have you seen it?

Ali L, in it, from SuperHire infers this ‘Su Su’ or ‘Sue’ was SL. She wasn’t as the police presumably knew.

Interesting article.

Fascinating to read about these Peabody Estates and their history.

It is right around the corner from Star Road in Lillie Road? (or it looks like there is more than one around Fulham maybe?)

Fulham

Fulham estate in Lillie Road was opened in 1912. Previously the land was occupied by Hermitage Lodge, a large house with extensive gardens once owned by Sir John Lillie.

www.peabodygroup.org.uk

 

[Klclevi]

Fulham Palace Road. If ‘Sue’ lived here likely not affluent. It’s interesting that JC told the police he didn’t know Fulham at all & had never been. That does make me suspicious.

Ah, just noted this ‘Sue’ from Peabody - ‘helping’ JC buy a house.

Technically, it’s more Hammersmith re: Peabody.

In the doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ all evidence seems to be twisted to favour JC although it’s very title suggests not objective! Have you seen it?

Ali L, in it, from SuperHire infers this ‘Su Su’ or ‘Sue’ was SL. She wasn’t as the police presumably knew.

Hi LSW
Which paper was this in please? (have been trying to find it but having no luck so far).

This is yet another detail that has gone completely overlooked and incredibly interesting. How did this Sue person know JC, let alone help him in finding a house..

If this is indeed true (which I tend to think it probably is) then the drivel being churned out about this Su Su story over the years - its just disgraceful to say the least. JMO.

 

[Rookie D]

In terms of SL being abducted and murdered by a man who feigned wanted to buy a house, and why the police initially tried to form a link between JC and the HFS rapist who run riot through the west midlands, may have been influenced by an earlier case that occurred in the Clifton area of Bristol back in October 1983.

On Monday 17th October, a man giving the name P R Shenley went to an Estate agent in Bristol city centre and took down the addresses of several houses for sale.

Later that day, 49 near old Mrs Adrienne J Hill, was found bludgeoned to death in her attic.

The case that followed was interesting because it was initially linked with the HFS rapist who had been active in the west midlands 3 years earlier in 1980; ergo, the same rapist that the police tried to link JC with.

Here are some of the articles relating to that case; bearing in mind that this case was solved.


Wolverhampton Express and Star; 19th October 1983...

Interesting that the police assumed that the Bristol case and the HFS rapist were linked.


But here's what really happened...

The case took an odd turn, when it was discovered that 2 men were involved...

Long story short, William Wood was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, but Michael Williams was found not guilty of the murder, and sentenced to just 2 and half years for being involved. It all kicked off in court when Woods tried to assault Williams for having got off the hook for murder.



What this case highlights, is that despite their being an initial suggestion of a link to the HFS rapist, it clearly wasn't the same man. The M.O of a man who called at a house and murdered the female occupant, after having visited an estate agent, doesn't automatically mean it's all linked.


The Adrienne Hill murder case was also linked to the unsolved murder of Janice Weston murder on the A1 in Cambridgeshire in 1983; which remains unsolved. The link to Hill and Weston was also quickly dismissed however.

It's therefore no surprise when the police tried to make a link with JC to the unsolved HFS rapist who had operated in 1980, because when the SL case was added into the mix, it all seemed to fit the narrative that the police had at the time.

Confirmation bias at it's very best.


What the Adrienne Hill case does demonstrate however, is that the idea of a killer going to visit a property and/or contacting an estate agent, and then going on to kill, wasn't an unprecedented occurrence by the time SL was murdered in 1986.

On that basis, did the police make a mistake by THEN dismissing a potential link between JC and the abduction and murder of SL?

DCI Bryan Saunders, who headed the SB murder case in 1987, was very dismissive of any potential link to the SL case.

And so it seems that despite there being an initial suggestion of a link to JC and SL from virtually day 1 of the SB murder case being investigated, the police quickly changed their tune, and the likes of DCI Saunders tried their best to negate any connection with JC to the SL case.

What's interesting about DCI Saunders, is that from his interviews on camera, it's very clear that he's either hiding something, or he is feeding the narrative to the press based on what his own superiors have told him to say. His choice of words and syntax are peculiar to say the least, and in at least 2 interviews, he comes across as a man who knows a lot more than he's letting on. It's not a remark on his integrity as a police officer, but he really needed to improve his acting skills when making interviews to the press.

It seems rather apparent that any potential link with JC to the SL case, was severed quite abruptly and deliberately by the senior officers working the SB case. The Met sent 2 detectives to Bristol, to go and interview JC to question him about the SL case, but it seems that DCI Saunders and his team were eager to not have the Met police steal their thunder from having solved the SB case; of which they did an exceptional job IMO.

A lot of inflated egos in play there.

But at the cost of the SL case being solved?

Possibly.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Hi LSW
Which paper was this in please? (have been trying to find it but having no luck so far).

This is yet another detail that has gone completely overlooked and incredibly interesting. How did this Sue person know JC, let alone help him in finding a house..

If this is indeed true (which I tend to think it probably is) then the drivel being churned out about this Su Su story over the years - its just disgraceful to say the least. JMO.

Will look back. Speaks of an affair as her husband upset (?) & important as suggests he was looking or pretending to look to buy in Fulham area- as rumours suggested. This woman a key witness who needed to be interviewed on any reinvestigstion.

Interesting in light of JC apparently saying didn’t know Fulham at all & had never been.

Attached is Peabody Estate.

Also ‘Galway a-like’s’ drop off in taxi - Shorrolds to McDonalds, North End Rd I found in passing.