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

[lee sumner]

Back in the 80's the police constabularies across England did not communicate with each other.

For the Shirley Banks case, the Met sent 2 detectives to Bristol to question Cannan, but they were effectively stonewalled, because the senior officers dealing with the SB case disliked the idea of the Met police coming onto their patch.

The same issue applied with the Yorkshire Ripper, and the belief by senior officers at West Yorkshire police not wanting to accept that the Ripper may have killed further afield from their patch.

As technology has developed over the decades, the police have had no choice but to communicate more effectively and efficiently, because the various databases available to them demand it.

But back in the 80's the police really had no desire to communicate with each other, and virtually everyone outside of Greater London disliked the Met police.

The bureaucracy and red tape has always plagued policing over the years, which is unfortunate for murder victims who are abducted and deposited in a different county.

yes, i got that impression from DCI saunders, SIO, SB case. he did not appear very confident there was any link between SB and SL. he said the end of the interview, and that is where it should rest, or something along them lines. its almost like he wanted it that way.

 

[lee sumner]

Yes. Cyril died around Jan 85, if this legacy paid out & prob had been by then, JC had some £ to impress ladies by mid 86 & apparently he began to spend a lot May-June 86. If you get it when still ‘half’ in custody. (?) He had £300 a week from Superhire.

wow, 300 a week from superhire. top money back in 86.

 

[lee sumner]

PL was REALLY worried about the optics re: SL’s reputation. The Lamplughs were worried this ‘deal’ (again) might make public think ill of her. They also think the police KNEW about deal/purchase but had forgotten or overlooked this - as they said elsewhere too.

NB: “She would never have taken part in any nefarious activity”. Yet AS had to unwillingly disclose something unfortunate to Carter Ruck in end. It might be she bit off more than she could chew. No one ‘gifts’ ££ with no strings.

Yet her dodgiest associates in that contact book needed more not less scrutiny.

IF anyone did suggest fraud SL would have backed out & her parents view was this led to her abduction. Would she have backed out on grey? Development a murky world back then.

Moving on…

I think it’s worth looking at witness sightings on Stevenage. A couple seen arguing to South of Barrier there. The garage exit south of barrier to flats DL later searched.

there failure to tell det carter, barley, and johnstone about the deal is odd. they would have wanted to know everything SL discussed on that sunday night when she called to her parents. i dont buy they thought it was not important info.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

wow, 300 a week from superhire. top money back in 86.

Sounds a lot, you’re right, was JC telling truth (not exactly a habit ) or mis-remembering?

 

[lee sumner]

She needed to raise money for this new, ambitious purchase, pronto, hence the hurry.

The Walham Grove flat was arguably nicer & a bit more of a prestigious location than SL’s. DL was really ambitious for girls & split the rent with them even though I think Ls not cash rich at time. Poss fuelled an appetite for ‘more’ & social improvement.

Need to look back at dates on Walham - this is 1982 was this SL subletting somehow on QE2 & T back home? Prob a coincidence.,NB: short lets from x1 week in Park Lane. Makes me think is it really out of question JC couldn’t have rented for a week or two to craft facade of businessman? Arguably he could afford in very short term.

do you know what number it was where SL and TL lived walham grove. i thought it was a small house, not a flat just curious.

 

[lee sumner]

Sounds a lot, you’re right, was JC telling truth (not exactly a habit ) or mis-remembering?

if JC was saying this is what he earned at superhire. its probably BS.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

if JC was saying this is what he earned at superhire. its probably BS.

There is that Will find source.

 

[lee sumner]

I don’t know, he had access to quite a bit - relatively - of money - poss even more than we know if behind superhire robberies. He fooled many in his time even those smart enough to know better. His father’s legacy too. Other ££ later from uncle - not then.

If him, he had £ to hire a car & maybe a hotel room or flat in very short term. Not easy though, yes, definitely.

We know he met uptown ‘Sue’ & was investigating buying a house, posing as an executive almost certainly, so must have looked a bit presentable.

JC could turn on the BS to impress people, so i see what you mean. like the dating video where he looks presentable pretending he has achieved what he wanted.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

do you know what number it was where SL and TL lived walham grove. i thought it was a small house, not a flat just curious.

Will have a look/check.

 

[Klclevi]

Was the missing luggage with letters with possible clues about the mystery man ever found?

Hi Yes
Pg 87 AS book

They arrived a week after TS landed at Heathrow (but AS says despite careful scrutiny they produced no significant new clues)

Interesting that TS says in this article SL had mentioned some new names.

 

[Klclevi]

Sorry TL I meant

 

[Rookie D]

JC could turn on the BS to impress people, so i see what you mean. like the dating video where he looks presentable pretending he has achieved what he wanted.

I find the dating video particularly unnerving.

There's a point in the video when he produces a big "smile" as he's looking down as his paperwork, before he looks up and looks at the woman talking to him.
But if you play the video in slow motion; frame by frame, his "smile" gradually turns into a look that reveals his true self.

His smile fades and his mouth tightens, and at the same time, his eyes widen and his countenance becomes momentarily fixated on the woman.

A look of pure evil washes over his face, but it only lasts momentarily, as though at that exact moment he was imagining ending her life... before his mask then reappears and he goes back to the smiley guy looking for a date.

That video captures his true self, but only for a moment before it's gone.

Check the video and you should be able to see what I mean.

 

[kes1972]

This boils my p155 too. Every documentary made features plod talking heads who assert that Cannan dunnit. While abducting and murdering someone is the sort of thing he'd do, which we know because he did, they're never pressed to explain therefore what happened. How does this always-confident claim cohere with and explain the evidence, sightings, vehicle movements, probable events of the crime and crime scene details? What crime scenes do they think there were? I'm not sure they've ever identified one. Where's the proof JC and SJL had ever met and were in contact? Assuming they were, what happened? Let's allow she did take the keys to 37SR. Why then didn't they go inside? What's the story about that?

This stuff is literally never aired. They may have a hypothesis for what actually occurred, but the publicly-made case against amounts to "He's a wrong 'un" and "he may have been around".

It seems completely farcical to me, because if they had ever put JC in the dock on this, his defence counsel would surely have had the world's easiest job. To get a conviction you'd have to show beyond reasonable doubt this was Cannan. If they had failed to eliminate the boyfriend, the defence would go to town on that - it's always the boyfriend so why didn't you eliminate him? Likewise if they didn't demonstrably eliminate the PoW, the Disraeli road Cypriot builder, SW, TS/PSS etc then the defence can argue OK, why can't it have been any of those?

Presumably the CPS saw all that looming and decided they had better uses of their time.

I thonk the assumption is that if you give a point everything that would make you think it would be cannan he comes out way in front of any other person you think could have done it, the next nearest i eould say is steve wright, negatives for cannan are
No body found
No actual link
Apart from those 2 he fits the bill in every department to quite a depth, ie estate agent, age, mo, car, location, lack of alibi yiu could go on and on.

 

[Klclevi]

Hi all

In light of some of these news articles (of the 'friends statements' about the parties and the tennis and the wine bar and what not) Make of those what you will but someone obviously spoke about it at the time. Possibly to DL and PL , but also to the papers.

I have to question IMH - Why has not one person who was her friend come forward (other than JH and a couple of interviews with AL and NB) in 40 years to say anything? (not including DVs interviews or the AS book). Do the 'Putney Set" all just accept that JC was the person responsible despite the obvious red flags in her personal life that would suggest in the first instance that JC was way off the mark in terms of her social status etc.
(and we can include PSS and TS here inthis grouping too). AL and NBs interviews in DV (yes AL was weird no doubt about that, but NB did not give much away either when you really re read what he said to DV theres not alot of guts in it) Not suggesting anything untoward here.

These people - friends and I mean girlfriends who you talk your love life to. Someone has to know something. (um where is SH, was she her bestie? It is said that TL was her bestie but there must have been someone else as well at least. Someone she confided in . The acquaintances (Putney Set). Talking about the parties, the man watching her at CT, and tennis and enquiring after her etc etc. Why has noone come forward to this day to say anything since 1986?

These people are now 60+ years old. It is almost inconceivable that no person knows nothing (sorry thats really bad grammar).

Time can reveal alot can't it. Maybe someone would talk if they were prompted though I cannot see how this is not forefront in their minds after all this time and the interest SLs case still holds to this day.

I find this all really really odd. Sure SW's previous wife has recently come forward, its probably a long shot but at least she has put it out there .

I am not saying JC was not responsible here , all I am saying is that there appears to be a wall of silence from the people who probably had an inkling about what was actually going on in her life to some extent.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this angle. Again I am novice 101 here

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I thonk the assumption is that if you give a point everything that would make you think it would be cannan he comes out way in front of any other person you think could have done it, the next nearest i eould say is steve wright, negatives for cannan are
No body found
No actual link
Apart from those 2 he fits the bill in every department to quite a depth, ie estate agent, age, mo, car, location, lack of alibi yiu could go on and on.

The lack of alibi was for about 4 days as I recall - before he could be solidly alibied by someone independent. So if him, that’s quite a chunk of time. He said his bro in law & sister could have vouched for him - when both were, by then, rather conveniently deceased. Both were certain it was him in lifetime

His access to funds, his spending - did it really significantly ramp up at end of hostel stay (?) & how much money he really had all important. If enough to create a facade & even rent a flat short term in cash (?)

How lax was this hostel. Could and did the inmates go out at weekends in eve? SL said someone she saw cut dates short. Did those who ran it turn a blind eye (?)

‘Sue’ in Fulham strikes me as being potentially a very important witness especially as flat buying mooted. Did he mention any ‘scheme’.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I

Hi all

In light of some of these news articles (particularly some of the 'friends statements' about the parties and what not) Make of that what you will.

Why has not one person come forward (other than JH) in 40 years to say anything? (not including DVs interviews or the AS book ) Do the 'Putney Set" all just accept that JC was the person responsible despite the obvious red flags in her personal life that would suggest in the first instance that JC was way off the mark? (and we can include PSS and TS here too). AL and NBs interviews in DV (yes AL was weird no doubt about that, but NB did not give much away either. Not suggesting anything untoward here)

These people - friends (um where is SH, was she her bestie? It is said that TL was her bestie but there must have been someone else as well. The acquaintances (Putney Set). Talking about the parties, the man watching her at CT, and tennis and enquiring after her etc etc. Why has noone come forward to this day to say anything. These people are now 60+ years old.

Time can reveal alot can't it. Maybe someone would talk if they were prompted though I cannot see how this is not forefront in their minds after all this time and the interest SLs case still holds to this day.

I find this really really odd. Sure SW's previous wife has recently come forward, its probably a long shot but at least she has put it out there .

I am not saying JC was not responsible here , all I am saying is that there appears to be a wall of silence from the people who probably had an inkling about what was actually going on in her life to some extent.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this angle. Again I am novice 101 here

I think there’s a natural discretion & loyalty amongst her ‘Putney Set’ friends. DV mentioned her parents made, or attempted to make, ‘boyfriends’ sign NDAs. Her close friends thought the book damaged her reputation & good name & possibly some of them thought what they said had been taken out of context. Also ‘stiff upper lip’ strong here.

Her friends played detective early on as it was thought she knew her killer. Did she know him socially? NB: attached said by DL. It was thought if not socially, she knew her killer through Sturgis - a client. I think the police were thorough here.

AS had kept troubling information out of book about her private life. I think it might be here answer lay. The friends needed access perhaps to ‘secret’ contact book. Did the police ever bottom this out. Is there a Jessop, Bryant, Peterson or Townsend in it to this day?

Her parents felt the SL in book unrecognisable to them & their portrayal very poor & damaging.

NB seemed to have understandably forgotten a lot of what he said around 86. DV could have brought with him articles from time to serve as memory jog - he mentioned silent calls & NB said no, but sources helpful here . Ditto when speaking to SF, who flagged lost possessions in AS & therefore presumably to early investigation.

Her ex flatmate who remembered a separate group of people - men? - calling her.

AL would appear to have his doubts on JC if we take DV’s account as evidence. Do the others & if so what’s the point of blabbing as impossible to identify.