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

[WestLondoner]

From the Sunday Express, January 17th 1988

Despite the relative ambiguity of the article, it's clear it relates to John Cannan's drive to the disused barracks.




View attachment 649971

Interesting that this hit the press before Cannan killed SB and was still at large. Another chance to have reeled him in lost....

 

[RichardKimble]

JC came up with an elaborate, conspiracy theory around ‘Hodgeson/Hodgkinson’ mysteriously mini seller & we have to wonder why JC wanted a tatty, broken rust bucket at all (?) He’d also asked about Bristol car auction venues before his questioning in police station. He knew nothing of logistics, location & whole story full of holes. He also didn’t attend auction - if true - very unlikely - with enough money to buy anything really but all sorts of excuses of course.

Going back to the mini was the paint job a amateur hand paint or even spray paint, is it known?

 

[Klclevi]

at 14.38 it says it was painted by hand- it has brushstrokes on it.

This is on You Tube (Crimewatch file - The Shirley Banks Murder)

its very good.

 

[Klclevi]

Yes. Barley on the True Criminals podcast talking of Suzy having had a ‘clandestine’ meeting with someone on the Sunday evening ties up some of the loose ends, for me. Evidently, there’s a gap in the timeline. I suspect her nearest and dearest had their own theories as to where she’d been and with whom, Diana (rightly or wrongly) likely felt that this would’ve reflected poorly on Suzy, hence a story was possibly concocted that Suzy spent a considerable period of time at her flat with the lodger NB, and that her belongings were lost at the pub on the Friday after having had dinner at the restaurant next door, rather than on the Sunday.

Why AL later said the belongings were stolen from the pub, I’ve no idea. Got a little carried away, perhaps? I think he was being truthful when he told DV that actually, he and Suzy never went to the Prince of Wales. The relief landlord was fairly clear in his conversations with DV that it was he who found the belongings, and that he found them on the Sunday evening. NB was coy with DV at times but he was also talkative at others (eg being quite critical of police, ‘keystone cops’, etc), which makes me think he knows a lot more than he let on. I suspect most of the key characters in this story know a bit more, actually, but we can’t really blame them for being coy, especially when confronted by an ex-cop like DV, @Konstantin covers this well in an earlier post I think.

It is really odd.

This old documentary from 2002 has an interview with AL (starts at 16.45) and then he is on again at 17.45)- am sure most of you have seen it before.

He actually also says some other items also went missing (but does not say what) He also does not mention Mossops or the POW specifically but we know it was Mossops from his DV interview. Assume it was next to POW in its day.

I would also really love to know if AL spent the night in Disraeli Rd on that Friday night or she has sent him on his way back to his flat.

How does he forget he gave this interview 24 years ago? It is freely available on You Tube. (The Man who killed Suzy Lamplugh?)

I get he was probably put off by DV on the day of the interview hence his emotional response, I have to think that maybe he has come to know alot more over the years that he ever knew initially and that came out in his outburst that day. Maybe he is trying to say something without saying anything? Just thoughts

 

[Klclevi]

I am puzzled by these NDAs. Nobody can make you sign one. I have signed them at work as a condition of seeing confidential information: we'll let you see this if you first agree not to disclose it. So I signed because I wanted to see it. What were DL/PL offering in return for an NDA? Doesn't the request prove that the subject matter not to be disclosed is true?

Correct.
I have seen them alot in HR situations along with substantial payoffs. Still makes me ill to this day.

 

[kes1972]

Very true. Surely you pay a visit to the pub after it reopens before calling police, though? MG supposedly couldn’t search inside 37SR due to lack of keys yet apparently visited twice, presumably on the off chance of seeing her outside, seeing her car in the street, etc. No one thought to do the same at the Prince of Wales? Even a closed pub will open its doors if you bang on them.

DV’s research seemed to show that even police themselves weren’t entirely sure how the pub came up on their radar. It may or may not be pertinent to the case, ultimately. But it does seem like a peculiar loose end, to me.

There has to be an answer for this big question, we are basically wasting our time without the relevant information and important at that.

If she indeed went out post parents & lied about who she was seeing to AL (Barley) there’s a small window for call at 10:15pm if received at flat. (?)

It’s interesting to have this ‘going out later’ rumour seemingly confirmed as suspicion always there.

with the going out later rumour, who is confirming this happened?

 

[kes1972]

It is really odd.

This old documentary from 2002 has an interview with AL (starts at 16.45) and then he is on again at 17.45)- am sure most of you have seen it before.

He actually also says some other items also went missing (but does not say what) He also does not mention Mossops or the POW specifically but we know it was Mossops from his DV interview. Assume it was next to POW in its day.

I would also really love to know if AL spent the night in Disraeli Rd on that Friday night or she has sent him on his way back to his flat.

How does he forget he gave this interview 24 years ago? It is freely available on You Tube. (The Man who killed Suzy Lamplugh?)

I get he was probably put off by DV on the day of the interview hence his emotional response, I have to think that maybe he has come to know alot more over the years that he ever knew initially and that came out in his outburst that day. Maybe he is trying to say something without saying anything? Just thoughts

The “other items” may be more important than thought,

 

[WestLondoner]

He actually also says some other items also went missing (but does not say what)

Usually said to have been a postcard and her cheque book - the latter of limited value without the cheque guarantee card that went with it.

He also does not mention Mossops or the POW specifically but we know it was Mossops from his DV interview. Assume it was next to POW in its day.

It was indeed next door. I had lunch there with my line manager in 1987 or 1988. I have zero recollection of it other than the inaccurate one that it was in the middle of a row of shops. I'm pretty sure it's now a steak place called Roxie, simply because permitted uses don't change and therefore new restaurants tend to be in the space an old one was.

Re Cannan generally - I still struggle with why nobody came forward in response to that artist's sketch to point at him - nobody recently sprung from the Scrubs, not Taggart's wife, not even an earlier victim. No TV viewer or newspaper reader said "I know him, his name's JC".

It shores up my feeling that on a consensus basis it doesn't look much like him at all. The claim we hear from JD that "that is Cannan" doesn't seem to be agreed with very widely.

 

[Rookie D]

Logistics.

While I believe there is a lot to be gained from trying to ascertain what the motive is behind any given unsolved murder case, I much prefer to look at the logistics of how a crime was able to take place. With many serial killers, there simply is no underlying fundamental reason; or "motive" for doing what they do, other than from pure enjoyment and self gratification.
It's precisely for that reason why I believe that rather than focusing primarily on the potential motive behind why SL was abducted and then murdered, I favour looking at exactly how the culprit was able to do what they did and how they evaded being caught out.
In the first instance, it doesn't matter "why," but rather "how" it all transpired. The "why" then becomes important further down the investigative line.

So, let's do exactly that, by asking the question; How was someone able to abduct SL and make her stay gone?

Let's start with the actual factual evidence. (putting any and every "eye witness" account to the side for a moment)


Evidence point 1...

SL's company car was found in Stevenage Road.

That's a definitely ascertained fact.

So, who put it there? (don't worry about "when" just yet)

The answer is either;
1) SL
2) the person who abducted her
3) an accomplice to the person who abducted her or,
4) someone unconnected to SL's disappearance.

Let's look at each of those 4 options based in conjunction with the actual evidence.

The car was found...

1) unlocked driver's side door
2) locked passenger side door
3) seat set back from SL's regular driving position; ergo, to accommodate someone taller
4) Handbrake off
5) SL's purse found inside
6) no keys

So, when we combine that factual data with the 4 viable options relating to "who" could have put the car there, we can then build a picture of statistical likelihood.

For example, let's take option 1; SL drove the car and left it in Stevenage Road?

Okay, but does that tie in with the list of 6 factual pieces of data from the other list?

No, it doesn't

Unless SL deliberately wanted to make herself disappear by faking her own abduction, then it makes no sense whatsoever for her to leave the car the way she did.

I think that based on overwhelming statistical likelihood; SL wasn't the person who drove the car to leave it in Stevenage Road across the road from number 123.

So that leaves option 2, 3, or 4.

Option 4; someone unrelated to the disappearance parked the car in Stevenage Road?

Well considering that the driver completely vanished and has never been found, then again, it's beyond the realms of probability for someone completely innocent to have left the car where it was found.

So, that leaves us with either option 2 or 3 as the correct answer.

Now the idea that there was more than one person involved with the abduction of SL, is something that cannot be either proven or disproven at this juncture.
However, based on the fact that only the driver's door was unlocked and the passenger door was locked, this suggests that only ONE person drove the car and parked it in Stevenage Road. Otherwise, BOTH the doors of the car would have been unlocked or locked. By having one door unlocked and the other locked, it strongly implies there having been only ONE driver.

Therefore, while there may have indeed been an accomplice, we can be almost certain that only 1 person actually drove the car to Stevenage Road
Therefore, the only person who could have viably parked the Fiesta in Stevenage Road, has to be either the abductor, or an accomplice.

That's a fact.

And now we're getting somewhere.


One useful tip when trying to flush out the truth, is that when looking at a case like the abduction of SL, don't think like a cop and be bound by restriction and limitation... but instead, think like the killer.
How did the killer manage to do what they did in a practical sense, regardless of any motive they may or may not of had.

Note that anything and everything that may or may not have happened the night before SL's disappearance, is wholly subjective and based on supposition and conjecture. It frankly leads us nowhere, and clouds the pathway to actually analysing the actual evidential data.

So,. now we have established that someone connected with SL's disappearance MUST have parked the white Fiesta where it was later found, it then opens up a much broader range of questions that need to be addressed.

Some of which I will continue with in my next post...