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...

 

[WestLondoner]

3) seat set back from SL's regular driving position; ergo, to accommodate someone taller

Not necessarily. Someone could have returned to the car later to search it or retrieve something - a set of sales particulars with his fingerprints on, for example. So he opens the driver's door, pushes the driver's seat forward to get at the back seat area and then leaves. He didn't bother re-locking the door because a third party nicking the car would have been quite handy; also because anyone finding it would be doing so further to a missing person inquiry. That means that whoever left the car like that either already knew SJL had been abducted, or was SJL and expected to be returning to the car very shortly.

By having one door unlocked and the other locked, it strongly implies there having been only ONE driver.

There generally is only one driver

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

Not necessarily - it may lead us to other avenues of inquiry. If the police had paid attention to this in 1986, they might not have been so quick to assert that SJL had definitely been seen outside 37SR.

 

[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...

We have established that someone involved with the disappearance of SL must have driven the white Fiesta and left it in Stevenage Road.

That's a factual piece of data from which to progress and expand upon.

Whilst it does not prove that it was actually the abductor who parked the car (it may have been an accomplice) we can suggest with a degree of confidence that it is more likely and probable that the person who parked the car was the same person who abducted SL.

Again, that's not a fact, but it's highly probable compared to the idea of more than one person having been involved.

So, let's continue...

When the car was left, where did the suspect go?

1) walked to a location within walking distance, without the use of a vehicle (they stayed within close proximity)
2) walked to a location within walking distance, and got into a vehicle and drove off.
3) walked to a location within walking distance, and got into a vehicle driven by an accomplice
4) walked to a location within walking distance and hailed a taxi in the street
5) walked to a cab/taxi office
6) walked to a bus stop
7) walked to a train station
8) they got into a vehicle parked within very close proximity to the Fiesta
9) they got into a vehicle parked within very close proximity to the Fiesta, where an accomplice was waiting.
10) they went into a property within very close proximity to the Fiesta.

At first glance, it would seem that any of the above are viable options.

However, when we add the fact that SL had to have physically been somewhere, then we can dismiss some of the above options as being highly improbable.

But let's put that on hold for a moment while we ask the next question; WHERE was SL at the time the abductor drove and parked the Fiesta in Stevenage Road?

Well, rather crucially, seeing as though the driver's door was unlocked and the passenger door was unlocked, then unless SL was sitting in the passenger seat and then got out of the car via the driver's door AFTER the abductor got out of the driver's seat first, then the abductor must have put SL somewhere else (other than the car) PRIOR to them having driven and parked the car in Stevenage Road.

And so, when we combine this fact with the list of 10 viable options for where the abductor may have gone after they parked the car, then it would seem highly probable that when the abductor exited the Fiesta, they must have gone to the location where SL was situated.

The next question is to ask; where could SL have been placed prior to the abductor driving her car and leaving it in Stevenage Road?

We need to now look at timeframe and work out the "logistics" of how far away from Stevenage Road could SL have been left between the time she was abducted, to the point the car was left in Stevenage Road.

But this we can look at in my next post...

 

[Rookie D]

Not necessarily. Someone could have returned to the car later to search it or retrieve something - a set of sales particulars with his fingerprints on, for example. So he opens the driver's door, pushes the driver's seat forward to get at the back seat area and then leaves. He didn't bother re-locking the door because a third party nicking the car would have been quite handy; also because anyone finding it would be doing so further to a missing person inquiry. That means that whoever left the car like that either already knew SJL had been abducted, or was SJL and expected to be returning to the car very shortly.

There generally is only one driver


Not necessarily - it may lead us to other avenues of inquiry. If the police had paid attention to this in 1986, they might not have been so quick to assert that SJL had definitely been seen outside 37SR.

Interesting post.

I don't believe that the person who abducted SL would return to the Fiesta afterwards to retrieve anything, because they would have been more likely to leave even further trace evidence by going back to the car, touching the door handle again etc... They would also risk being seen by someone as they accessed the car.
You make an interesting point regarding the seat; if the driver's seat was found pushed forward, it would suggest that someone had tried to get into the back seat, or had left the driver's side of the car via the driver's door.

However, the seat was found pushed "back" which means the seat was adjusted to alter the driver's position for driving the car.

If the abductor went back to the car to retrieve something from the back seat, they would have put the seat forward and not backward.

The seat having been found pushed backwards, indicates that the action of pushing the seat backward was for the sole purpose of driving the vehicle.

Which in turn indicates that the abductor had at some point driven the car, or had planned to drive it at the very least.

And of course, you're right that there's only ever one driver, haha!

I should have said only ONE "occupant" rather than "driver."


In terms of what may or may not have happened the night before the abduction; it is relevant in the context of trying to ascertain a motive; but as I mentioned, deciphering the motivation of an individual who chooses to abduct another, is wholly subjective and isn't necessarily the optimal pathway for trying to unravel the truth of a crime, with regards to its practical logistics.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Not necessarily. Someone could have returned to the car later to search it or retrieve something - a set of sales particulars with his fingerprints on, for example. So he opens the driver's door, pushes the driver's seat forward to get at the back seat area and then leaves. He didn't bother re-locking the door because a third party nicking the car would have been quite handy; also because anyone finding it would be doing so further to a missing person inquiry. That means that whoever left the car like that either already knew SJL had been abducted, or was SJL and expected to be returning to the car very shortly.

There generally is only one driver


Not necessarily - it may lead us to other avenues of inquiry. If the police had paid attention to this in 1986, they might not have been so quick to assert that SJL had definitely been seen outside 37SR.

If the police have evidence she went elsewhere after her parents, & it would seem they do, it’s not conjecture. Also SL seemingly lied to AL about who she was with at this time (Barley recent podcast) surely this is important to bottom out. The ‘friends’ she said she saw to AL said they did not see her.

A lot points to her seeing expat perhaps, & this is surmise, but police were quick to get Interpol involved re: questioning him.

He was cleared. To solve, an accurate timeline is important & it’s unclear here. Especially, as there’s some, arguably good, evidence for missing things on Sunday versus Friday.

 

[GTB72]

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.

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.

BBM. Several very accurate photo fits of the Yorkshire Ripper were published yet no-one came forward outwith the actual victims to identify him. Canann could still be the killer even allowing for the fact no-one came forward.

 

[Rookie D]

From the original Crimewatch reconstruction filmed in August/September 1986, it's fairly clear that the manager of Sturgis is either lying, hiding something, or not telling us the whole truth.

The fact he states that he called the police at "5.30pm" to notify them of SL's disappearance (after having spoken to SL's mother on the phone) does not make sense, because if he had looked at SL's diary on the table, he would have seen the 6pm appointment.

What should of happened, would have been someone going to the 6pm location which was around a 5 minute drive from Sturgis Fulham, to see if SL turned up and/or to talk to the woman who was expecting SL to meet her at 6pm (based on her diary)

And yet, despite MG going to 37SR to check to see if SL had somehow got herself "locked in," he fails to mention the 6pm appointment.

Why?

It's almost as though he knew she wouldn't be making it to the 6pm appointment.


The POW is also an odd aspect, because it ties in with the same 6pm timing of SL's diary appointment.

At some point someone must have contacted the woman who SL was meant to be meeting at 6pm to let them know that SL was missing, but surely MG would have waited until he knew that SL hadn't turned up for her 6pm appointment BEFORE he called the police?

The timing of when he called the police is also something that needs to be definitively confirmed, because in some instances it seems that the timing of the call to the police changes considerably. Why is this?

MG's appearance on camera is dubious and if you really look at him and break down what he says word for word, it seems fairly apparent that he's not being totally honest in what he's saying.

His repeated action of licking his lips stems from nervousness, but also indicates deceit and concealment.

Has it been confirmed that MG never left the office on the day of SL's disappearance?

And if he did, where did he go for lunch?


Watch his "performance" closely and his countenance, his reactions, his micro expressions, they all tell us something isn't quite right with what he's saying.

The way he looks at the camera and holds the glance just after he's licked his lips for a 2nd time, is also an odd thing to do, because his words don't tally with what his face is telling us.

The licking of the lips is also a subconscious physical reaction to a feeling of enjoyment or excitement. In the context of SL having disappeared, I would assume that this wasn't the overriding emotion going through his mind at the time.


All conjecture of course, and bears no direct relevance to exactly "how" SL was abducted.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

@Rookie D AS covers timeline re: contacting police & thoughts on 6pm apt. It was thought she might turn up.

 

[Officer Dibble]

We have established that someone involved with the disappearance of SL must have driven the white Fiesta and left it in Stevenage Road.

That's a factual piece of data from which to progress and expand upon.

Whilst it does not prove that it was actually the abductor who parked the car (it may have been an accomplice) we can suggest with a degree of confidence that it is more likely and probable that the person who parked the car was the same person who abducted SL.

Again, that's not a fact, but it's highly probable compared to the idea of more than one person having been involved.

So, let's continue...

When the car was left, where did the suspect go?

1) walked to a location within walking distance, without the use of a vehicle (they stayed within close proximity)
2) walked to a location within walking distance, and got into a vehicle and drove off.
3) walked to a location within walking distance, and got into a vehicle driven by an accomplice
4) walked to a location within walking distance and hailed a taxi in the street
5) walked to a cab/taxi office
6) walked to a bus stop
7) walked to a train station
8) they got into a vehicle parked within very close proximity to the Fiesta
9) they got into a vehicle parked within very close proximity to the Fiesta, where an accomplice was waiting.
10) they went into a property within very close proximity to the Fiesta.

At first glance, it would seem that any of the above are viable options.

However, when we add the fact that SL had to have physically been somewhere, then we can dismiss some of the above options as being highly improbable.

But let's put that on hold for a moment while we ask the next question; WHERE was SL at the time the abductor drove and parked the Fiesta in Stevenage Road?

Well, rather crucially, seeing as though the driver's door was unlocked and the passenger door was unlocked, then unless SL was sitting in the passenger seat and then got out of the car via the driver's door AFTER the abductor got out of the driver's seat first, then the abductor must have put SL somewhere else (other than the car) PRIOR to them having driven and parked the car in Stevenage Road.

And so, when we combine this fact with the list of 10 viable options for where the abductor may have gone after they parked the car, then it would seem highly probable that when the abductor exited the Fiesta, they must have gone to the location where SL was situated.

The next question is to ask; where could SL have been placed prior to the abductor driving her car and leaving it in Stevenage Road?

We need to now look at timeframe and work out the "logistics" of how far away from Stevenage Road could SL have been left between the time she was abducted, to the point the car was left in Stevenage Road.

But this we can look at in my next post...

I'm still pondering on a switch of numberplates. Do we know where the other white fiesta for Sturgis was parked on that day?