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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

If DV has no more on KH than he put in his book, then IMO, he has nothing at all

If DV has no more on KH than he put in his book, then IMO, he has nothing at all.

It was very odd how he seemed to expect an arrest, from various remarks I saw online, he’ll know threshold. Has he ever updated on book, etc?

 

[rvlvr]

I think JC is a very good suspect for Suzy, with a very strong (though entirely circumstantial) case against him. I keep an open mind though, and it might be someone else after all.

Most telling for me is that he couldn't ever provide an alibi. Even in later years when he had hopes of parole. He claimed he was with various relatives, who had conveniently all since died, but living relatives rubbished his claims.

Cannan obviously shouldn’t have ever been released but he also shouldn’t have needed to provide an alibi for the Lamplugh case (for which he was never charged) in order to secure release from prison for the Banks case. That’s a ridiculous bar to expect anyone to clear!

It’s for the Met to place him in London on the day of Suzy’s disappearance. That’s how this works.

 

[RichardKimble]

I think JC is a very good suspect for Suzy, with a very strong (though entirely circumstantial) case against him. I keep an open mind though, and it might be someone else after all.

Most telling for me is that he couldn't ever provide an alibi. Even in later years when he had hopes of parole. He claimed he was with various relatives, who had conveniently all since died, but living relatives rubbished his claims.

But he never needed an alibi he was never charged, the cps saying no direct link between SJL and JC tells us all we need to know.Its likely JC took the secret of what befell SJL to his grave, but ,there's always a but, without that compelling piece of evidence there's a possibility its some one else.All opinion.

 

[GTB72]

It's definitely required reading if you're interested in this case, albeit with a critical eye.

IMO he may well be right on keys, or lack thereof, for one thing re: 37. Makes no odds it was/is thought as surely SL was defintley outside and likely with a man. NB: also WJ on fiesta.Other detail too, all builds a piciure. He says, DV, the police agreed with him on pretty much everything bar KH being responsible. So if you read with that in mind... For the police, DV was missing the 'golden thread' that ties some/all of the conjecture around KH/CV together.

If DV has no more on KH than he put in his book, then IMO, he has nothing at all.

I understand DV thinks the BW sighting at 2.45 is a false flag. I am actually of a mind to think that myself but I don't want to box myself in on that regard.

What's your take on that?

Apologies if you have already explained this rationale before but I'm quite new to the thread and would lbe grateful.