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.

 

[Hexe]

I know what you mean about JC and Suzy's body not being found, but a lot of offenders commit organised murders, before getting sloppy and caught.

The thing is there is no evidence for Cannan ever committing an organised crime. All his crimes are sloppy, impulsive, without much planning.

 

[Rookie D]

The thing is there is no evidence for Cannan ever committing an organised crime. All his crimes are sloppy, impulsive, without much planning.

That is true to an extent, but Cannan as a serial rapist and killer, still had the capability to abduct and dispose of SL.

And so whether he was organised or disorganised in his M.O, it is still the case that Cannan COULD have been the man who kidnapped SL.

Killers more often than not, learn to adapt accordingly to any given situation, and as a psychopath, Cannan was very capable of being the man who made SL stay gone.

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence that supports Cannan as the culprit, and it's interesting how the police were interested in him during both the original investigation, and then again when it was revised by a new team in the early naughties.

If anything, the senior officers who were involved in the SB case, seemed reluctant and unwilling to search for a viable link to Cannan and SL, because they likely felt that the Met would come in and steal their thunder.

One of the biggest factors that hindered the progression of any potential link with Cannan to SL, was the SB murder case itself.

 

[rvlvr]

He says, DV, the police agreed with him on pretty much everything bar KH being responsible.

This is bang on, imo. The Met need this to be more than a simple, random abduction, because if that’s all it was, then why Cannan? Why not just about anyone? This is why the possible clandestine meeting the night before Suzy’s disappearance, the stuff about the flowers and the champagne and a stalker hanging about the tennis courts and everything else becomes absolutely critical to the case. Police as much as anyone else surely suspect the appointment wasn’t legit, that there was far more to that day’s events than meets the eye. It’s simply the conclusions drawn that differ.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

This is bang on, imo. The Met need this to be more than a simple, random abduction, because if that’s all it was, then why Cannan? Why not just about anyone? This is why the possible clandestine meeting the night before Suzy’s disappearance, the stuff about the flowers and the champagne and a stalker hanging about the tennis courts and everything else becomes absolutely critical to the case. Police as much as anyone else surely suspect the appointment wasn’t legit, that there was far more to that day’s events than meets the eye. It’s simply the conclusions drawn that differ.

What do people think is best & strongest evidence re: JC?

 

[Kasparthecat1]

BBM. Lol. So you don't recommend Finding Suzy then? That's one I can scratch off my list.

Finding Suzy was the first book I read about the crime and I must admit I was completely gripped by it. DV has a particular style of writing which I now find irritating but at the time I found refreshing and different. He also writes fiction, and he certainly ramps up the drama in Finding Suzy. I think it's a good one to read alongside Stephen's book and Berry-Dee's, with an open and sceptical mind. There used to be a podcast in which DV was interviewed about the book by another ex-detective on YouTube, but I think it's been taken down now.

 

[Hexe]

That is true to an extent, but Cannan as a serial rapist and killer, still had the capability to abduct and dispose of SL.

Of course he had that capability but it was not the point of my post.

My point was his MO, full of recklessness and impulsivity, sorely lacking organisation. It does not seem he ever kidnapped anyone in broad daylight, nor that he ever made any elaborate preparations before any of his crimes.

Suzy's kidnapping seems to be something entirely different than Cannan's crimes. She was not snatched from the street while returning home late at night. She vanished in the middle of the day. She went for most probably fake meeting with non existent client (the question is if she knew that and was willingly stealing an hour or two with a lover, or was unaware and the meeting was a trap) which required a bit of planning from Mr Kipper. Her body was never found, which means Kipper got her, alive or dead, somewhere nobody would look. There was not much of evidence left behind. That's not Cannan's MO at all.

Another thing is that I do not think Suzy would be interested in Cannan at all. It is quite obvious she wanted posh life and posh men, a cheapo bad boy Cannan's style would not be anywhere close to her orbit of interest.

 

[GTB72]

Finding Suzy was the first book I read about the crime and I must admit I was completely gripped by it. DV has a particular style of writing which I now find irritating but at the time I found refreshing and different. He also writes fiction, and he certainly ramps up the drama in Finding Suzy. I think it's a good one to read alongside Stephen's book and Berry-Dee's, with an open and sceptical mind. There used to be a podcast in which DV was interviewed about the book by another ex-detective on YouTube, but I think it's been taken down now.

BBM. Would have thought the story was dramatic enough without using narrative techniques.

However, I do like fiction authors who write at a rattling pace as I have Adhd and it takes a lot to capture my attention so I will buy it now.

Thanks for the heads up re style of book as I might well not have purchased it, but will now.

 

[tes1984]

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.

The police named him in public as the only suspect in the Lamplugh case, and he knew he had zero chance of ever getting parole with that hanging over him.

My thinking is that it was agreed behind closed doors that JC would never be released. He had messed with the wrong victim in AR.

JC was originally sentenced to 40 years for killing SB. In comparison Colin Pitchfork got 30 years for killing two schoolgirls, and was released after serving 33 years.

 

[Konstantin]

She was not snatched from the street while returning home late at night. She vanished in the middle of the day

I'd tend to agree with this - more so that there's no real evidence (perhaps because the Met didn't look for it at the time) that Cannan had anywhere to take SL and if he did kill SL and managed to conceal the whole crime including getting rid of her remains so they are never found - this doesn't match up with any of his other criminal efforts where he was impulsive and sloppy.

I'm happy to keep an open mind but feel SL was likely abducted by someone much more organised and capable than Cannan, with whom she'd got involved in a property deal. The deal was on her mind that weekend. She was up to something on the Sunday night. And if she did lose her diary etc on the Friday as has been reported - how did she contact whoever she met that evening?

I do not think Suzy would be interested in Cannan at all. It is quite obvious she wanted posh life and posh men, a cheapo bad boy Cannan's style would not be anywhere close to her orbit of interest.

I just can't see where they could have met and talked and met more than once. He did go to a public school and could probably pretend to be posh for a while but he was living in a prison hostel for goodness sake. I honestly don't think he had the skills or resources to pull a long con on SL.

She was talking about a property deal that had apparently nothing to do with her day job. A joint purchase. No one knows with whom. Going on arranged "dates" with wealthy men set up for her by an older friend.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

BBM. Would have thought the story was dramatic

BBM. Would have thought the story was dramatic enough without using narrative techniques.

However, I do like fiction authors who write at a rattling pace as I have Adhd and it takes a lot to capture my attention so I will buy it now.

Thanks for the heads up re style of book as I might well not have purchased it, but will now.

Let us know what you think?!

 

[GTB72]

What do people think is best & strongest evidence re: JC?

1/ The Nicholas Doyle photo fit just screams JC to me, not so much the HR one though.

2/ The fact that he was released from the day hostel nearby 3 days before Suzy's disappearance but was already out working on day release locally means he would be capable of frequentng the places Suzy was.

3/ His previous criminal record re the killing of SB, although not evidence as such shows to me that he was capable of murdering SJL.

4/ His probable psychopathy. JC was a shapeshifter, a chameleon. I'm quite sure given a few quid in his pocket and a smart suit, which he was wont to wear, he could fool most people that he was prosperous and successful. Most people in my opinion wouldn't have the requisite skills do decipher body language signals and are attracted to people mostly on a superficial basis.

5/ The fact that Mr Kipper was carrying a bottle of champagne and people from his past(JC) have claimed this is one of his established techniques to woo women. Another being flowers.

6/ The fact he could drive and had access to a car at the time of SJL's dissappearance.

7/ The fact that the Met thinks he did the deed.

Imo, there are just so many pointers to JC that I think it is unlikely he is not the killer.

 

[tes1984]

The thing is there is no evidence for Cannan ever committing an organised crime. All his crimes are sloppy, impulsive, without much planning.

I agree. Perhaps he planned to bury SB but was disturbed? Planned to get the car crushed before the police came calling?

If JC killed Suzy, then perhaps he just got lucky. Dumped or buried her body in woodland somewhere and fluked out that he chose an isolated enough spot?

 

[Rookie D]

The police named him in public as the only suspect in the Lamplugh case, and he knew he had zero chance of ever getting parole with that hanging over him.

My thinking is that it was agreed behind closed doors that JC would never be released. He had messed with the wrong victim in AR.

JC was originally sentenced to 40 years for killing SB. In comparison Colin Pitchfork got 30 years for killing two schoolgirls, and was released after serving 33 years.

It came as no surprise when Pitchfork was re-apprehended and put back in prison. Where he clearly needs to stay.

The issue is; and always has been, that some individuals simply cannot be rehabilitated.

A 25 year "life" sentence should be a time-based punishment that acknowledges the crime.

But once that 25 years is reached, then anyone like Pitchfork, Cannan, Wright, Halliwell, Huntley, etc...etc... need to be kept behind bars for "LIFE."

We're not talking about someone who has robbed committed bank fraud, or sold drugs, we are talking about individuals who are inherently evil.

The idea that any one of those individuals in the list above could be "rehabilitated" and then subject to a parole board meeting to decide if the can be released or transferred to an open prison, is an utter joke.

The "system" that facilitates potential parole for those who appear to have shown good behaviour in prison, isn't fit for purpose.

These individuals are predators, and they simply don't have the capacity for change. It's not how they're wired.

In terms of SL, it seems highly likely that she succumbed to a man who exhibited those predatory traits; the fact she actually worked with one of them on a cruise ship; wasn't likely to have been her killer, means that SL was somehow unlucky enough to have met at least 2 psychopaths over her lifetime. Being a magnet to multiple psychopath, is as unlucky as she could have got.


But at least 2 of those listed above are no longer around to pose a threat to anyone else.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I agree. Perhaps he planned to bury SB but was disturbed? Planned to get the car crushed before the police came calling?

If JC killed Suzy, then perhaps he just got lucky. Dumped or buried her body in woodland somewhere and fluked out that he chose an isolated enough spot?

Sadly, if him it points to him keeping her to himself for a while & taking his time.

 

[Rookie D]

Why was the Fiesta left outside of 123 Stevenage Road?

It sounds like a random question, but there's always a reason for everything and anything when it comes to looking at an abduction and murder case.

123 Stevenage Road was of course a Sturgis property.

But SL wasn't the estate agent dealing with that particular property.

It was Mark Gurdon.

So we have SL's car left outside the property being managed by SL's manager at Sturgis.


Is that significant?

Possibly.

Mark Gurdon on the Crimewatch reconstruction that was AIRED 81 days after the disappearance of SL, very specifically states "5.30pm" as the time that he called the police to inform them that SL was missing.

And yet, in the press, the approximate time that MG was stated as having called the police, has differed wildly.

For example, the time of 6.45pm has been attributed to the time when the call was made by MG to the police.

So we have "5.30pm" and "6.45pm", plus several other time variants.


Is this significant?

Possibly.



What I find odd is that when the office personnel looked at SL's table diary, they could clearly see a 6pm meeting at Wardemar Avenue.

And so, how can MG state on camera that he called the police at "5.30" to tell them SL was missing, when the logical thing to do, would be to attend the 6pm meeting on SL's behalf to see if she turned up, and only when he realised that SL wasn't there either, MG THEN calls the police?

I find that strange

It also doesn't help when it's clear and obvious that MG is hiding something.

I've watched his "performance" on the Crimewatch broadcast in 1986, and it's as clear as day that he's not telling us everything that he knows.

What is his angle here, and why those peculiar automated micro expressions that scream out that he's not being honest about something.


Was it definitely ascertained that 37SR was indeed empty when he went to go and look for her at the house?


Is there a chance that the house wasn't empty and that SL was being held there by someone who told MG to look the other way?

Was SL the victim of a professional hit by someone hired to silence her and make her stay gone?


Did SL bite off more than she could chew, and the men who were involved chose to make an example of her?


The world of Real Estate back in the 80's was plagued by criminality, and so is there a chance that Mr Kipper wasn't a predatory psychopath, but rather a hired contract killer?


I mean, it's pretty thin, but what if the entire case has just been one big ball of smoke and mirrors from the offset?


All supposition and conjecture on my part of course.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

1/ The Nicholas Doyle photo fit just screams JC to me, not so much the HR one though.

2/ The fact that he was released from the day hostel nearby 3 days before Suzy's disappearance but was already out working on day release locally means he would be capable of frequentng the places Suzy was.

3/ His previous criminal record re the killing of SB, although not evidence as such shows to me that he was capable of murdering SJL.

4/ His probable psychopathy. JC was a shapeshifter, a chameleon. I'm quite sure given a few quid in his pocket and a smart suit, which he was wont to wear, he could fool most people that he was prosperous and successful. Most people in my opinion wouldn't have the requisite skills do decipher body language signals and are attracted to people mostly on a superficial basis.

5/ The fact that Mr Kipper was carrying a bottle of champagne and people from his past(JC) have claimed this is one of his established techniques to woo women. Another being flowers.

6/ The fact he could drive and had access to a car at the time of SJL's dissappearance.

7/ The fact that the Met thinks he did the deed.

Imo, there are just so many pointers to JC that I think it is unlikely he is not the killer.

For me the photofit looks much more like VV, posted upthread but otherwise hard to disagree. Champagne & roses all far more common re: wooing & deal sealing culturally in 80s.

For me it’s the absurd way JC constructed a elaborate story about SB’s killer also being SL’s when on the ropes. Barley “Was that man you, John (?)” “YES” (JC) “I mean, no”…JC, “Yes, I bought SL killer’s car - stolen from SB - even though a rust bucket & I can’t tell you about Bristol car auctions & it had a broken driver’s door & only good for scrap” effectively what he said…

The changing alibis & the fact he couldn’t account for a good few days.

The fact he was looking to buy a house - jointly? - with Sue on fringes of Peabody Estate .
The fact he said he didn’t know Fulham, apparently & had never been.

The Doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ is misleading IMO & frames & pushes JC in a way that that ultimately casts doubt on his culpability which is counter intuitive. NB: Woman that says he was charming & knew him socially from Super Hire almost in the same frame as the POW. Anyone might assume she was staff there at POW. Much more like this.

SA, a DI from memory, a very intelligent man on the fence on JC but slowly & surely utterly convinced.

For me, that said, it just might be someone else, hitherto overlooked, in plain sight & close proximity. But as the police say ‘killers’ are rare. Oddballs, not so much. Would VT have been overlooked in 86 re: Jo Yeates?

Would the police have discovered VT?

IMO there are still things, events that trouble police re: explaining JC’s ultimate responsibility & worrying unanswered questions.