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

[lee sumner]

View attachment 652076

This is the e-fit of the Thames Towpath sex attacker, who committed multiple attacks on women.

On July 7th 1986, he threatened a woman jogger with a cut-throat razor close to Barnes Common, which is located directly opposite Stevenage road on the opposite side of the river.

Here is the article relating to him...


View attachment 652078

What's interesting here, is the similar descriptions...

View attachment 652081
View attachment 652082View attachment 652083

Considering the Mr Kipper was similar in appearance to the Thames Towpath attacker, did the police alter the various e-fits to tie in with their beliefs?

A form of confirmation bias?

Was the Thames Towpath attacker caught?

Could he have been Mr Kipper?

wow, thames towpath attacker sounds plausible as a suspect. a lot more than JC.

 

[GTB72]

View attachment 652076

This is the e-fit of the Thames Towpath sex attacker, who committed multiple attacks on women.

On July 7th 1986, he threatened a woman jogger with a cut-throat razor close to Barnes Common, which is located directly opposite Stevenage road on the opposite side of the river.

Here is the article relating to him...


View attachment 652078

What's interesting here, is the similar descriptions...

View attachment 652081
View attachment 652082View attachment 652083

Considering the Mr Kipper was similar in appearance to the Thames Towpath attacker, did the police alter the various e-fits to tie in with their beliefs?

A form of confirmation bias?

Was the Thames Towpath attacker caught?

Could he have been Mr Kipper?

The similarity between HR's photo fit of Mr Kipper and the Thames Towpath one is uncanny. Good find.

 

[Clairybums]

What an excellent post!

Some intriguing insights there that warrant acknowledgement.


May I ask one query that I do have; are you certain that the car was seen facing away from Fulham Road?

I say this because SL's hat was placed on the right side of the shelf at the rear of the car, and would therefore be significantly more difficult to observe from your Father's vantage point from the first floor flat window, than it would have been if the car was facing the other way; ergo, towards Fulham Road.

Also, if the car is facing Fulham Road, then SL never needs to get out of the car, as she could be seen sitting in the driver's seat. I say this because being able to see a driver from the upstairs flat window and the car facing away from the main road, it then means that the driver would be located on the far side of the road, and be far more difficult to recognise.

Of course, if you are certain that the car was indeed facing away from Fulham Road and parked up on the other side of the road, then I guess that SL must have got out of the car in order for your father to be able to identify her correctly.


Lots more to discuss here I think.

Hi Rookie D,

Yes, no doubt left after speaking to my brother earlier. The black garage was/is situated a little further up than my father's place and in a perfect position to see the hat. It's actually quite deceiving in that it might seem too far to see properly but that's not the case. My father wore glasses for reading but other than that his eyesight was good. My father detailed to my brother the hat in the back shelf the same day the missing woman photo was shown (which I believe was the day SL went missing) and definitely before anything was mentioned or shown regarding the car being found or photos of the car being recovered. It was when the car was shown on the news that my brother realised my father wasn't just waffling over nothing as the description of the car and the hat on the shelf, together with the people, the only way he could have known about that was if he had seen it. Albeit he wasn't able to say with certainty what the make or car was. Whilst my brother and I were chatting earlier and the hatchback car and hat came up he put it to me that... what would be the chances of 2 white hatchback cars with the same hat in the back shelf with the same looking people driving around in the same area at the same time.

Claire, may I ask; are you aware that 10 Dorncliffe Road is a Leasehold property?

Interestingly, 10 Dorncliffe Road has been sold at least 5 times since 1995.

It would be interesting to discover who the Freeholder is for that property, and who the estate agent is/was who dealt with those sales.

Being a Leasehold property, it would generally speaking, exchange hands more frequently than a Freehold property of a similar specification.

Rookie D,

I was just typing another long-winded reply to your other post re. the position of the car etc. and pressed the wrong button and I've lost it, doh! I will have to redo it.

The leasehold would have to have been the middle flat 10B. There was an affro caribbean couple living there (G and J) when we moved in, in 1979. Theirs was a 1 bedroom that they were buying. I cant remember exactly when they moved out but I think when their son got older they needed more space I presume. The people who bought the flat were ok but quite posh. Last name began with H as far as I remember. We previously lived at 51A Lakeside Road, W14 0DX in a pokey little 2 bedroom council flat and were on the council waiting list for a long time before being offered 10A Dorncliffe Road. We 3 kids moved there with our father (our parents had split in 1977 but subsequently my mother moved back in to the little spare/skylight room around 1984 after I moved out as she couldn't live on her own. She was schizophrenic and relapsed regularly... my father was a saint). After my father passed away in July 1998 the council tenancy was passed down to my sister who is also schizophrenic but more stable than my mother. Mother went into a care home at some point and In December 2001, my brother who was living in Feltham arranged a three way swap with my sister and a family in Fulham who had a smaller flat so my brother and his family were then living at 10A Dorncliffe Road. He and his partner split and as it was her tenancy and they hadnt got round to doing a joint tenancy after they married, he had to leave (2004). His ex wife subsequently moved to a house in the countryside and I presume whoever moved in after that must've bought the place. As I said before, you would never be offered such a house these days. Back then was different. The basement flat, 10C (also social housing) was always a problem. G moved out or was evicted and eventually A moved in (also a drug dealer). Probably because no one really complained they just put anyone in there. I ended up having to write to the council as A would keep knocking asking my sister for money and the people going there, it was too much and my sister was vulnerable. They either moved him or evicted him.

 

[Clairybums]

@Clairybums something that caught my eye in one of your posts was your father noticed the couple looked too smart or incongruous re: going into the property, compared to the the usual people in vicinity (?)

(ND) "He thought that she and the man..., both looked TOO SMART to be interested in this particular 128k house".

On the hair colour, DL was quick to say that SL had highlights on the Fri and was in fact blonde, possibly in the hope that these sightings were all correct (?) Understandably she wanted the pieces to fit.

The house was shabby and a bit run down so odd to me than Noel D - P.74 AS - stated the opposite to the other ND He noticed no 37 Shorrolds: "he noticed the 'For Sale' sign as he particularly liked the house"

Hi,

It was more that they didnt fit the usual type who frequented the basement flat. My father knew what the flat was being used for and the people who would usually call there or hang about outside waiting for G were unkempt and visibly drug dependent.

To be honest my father would have probably noticed them outside even if the man hadn't gone to the side alley, he was nosy like that, but maybe he wouldn't have paid as much attention. Also them being new faces. He wasn't a busy body, more liked to keep an eye whats going one.

I am not really knowledgeable about Shorrolds Road, my interest was always more leaning to what was the possible connection between the man and our neighbour. I have a lot of learning to do.

The photo of SL even without the highlights did not phase my father. He was still certain it was the same woman. I remember when I found out the case was being reinvestigated, the article had said that things were missed and witnesses who they should have followed up with werent contacted. One of the reasons they gave at the time was the confusion over the hair colour. This was after my father passed and I dont think he could work out why they didn't follow up. They might have been able to dig into whether there was a connection or friendship between the neighbour and the man. Not sure if G would have wanted to talk to them or maybe if it benefitted him in some way he may have. He might have at least been able to give the man's name who knows.

 

[lee sumner]

Very odd, especially as he saw the hat on the parcel shelf, a man in a suit and woman not to treat this information as important?

YES, but going to a heroin dealer. people go there all the time for drugs including couples. did he really notice hat in the car, or did he see it on the news. it might sound like a interesting lead, but when you factor in a known drug dealer selling from the basement flat, that is probably what it was.

 

[Clairybums]

What an excellent post!

Some intriguing insights there that warrant acknowledgement.


May I ask one query that I do have; are you certain that the car was seen facing away from Fulham Road?

I say this because SL's hat was placed on the right side of the shelf at the rear of the car, and would therefore be significantly more difficult to observe from your Father's vantage point from the first floor flat window, than it would have been if the car was facing the other way; ergo, towards Fulham Road.

Also, if the car is facing Fulham Road, then SL never needs to get out of the car, as she could be seen sitting in the driver's seat. I say this because being able to see a driver from the upstairs flat window and the car facing away from the main road, it then means that the driver would be located on the far side of the road, and be far more difficult to recognise.

Of course, if you are certain that the car was indeed facing away from Fulham Road and parked up on the other side of the road, then I guess that SL must have got out of the car in order for your father to be able to identify her correctly.


Lots more to discuss here I think.

I think this is the post I was replying to that I somehow lost. I hope it is and that I'm not repeating something I've already posted.

Yes, after speaking to my brother, who has put me straight about exactly where the car was. The black garage was a little further towards Hestercombe Ave and the car was parked up in front of the black gates. The car was facing towards Hestercombe Ave suggesting that it had come from Fulham Road. If the car had been facing towards Fulham Road there's no way my father would have been able to see the back shelf or what was on it unless he happened to catch the back end as it was leaving. I am assured that this wasn't the case. Neither I nor my brother remembers whether my father mentioned her getting out of the car but she would have had to. I dont believe there was any mention of my father noticing SL being under duress or upset or not that I can remember anyway. I would think my father would have kept on about that if it were the case because he would have been concerned.

The distance is deceiving because I know from being there and looking out of those windows that it's an ideal vantage point. It's like that saying about queen or king of all you survey. I do get your concern though. My father only needed reading glasses, his long distance vision was still good. The fact that he was able to describe the car and the hat in the back shelf and all this information was told to my brother at the time the SL photo popped up on the news as a missing person and before the car recovery was reported on or any photos were shown. (by the way, full disclosure, I previously thought and stated to the effect that the news of car recovery had a video clip. From what my brother told me earlier, he remembers photos of the car being shown. There may have been a video but thatw would be outside my own knowledge so apologies. I dont wish to mislead anyone, it's not helpful). It was at this point that my brother realised our father wasn't just waffling on for nothing and that what was on the tv was exactly as our father had described. The only thing he hadn't known was the make of the car. To me that's understandable as he would have no way of knowing it might become relevant later on.

My brother and I discussed various scenarios such as would she have been able to drive away? Or whether the man may have taken the car keys out of the ignition to stop her from getting away. Or would she have been able to run away? or maybe she wouldn't want to leave the car there with him, as it was a company car? Or maybe he was keeping things light hearted whilst they were there making her believe everything would be ok. Yes, so many questions but also, would it have been possible for him to knock her out and have her laying in the BMW or the boot to hide her? Or would that not have been possible depending on who may have been around at the time?

Tomorrow I'm going to see what, if any old photos I can find that might demonstrate the view from the window but I must sleep now.

Thank you for your insightful questions and thoughts

 

[Clairybums]

YES, but going to a heroin dealer. people go there all the time for drugs including couples. did he really notice hat in the car, or did he see it on the news. it might sound like a interesting lead, but when you factor in a known drug dealer selling from the basement flat, that is probably what it was.

Yes, he did detail what he saw to my brother long before the car turned up on the news. He had told my brother at the time the initial photo of SL was shown as a missing person on the same day she went missing, it was only at that point it became relevant because he instantly recognised the woman he had seen earlier outside

G in the basement flat was rough, his customers were rough looking and/or strung out people. When you live next to a heroin dealer and see all the comings and goings over the years, you kinda get to know the kind of people who are turning up each day etc. This man (and woman) stood out as not his usual customer. That's all I'm saying. It's always possible that they might have been new customers of his, I just dont think that was the case here. They were never seen there before or since that day.

 

[Klclevi]

Hi Claire, welcome to the thread and thankyou so very much for your amazing posts.

For those in the know I cannot help but think of this $3k commission spoken about at the party on Saturday night and if this could be linked at all to Dorncliffe Road on the Monday somehow.

Also posting an article from 9.12.87 regarding a bedsit flat. Could be nothing (and not sure if they are meaning 200yrds from Shorrolds or Stevenage)

 

[Klclevi]

Sorry time to edit ran out!
I meant to add that $3k possibly in cash (if indeed was related to some dodgy dealings is a lot of cash when she only had her purse with her I know it seems unlikely)

Anyway thanks again so very much @Clairybums you have bought a whole new insight to SLs story and its absolutely about time! 40 years...
So many of us here genuinely want to see some real answers for her and her family

Thankyou
KC