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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Posted before but interesting. This ‘Sue’ was reframed in doc ‘The Man Who Killed S L’ as being SL herself. Not so.

What is interesting is JC appears to have been looking for a place to live with ‘Sue’s’ help, in weeks before SL went missing.

 

[Rookie D]

This is of course exactly the point. Nobody was in a position to state what cars were around. The reconstruction did not reconstruct every car on the street. None of us can say what cars were in our own street yesterday.

But you're missing my point entirely.

Allow me to explain.

Here is a frame taken from the original Crimewatch broadcast in October 1986, 81 days after the disappearance of SL, and which was filmed in either August or September 1986.

And yet around 23 seconds later in the reconstruction, this is the frame taken of what is meant to be the same car...

And so what I'm saying is that the first frame in which there are multiple cars seen parked on the street, was a general filming of the street in situ that was used to set the scene to appear in the reconstruction, but it doesn't form part of the active reconstruction itself.

In other words, the shot of the car itself was staged specifically for the reconstruction, whereas the first frame was NOT staged, and just formed part of the filming when the crew placed a camera on the corner of the street and let it roll.

So what we have in that first street shot is how the cars were parked either BEFORE the active reconstruction had commenced, or AFTER it had wrapped (finished)

So what we are seeing is how the street looked without the interruption of the production crew involved with staging the reconstruction.

And because of all that, the first frame that shows multiple cars parked on the street, is an accurate reflection of how the street looked normally; ergo, without any of the cars being placed there by the production crew.

We therefore quite literally have another white car parked in virtually the same spot, but this car isn't the same car used for the actual reconstruction.

We have 2 different cars.

Which means that the person who owns that white car you can see in the street shot, must be an individual who lives within very close proximity to this location.

The "other" white car that the police tried (and failed) to find, in a bid to explain the Stevenage Road anomaly concerning the white Fiesta, is literally staring us all in the face right there in that frame I uploaded from the 1986 Crimewatch documentary.

That car is not the car that was used in the reconstruction and which was driven by SL.

Of course, this all means that when the production team began to commence the actual reconstruction, the white car that can be seen in the street shot, must have either not been there, or had been moved prior to placing SL's Fiesta there in the same spot.

And so the question is; did this street shot which contains multiple parked vehicles get filmed BEFORE or AFTER the active reconstruction commenced?

Note that the Sturgis for sale sign is absent, which suggests to me that once the filming had finished, the director needed some generalised shots of the street in order to bolster the content of the material already recorded. This would then mean that after the main reconstruction had been completed, the film crew took some additional shots of the street, and then inadvertently caught ANOTHER white car parked in the exact same spot as where SL's Fiesta had been parked for the reconstruction; to match where the car had been found by the police, and where both WJ and the Taxi Cab driver claimed to have seen a white car parked there.

And so my point is that because there's another white car parked right there in that frame of the street, it surely means that there was indeed ANOTHER white car present in that location the day that SL was abducted.

The issue is, that anyone looking at that frame would automatically assume that it shows SL's car parked there for the reconstruction and therefore that the scene has been staged, but crucially, it hasn't been staged at all.

IMO this frame proves that there was another individual who lived locally, and who chose to park their white car in the same spot as where SL's Fiesta was found, but waited until the they thought the reconstruction had been completed, and then chose to park it back there again.

This also favours the idea that SL went straight to Shorrolds Road from her office, and that WJ's 12.45pm sighting was of the same white car that can be seen parked in that street shot, and therefore NOT SL's white Fiesta at all.


Lots to ponder

 

[Rookie D]

Coincidentally, Richard Marne; who owned the garage next to where SL's white Fiesta was found, was bearded, and resembled the man who caught a black taxi cab to North End Road, and who told the taxi driver he had just witnessed a fierce argument.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Unfamiliar car - white fiesta -so say neighbours. AL apparently thought SL never set foot in Stevenage Rd.

“Most remember the car as not a familiar one”.

 

[lee sumner]

The taxi driver seems very questionable,like you said if he could remember the price why not the time it would surely be easy to place between jobs, i am not buying that one.

Hi Lee,

Sorry, I just re-read my post and I came across aloof like I was knocking people in social housing as if they were all dodgy types. That was certainly not the case. I was just trying to point out that although Fulham was a somewhat affluent and middle class area, it wasn't all middle class. I had left out Clem Atlee Court (on Lillie Road) amongst others that are not coming to me. I myself didn’t come from a council estate as such (Lakeside Road) but it was full of working class people and many kids, with Shepherd's Court and Bush Court a stones throw away. Where I live now is a council estate (for the past 40 years) and there are a mixture of posh people and working class as well as those who regularly move in and out of flats that are now privately owned. During the time I have been here, we've had our problems with drug dealing (I had a crackhouse next door to me for a while), stabbings and other criminal stuff. Some are blissfully unaware of what goes on, I only know because 1. Council estates being communities tend to have lots of gossip (if number 12 in one block farts, number 56 in a block way over the other side of the estate knows about it by the next morning, or sooner). 2. My kids... great sources of info over the years. 3. I know some of the criminals, some I've watched grow up. 4. People felt safe to tell me things knowing it would go no further. The only difference between here and where I lived in Fulham is people were more dotted around in houses than together in blocks of flats (aside from the actual estates there). It was like a dream come true when the council offered us the maisonette in Dorncliffe Rd but I can tell you that at one point (mainly because of my brother and his cars) one of the posher neighbours tried to put a petition together to get rid of us. Thankfully enough people liked us (we were good people) and hardly anyone eould sign it. The basement neighbour was a nightmare, the only good thing was that he was a much worse neighbour to have than we were.

I should start my posts with an overshare alert haha!

I think moo they had been to dorncliffe, he had recovered something (possible weapon) then made sl drive past sturgis gone down kelvedon road now sl panicking - (near miss with van driver) then the bw sighting all that is needed is to where time 2:40 to be parked back at 123sr by 3:30 to and from a location and deal with sl all in 40-50 minutes give or take. It has to be at a lock up on sun road with taggart waiting near garage

if SL was being abducted by a man she would not be arguing with him, she would be calling out for help to anyone close by.

 

[Clairybums]

Did you know the Peabody Estate? Might man in basement have contacts or associates around there? Thanks.

I have a vague memory of a Peabody Estate down near to Hammersmith Broadway. Would that be right? I didn’t know any of his friends or contacts, my brother might know more.

On a sidenote... I was just thinking that I haven't discussed with my sister if or what she remembers from back then. She was ill from about 1980 and I can't think how well she she would have been around 1986. She has an excellent memory, it’s just whether she was with it at the time and whether my father might have shielded her more than us. I'll be seeing her on Thursday.

 

[Clairybums]

Not taunting in this interview, although he definitely had form for trying to ‘smokescreen’. He was trying to get himself out of serious trouble. Will find source. Yes to not stopping.

The taunting I meant was that he had already been arrested for SB so him saying the same person killed SL as SB seems like he's telling them he killed SL but knowing they can't do anything about it. I have only seen the one interview where he's quite a bit larger and wearing a top with stripes.

 

[kes1972]

BW is the obvious witness he never contacted, I guess we know why. It would be interesting if he'd reinterviewed the cabbie.

No reason in 1986 to assume CV had anything to do with it. After all, they asked him if SJL had ever turned up, and he said no. So that was that cleared up. He never mentioned the matter to the regular landlord either. People do weird things all the time, of course; doesn't make them killers.

if SL was being abducted by a man she would not be arguing with him, she would be calling out for help to anyone close by.

I do not think it had escalated to abduction until kelvedon road then? If you have an abduction happening like this they would have to be like cb, the only thing is if bw saw her driving and talking to the passenger then the abduction never occurred, it would have been someone sl knew and trusted.

 

[Officer Dibble]

The woman kidnapped and murdered in 1987 by JC.

thank you

 

[kes1972]

Unfamiliar car - white fiesta -so say neighbours. AL apparently thought SL never set foot in Stevenage Rd.

“Most remember the car as not a familiar one”.

Why would al think that?

 

[kes1972]

But you're missing my point entirely.

Allow me to explain.

Here is a frame taken from the original Crimewatch broadcast in October 1986, 81 days after the disappearance of SL, and which was filmed in either August or September 1986.

View attachment 653216

And yet around 23 seconds later in the reconstruction, this is the frame taken of what is meant to be the same car...

View attachment 653217

And so what I'm saying is that the first frame in which there are multiple cars seen parked on the street, was a general filming of the street in situ that was used to set the scene to appear in the reconstruction, but it doesn't form part of the active reconstruction itself.

In other words, the shot of the car itself was staged specifically for the reconstruction, whereas the first frame was NOT staged, and just formed part of the filming when the crew placed a camera on the corner of the street and let it roll.

So what we have in that first street shot is how the cars were parked either BEFORE the active reconstruction had commenced, or AFTER it had wrapped (finished)

So what we are seeing is how the street looked without the interruption of the production crew involved with staging the reconstruction.

And because of all that, the first frame that shows multiple cars parked on the street, is an accurate reflection of how the street looked normally; ergo, without any of the cars being placed there by the production crew.

We therefore quite literally have another white car parked in virtually the same spot, but this car isn't the same car used for the actual reconstruction.

We have 2 different cars.

Which means that the person who owns that white car you can see in the street shot, must be an individual who lives within very close proximity to this location.

The "other" white car that the police tried (and failed) to find, in a bid to explain the Stevenage Road anomaly concerning the white Fiesta, is literally staring us all in the face right there in that frame I uploaded from the 1986 Crimewatch documentary.

That car is not the car that was used in the reconstruction and which was driven by SL.

Of course, this all means that when the production team began to commence the actual reconstruction, the white car that can be seen in the street shot, must have either not been there, or had been moved prior to placing SL's Fiesta there in the same spot.

And so the question is; did this street shot which contains multiple parked vehicles get filmed BEFORE or AFTER the active reconstruction commenced?

Note that the Sturgis for sale sign is absent, which suggests to me that once the filming had finished, the director needed some generalised shots of the street in order to bolster the content of the material already recorded. This would then mean that after the main reconstruction had been completed, the film crew took some additional shots of the street, and then inadvertently caught ANOTHER white car parked in the exact same spot as where SL's Fiesta had been parked for the reconstruction; to match where the car had been found by the police, and where both WJ and the Taxi Cab driver claimed to have seen a white car parked there.

And so my point is that because there's another white car parked right there in that frame of the street, it surely means that there was indeed ANOTHER white car present in that location the day that SL was abducted.

The issue is, that anyone looking at that frame would automatically assume that it shows SL's car parked there for the reconstruction and therefore that the scene has been staged, but crucially, it hasn't been staged at all.

IMO this frame proves that there was another individual who lived locally, and who chose to park their white car in the same spot as where SL's Fiesta was found, but waited until the they thought the reconstruction had been completed, and then chose to park it back there again.

This also favours the idea that SL went straight to Shorrolds Road from her office, and that WJ's 12.45pm sighting was of the same white car that can be seen parked in that street shot, and therefore NOT SL's white Fiesta at all.


Lots to ponder

Totally agree with that,well spotted it makes sense and allows the timeline to be clearer.

 

[kes1972]

The implications of there being 2 different cars that looked almost identical.

It would surely prove that SL went to Shorrolds Road directly from the office to meet Mr Kipper.

But of course, it then poses a tantalising question...

Did Mr Kipper deliberately park SL's white Fiesta in the same spot close to the garage, because he knew there was usually another white car parked there?

Or more specifically, did Mr Kipper see a white car parked there earlier, and then plan to park SL's Fiesta in the exact same spot, because he knew it would confuse the investigation?

Of course, I may be wrong about those 2 cars being different, but if you look really closely, there seems to be distinct differences between the 2 white cars.

Now if we add into the mix my hypothesis that Mr Kipper may have been an Estate Agent, then could that white car in the photo belong to the abductor himself?!

And if so, then could the white car belong to another branch of Sturgis?

Perhaps the Putney branch that were dealing with the sale of SL's flat?

Lots to ponder

Why would al think that?

I think most people have their suspicions but also most people are too scared to say for fear of upsetting anyone.

 

[kes1972]

I think most people have their suspicions but also most people are too scared to say for fear of upsetting anyone.

All points to a rivalry to me!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Why would al think that

in article he says neighbours simply would have noticed any disturbance. The neighbours were vigilant/inquisitive, houses close together and road quiet.

He arrives & immediately neighbours peer out of windows.

It might be that as argument observed maybe nearer to Finlay St not as relevant, but surely same applies? If AL right, it means ‘James Galway’ may have been fleeing scene & laying false trail. He was dropped at North End Rd next to Macdonalds. We do have MJ witness too & later, BMW siting though.

 

[kes1972]

Totally agree with that,well spotted it makes sense and allows the timeline to be clearer.

So if we believe 37sr os , possible 2 double parked fiestas or white cars and a bmw and 2 men in a van. Not sure after 37sr what there is then? But also have the dorncliffe road sighting but no confirmed time unless clairybums can confirm that?

 

[Rookie D]

Coincidentally, Richard Marne; who owned the garage next to where SL's white Fiesta was found, was bearded, and resembled the man who caught a black taxi cab to North End Road, and who told the taxi driver he had just witnessed a fierce argument.

Slight correction.

It's Richard Mahon, not Marne.


Coincidentally, just after RM got married, he and his wife were living in Epirus Road.

Epirus Road is the next road north of Shorrolds Road.

Both roads run west off of North End Road.

A small yet interesting nugget of coincidence.

 

[kes1972]

The implications of there being 2 different cars that looked almost identical.

It would surely prove that SL went to Shorrolds Road directly from the office to meet Mr Kipper.

But of course, it then poses a tantalising question...

Did Mr Kipper deliberately park SL's white Fiesta in the same spot close to the garage, because he knew there was usually another white car parked there?

Or more specifically, did Mr Kipper see a white car parked there earlier, and then plan to park SL's Fiesta in the exact same spot, because he knew it would confuse the investigation?

Of course, I may be wrong about those 2 cars being different, but if you look really closely, there seems to be distinct differences between the 2 white cars.

Now if we add into the mix my hypothesis that Mr Kipper may have been an Estate Agent, then could that white car in the photo belong to the abductor himself?!

And if so, then could the white car belong to another branch of Sturgis?

Perhaps the Putney branch that were dealing with the sale of SL's flat?

Lots to ponder here.

Who was that car owner, did they put that car there with that intention of putting sl car in that position later, because that works???

 

[kes1972]

in article he says neighbours simply would have noticed any disturbance. The neighbours were vigilant/inquisitive, houses close together and road quiet.

He arrives & immediately neighbours peer out of windows.

It might be that as argument observed maybe nearer to Finlay St not as relevant, but surely same applies? If AL right, it means ‘James Galway’ may have been fleeing scene & laying false trail. He was dropped at North End Rd next to Macdonalds. We do have MJ witness too & later, BMW siting though.

I would like to see that whole write up if possible? Please

 

[Eastend Eagle]

Regarding the BMW sighting; yes, I don't believe it happened at all.

It just doesn't quite fit because if a car had screeched to a halt, and one of the occupants had then been hooting the car horn continuously, followed by the car speeding off along the road; it would have been witnessed, or at least heard by others.

The witness waits for over a decade and then comes forward with a dramatic sequence of events that only he witnesses.

That said, the bearded man also claims to have heard an argument that nobody else witnessed either, and the fact that he never came forward, also makes him a person of interest IMO. He's clearly not Mr Kipper, but the question remains; why didn't he come forward?

Regarding the BMW witness, the left hand drive BMW also doesn't match JC's right hand drive BMW.

Of course, JC allegedly drove a Red Sierra at that time, which is intriguing considering the photo I uploaded upthread from the reconstruction, which clearly shows a Red Sierra parked virtually opposite the white Fiesta.

1- surely the taxi driver becomes the man of interest as no corroboration and same with the jogger ? Imo i have always had a question mark over the taxi driver/jogger
Ps was there any big news or police investigating happening in the sl case around the time the jogger came forward?

Jogger came forward in 2000 but allegedly first in 86 - see upthread.

Taxi driver at time - why couldn’t he be certain when he picked up fare? (Galway-a-like) metre not time stamped? He could be certain on the cost. Wasn’t it unusual for ordinary guy to use a taxi for a short hop, skip jump & relatively ££ way to go a short distance in 86?

Galway-a-like sounded really disturbed by what he’d seen ‘thank Christ you came along when you did!’. Maybe why he took taxi to escape difficult scene. Why no concern for woman? Did he feel guilty hence not coming forward? To have that reaction he must surely have seen something very extreme (?)

The taxi driver seems very questionable,like you said if he could remember the price why not the time it would surely be easy to place between jobs, i am not buying that one.

There seem to be a remarkable number of uncorroborated witness sightings in this case IMO

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I would like to see that whole write up if possible? Please

Hi - posted in full upthread yesterday.