UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 July 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

 

[kes1972]

He saw the man get back into the car and the car pulled away but I don't recall anything mentioned about whether it turned left or right onto Hestercombe. I doubt there was any reason to keep watching the car after it pulled away. The main interest had been the link to the basement flat. It was unusual as they did not look like the usual customers that visited the neighbour (I know his first name now thanks to my brother). His clientèle consisted of the less affluent and more desperate. At least that's what we witnessed over the years. Trying to phrase as respectfully as possible, no judgment from me. It's possible that he may have delivered to elsewhere too but I have no knowledge of that. He was not a nice guy at all. I believe the car was only outside for a short time. I'm inclined to guess not at early as 2pm, more like from around 2.30pm or 2.40pm with enough time to drive up Waldemar Ave or Durrell Road, back along Fulham Road and onto FPRoad in time to be seen by BW at around 2.45pm. By the way, this was the same person who I remembered and when I read the article well over a decade ago I remember that her time lined up well with the time I had in my head at that point. A time that I had since forgotten. I know it's the same person as I remember that she actually knew SL

.

 

[kes1972]

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

Well that towpath attacker sure looks like cb

 

[kes1972]

I distinctly remember early on in the SL case on Crimewatch mention of a couple (possibly young couple) travelling/driving in a car, behind another car, where a woman was desperately trying to get attention in the rear window of the car she was travelling in. Can anyone remember this and can anyone find me any information about this please?

This could definitely be an important moment as where that took place could reveal direction they were headed

 

[kes1972]

If SL was seen in Shorrolds Road circa 12.50pm, and then again at 1pm, but her car that she had driven to work was found in Stevenage Road, and was seen parked there at 12.45pm by the woman who lived at 123 Stevenage Road, (a property under the books of SL's manager at Sturgis; MG) then how did she get to Shorrolds Road?

WJ may of course have been mistaken by her 12.45pm sighting, but because we also had a Taxi cab driver who also saw the car just before 2pm, then we have multiple witnesses to the car in Stevenage Road, and sandwiched in between we have the multiple sightings of SL in Shorrolds Road.

So, how is that possible?

Well, unless SL drove to Stevenage Road first, and then got a lift to Shorrolds Road in another vehicle, then it is impossible for SL to have been in 2 places at the same time.

So we either have someone else from Sturgis driving the car to Stevenage Road BEFORE SL leave the office, and then SL has to go directly to Shorrolds Road in a different car, or by walking there; ergo, she never went to Stevenage Road beforehand, or she drove to Stevenage Road and then got a lift to Shorrolds Road afterwards.

But why do that?

Well considering that the viewing of 37SR only took around 10 minutes, then that seems an awfully short viewing for any serious buyer.

And so by parking the car in Stevenage Road first, was the viewing at Shorrolds Road simply a means to disguise the idea that Mr Kipper and SL were looking at other properties nearer to Stevenage Road?

Critically, the front door was heard closing by the witness living next door to 37SR, which would imply that both SL and Mr Kipper had at least been inside the property for a short period of time; perhaps even just a few minutes.

It's interesting to note that SL wasn't heard going IN to 37SR by the neighbour, which suggest that he was only in proximity to his bay window just moments before SL and Mr Kipper had left the property.

But why did Mr Kipper not attack SL in 37SR?

Instead, he opts to wait

Why?

From 12.30pm that day, SL is alleged to have been seen driving in her car with Mr Kipper on 2 separate occasions (once whilst having an argument with her male passenger) she's also heard and seen arguing in Stevenage Road, seen walking along Stevenage Road with Mr Kipper, and seen standing in a garden by the same witness, she's also seen outside 37SR by 3 witnesses, 2 of which with Mr Kipper, and she's also seen screaming or laughing in a BMW that then speeds off.

So what is going on here?

If we consider that ALL the sightings were correct and genuine, then we have to work out the chronology of events in order to build an accurate picture of what really happened.

So, putting motive aside, the primary focus should be on logistics and chronology of events.

Unless we can out work out HOW and WHEN things happened on the day, then the WHY counts for very little indeed.

.

 

[tes1984]

Well that towpath attacker sure looks like cb

I don't think the sketch looks much like CB at all, other than in very general terms.

CB had the unusual MO of using his victims' cars, rather than his own vehicle. He was an accomplished car thief though, so who knows in terms of the Ford Capri the towpath attacker used.

He was sentenced to 20 years in 1999, so may not even be in prison anymore if he maintained his model prisoner act from his earlier sentence.

David Mulcahy doesn't look particularly like the sketch either, but committed a rape on Barnes Common, and was suspected of several other rapes in Barnes. His parents lived next to the common in 1986.

 

[tes1984]

The Epping Forest abductor is far from a new find. IIRC the police ruled him out for Suzy, although I'm going from memory. The police had tunnel vision for JC, so perhaps not surprising they 'ruled out' other possibilities.

 

[Rookie D]

This article below is Interesting when you consider that MG said on camera in the reconstruction, that he called the police around "5.30pm."

Daily Mirror, 21st August 1986...

It makes me wonder if his claim of going to 37 Shorrolds Road to check if SL was there, could actually be corroborated?

As I've said previously; despite being nervous on camera, MG was seemingly hiding something.

 

[Klclevi]

Hello
I was wondering if we could give @Clairybums some insight into the AS book for her please. So please add to this post as its really a very brief summary

AS was commissioned to write this book on behalf of the Ls 15th months before its publication in Sept 88. They did not want to write it themselves or engage a ghost writer. (BTW the articles around this books publication are available via newspapers.com)
He was given access to family letters, SLs diaries, and had direct police correspondence (this is all direct from his own articles at the time)

AS did unconver alot of personal information about SLs personal life that was pretty much unknown to the family . This was a cause of great controversy at the time because the Ls did not accept this version of SL as being their daughter.

AS only did the job he was employed to do and uncovered some uncomfortable information about things in SLs life that her parents did not know about.

The AS book is extremely important because it adds the context around SLs life that would otherwise not be known at all - read this book carefully and read into what AS is actually saying.

 

[kes1972]

it cant be misogyny because they took WJ statement as nothing but the truth.

So the car may have left dorncliffe and been placed at 123sr

 

[kes1972]

This article below is Interesting when you consider that MG said on camera in the reconstruction, that he called the police around "5.30pm."

Daily Mirror, 21st August 1986...

View attachment 652192

It makes me wonder if his claim of going to 37 Shorrolds Road to check if SL was there, could actually be corroborated?

As I've said previously; despite being nervous on camera, MG was seemingly hiding something.

And there it is mg reporting the missing sl at 6:45 not 5:30, bw saying sl looked serious but she was facing the passenger talking??

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Hello
I was wondering if we could give @Clairybums some insight into the AS book for her please. So please add to this post as its really a very brief summary

AS was commissioned to write this book on behalf of the Ls 15th months before its publication in Sept 88. They did not want to write it themselves or engage a ghost writer. (BTW the articles around this books publication are available via newspapers.com)
He was given access to family letters, SLs diaries, and had direct police correspondence (this is all direct from his own articles at the time)

AS did unconver alot of personal information about SLs personal life that was pretty much unknown to the family . This was a cause of great controversy at the time because the Ls did not accept this version of SL as being their daughter.

AS only did the job he was employed to do and uncovered some uncomfortable information about things in SLs life that her parents did not know about.

The AS book is extremely important because it adds the context around SLs life that would otherwise not be known at all - read this book carefully and read into what AS is actually saying.

It also predates any strong or public link to Cannan's involvement

Ive followed the case/thread for a time now but only just read material. AS, DV books, CBD book just arrived.Also the recent (Nov?) 2pt Podcast, articles, alongside the demented ramblings of you lot on the thread Very interesting. Been making a lot of notes/observations that I will inflict on you at some point!!

Recent poster CBums' posts did interest me on a very unproven and speculative line of notes I had. ...

The descriptions and discussion in recent thread about SJL's dyslexia and possible adhd type behaviour, coupled with the energy/drive/confidence attributed to her did make me consider that similar descriptions could be attributed to Cocaine use (previously noted by Lee and other poster as prevelent in 'Yuppie' culture of Thatcher's greed driven 80s, of which SJL was certainly a part of). Even more tangenitally (soz but this is how my head works) wondered if 'The Deal' consisted of investment in more than property!! Going along this wandering path of highly speculative drivel, very high profile public information animated films broadcast in the 70s/80s in the UK (of which SJL would be v likely have been aware of) featured a young boy and his pet Cat, 'Charlie (street slang for Cocaine from circa 1930)'!! Charlie was rewarded for listening to good advice by being given a Fish/Kipper? Anyone potentially coding a meeting to do with Drugs, outside of legitimate business, who had a sense of humour, may very well use Charlie/Kipper.


This is not the calm, helpful and rational first post I wanted to make after recent study . Other.points in the future will be more on point and, hopefully, helpful! All imo.

A v brief p.s.... Mentioned in last 10 or so pages was a query as to why SJL did not go to PoW before work on Mon morning to pick up lost items. SJL was not made aware of location of Items until arrived at office and had contact via/with her Bank (if aware she had lost them at all) The only way that an a.m visit would be likely imo, esp if the items were urgently needed/missed by SJL would be if she had been at the pub/phonebox the.previous night, so as it would be a viable place for her to look /enquire. This suggests to me either SJL never went to PoW/Phonebox previous to any plan/info to go Monday to collect. I strongly feel she never went to the PoW in that timeframe at all. Unless she was unaware of loss (highly unlikely imo due to importance of daily personal diary etc).

Pps. The article above has trouble depicting 10.02 pm in the Final clock? Looks like 10 to one! Not sure how high a bar of accuracy in general

(Falls over with texting finger cramp)