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

[EddietheEagle]

P.307 Finding Suzy

“So how did police get inside to forensicate 37 Shorrolds Rd the next day with the key if Suzy had disappeared taking the key with her?”

There is no evidence (beyond this entirely hearsay nonsense of DV's, written in a different century) that police got inside with a key. In fact, quite the opposite. Officers were instructed to "enter and search". That implies a forced or different method of entry. You don't necessarily have to break a front door down either.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the house was immediately made the subject of forensic examination. This was a missing person inquiry.

 

[EddietheEagle]

on crimewatch MG is seen looking through the window of 37SR, which means he could not get in the house because lamplugh took the keys.

Not only that, the production of the re-enactment involved Sturgis staff involved in the actual events. They would have participated in pre-production as a matter of course. It is reasonable to conclude that discussion about the key fob occurred, along with the house particulars, as this was one of the central features of the re-enactment.

As a corollary, had the Shorrolds Rd appointment been a ruse, as DV postulates, SL would have needed to take the keys anyway. You can hardly claim to have gone there if you didn't take the key!

DV can only get round this with his fanciful, unevidenced theory by effectively positioning key witnesses as complete nincompoops rather than responsible, rational estate agents..

 

[EddietheEagle]

View attachment 656213
HR at time “I couldn’t see the man’s eyes and mouth so the artist put them in”

DV Ryan on SL “It looked like an Estate Agent showing that location at the time. She was never named”.

So..on DV, he was right in that assumptions were made at time…Ryan tacitly agreed.

What matters is what was observed and recorded at the time and made the subject of both photofit and evidential statement. HR provided recall of events within three to four hours of them happening.

DV's postulations amount to 100%, unevidenced hearsay, written in a different century and for the purposes of entertainment. They add little of value to what is known about the case and the passage of time itself has effectively debunked his baseless theory.

 

[WestLondoner]

HR's account is of no value IMO.

He gave no description of the woman, noticed only the man's nose and supposedly smart suit, didn't agree with the artist's sketch, didn't notice the broken nose and scruffy suit seen by other witnesses, wasn't sure what house they came out of, and later claimed that DR, a pudgy balding 44-year-old, was a dead ringer for Kipper.

He was unemployed and this gave him something to do.

Carter's the man who didn't think to find out if any sex offenders had recently been released from any of the three local prisons, declared to a press conference that SJL had been seen outside 37SR before he had taken any witness statements, and believed WJ's but disbelieved BW's sightings of SJL's car.

The discrepancies between the various reconstructions suggest none is to be trusted.

 

[Kasparthecat1]

HR at time “I couldn’t see the man’s eyes and mouth so the artist put them in".

Carter said on the Crimewatch programme that the police were looking for "a type". I don't think there was any suggestion that "kipper" had to be a dead ringer for either HR"s or ND's photofit. They were simply looking for a white man, probably around 30-35, who was smartly dressed, with dark hair and of average height. So pretty generic.

 

[WestLondoner]

That implies a forced or different method of entry. You don't necessarily have to break a front door down either.

These are ex post assumptions though. There is no information from 1986 around how they got in. What we do know is that they broke into SJL's own flat, so whatever different methods they used they didn't use them there.

This is why on the balance of probabilities I think DV is right about this. How they got into her own flat is mentioned, how they got into 37SR is not, other than AS' remark that MG found no sign of her inside or out, I.e. he went inside.

It's not a big stretch at all that the police investigation might not have been very good.

 

[EddietheEagle]

These are ex post assumptions though. There is no information from 1986 around how they got in. What we do know is that they broke into SJL's own flat, so whatever different methods they used they didn't use them there.

This is why on the balance of probabilities I think DV is right about this. How they got into her own flat is mentioned, how they got into 37SR is not, other than AS' remark that MG found no sign of her inside or out, I.e. he went inside.

It's not a big stretch at all that the police investigation might not have been very good.

There's are pictures of a beat constable stationed outside 37 Shorrolds Rd. You might wonder what he was doing there if the front door was locked. Perhaps it had been forced and therefore still insecure.

Whatever method was used to get in Shorrolds Rd is not connected to the flat across the river. It's simply absurd logic to suggest one would exactly mirror the other. Each case rests on its facts and decisions made according to what you're faced with. They may have lifted a window at the back as the place was an open ground building site at the time as I remember it.

 

[EddietheEagle]

HR's account is of no value IMO.

He gave no description of the woman, noticed only the man's nose and supposedly smart suit, didn't agree with the artist's sketch, didn't notice the broken nose and scruffy suit seen by other witnesses, wasn't sure what house they came out of, and later claimed that DR, a pudgy balding 44-year-old, was a dead ringer for Kipper.

He was unemployed and this gave him something to do.

Carter's the man who didn't think to find out if any sex offenders had recently been released from any of the three local prisons, declared to a press conference that SJL had been seen outside 37SR before he had taken any witness statements, and believed WJ's but disbelieved BW's sightings of SJL's car.

The discrepancies between the various reconstructions suggest none is to be trusted.

Discrepancies do not suggest that at all. The preponderance of witness evidence places SL with JC outside the house after a viewing.

There are inevitably going to be differences in recall. HR had a good enough view of JC to produce a photofit. He never claimed to have studied what SL looked like. He noted they were a man and woman couple. He was at a distance where it would have been impossible to tell exactly what someone's nose was like. And the fact that he didn't notice this possibility doesn't diminish his evidence in its totality. Maybe the other witness wasn't entirely accurate with his description. Unless you can read those witness statements first hand you're never going to know definitively.

To suggest that because he was unemployed, these events gave him something to do is pure presumption. His 15 minutes may have lead to exaggeration later, particularly after being courted by a national newspaper.
Where is the factual evidence of HR stating Kiper was a "dead ringer" for JC?

And where is the evidence for Carter making assumptions about sitings without knowing key facts regarding witness evidence? This is pure speculation on your part. What Carter said at the time was borne out by later witnesses coming forward.

The key facts were known. HR saw SL in the road at 1 o'clock and by around 4.30pm he was explaining what he saw to MG who had come round looking for her. His evidence was more than borne out by later witnesses which put SL in that exact location between 12.50pm and 1.00pm. That's pretty strong, corroborated evidence in my view. And no one else has ever emerged to say it wasn't her it was me.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

HR said the man he saw was exactly like Kiper aka Rosengarten, in his looks & the way he stood, everything. To paraphrase “now I come to mention it I think very likely it WAS him”.

HR also was initially very clear he witnessed a ‘struggle’ outside. (AS & press). This is a bit odd I feel. This wasn’t a parlour game, it was very serious. Generously, perhaps he didn’t initially realise (?)

@EddietheEagle I do feel that’s a very good point re: “No one else has ever emerged to say that wasn’t her it was me”. Something DV said in a podcast made me think he thought he knew who it was perhaps, if not SL & ‘Kipper’, but if so, he chose not to elaborate. It seems, & critics will say, perhaps rather conveniently, there are things DV could NOT say.

On DV it’s important, I think, we’re objective. There is useful & sound material in his book. The merit of his research was acknowledged by Ryan/team although they/he didn’t agree with his main hypothesis or every point he made. He does add some interesting & helpful detail to the whole narrative & debate, some of it inarguably factual.

I do feel the unlikely possibility it WAS another couple outside 37 Shorrolds did need to be considered but as meeting in her diary & all seemed bona fide you can see why the investigating team thought unnecessary or didn’t consider at start.

There’s evidence the other witnesses got a much better look than HR who said he only saw the couple for ‘seconds’ in one source. ND, the jeweller, will have known a good suit worn by the wealthy etc. It’s even poss as these witnesses came forward later after a reconstruction they saw another couple outside another house. There were quite a few for sale. HR did say that the door he heard banging may have come from the other neighbouring property. Of course the balance of probabilities points to 37 Shorrolds though.

It was suggested 37 was forensicated at time. Will come back on source.

Re: the ‘back’ of 37 Shorrolds & possible access, DV says in his book:

“That involved scaling high walls, clambering over fences and cutting through undergrowth. We never do it”.

 

[EddietheEagle]

HR said the man he saw was exactly like Kiper aka Rosengarten, in his looks & the way he stood, everything. To paraphrase “now I come to mention it I think very likely it WAS him”.

HR also was initially very clear he witnessed a ‘struggle’ outside. (AS & press). This is a bit odd I feel. This wasn’t a parlour game, it was very serious. Generously, perhaps he didn’t initially realise (?)

The Kiper episode was a caper for the benefit of the NoW. It was not taken seriously.

AS is not clear on the alleged struggle. His book information is coming hearsay via what the estate agency manager had apparently recounted. HR's first statements don't refer to a struggle either. I've only seen hearsay reference to it via SL's manager who spoke to HR that first afternoon when he called round to check the property. I've said before, if it did happen, it could have been enthusiastic ushering which fits the way the ever-so-romantic-until-it-all-goes-wrong JC went about things.

If you think about the front door key for a moment, why would police say a key had gone missing when, according to DV, it had already been used to get in. The notion is absurd.

 

[kes1972]

i think her desk was near the entrance at sturgis.

These 3 pictures seem to have similarities anyone agree
Jc - eyes
Mr kipper - hairline
Both similar to photofit number 2

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The Kiper episode was a caper for the benefit of the NoW. It was not taken seriously.

AS is not clear on the alleged struggle. His book information is coming hearsay via what the estate agency manager had apparently recounted. HR's first statements don't refer to a struggle either. I've only seen hearsay reference to it via SL's manager who spoke to HR that first afternoon when he called round to check the property. I've said before, if it did happen, it could have been enthusiastic ushering which fits the way the ever-so-romantic-until-it-all-goes-wrong JC went about things.

If you think about the front door key for a moment, why would police say a key had gone missing when, according to DV, it had already been used to get in. The notion is absurd.

Kiper was taken very seriously indeed before he was cleared. It wasn’t a jolly for the police. HR may not have been taking things too seriously, (Although you’d think the police’s sincerity may have rubbed off) however, & ofc as you imply I think for NoW about paper sales.

AS does mention HR flagging a ‘struggle’ & doesn’t cite his source. Will look for source that flags ‘van’ etc so we’ve got a bit more clarity here.

On key/s for 37 DV’s whole approach is about going back to start & challenging every assumption. This is how he makes the discovery only one set of keys for Shorrolds.

As DV sees it, the assumption was 37 was a bona fide viewing by SL, nothing more nothing less.

The early assumption was therefore SL had taken keys & shown 37 Shorrolds. Later it was realised keys were there all along & found on peg board. DV provides evidence to this end & MG tacitly agrees only ever one set. Apparently someone in office, that DV declines to name to save them embarrassment, did notice this mistake fairly early on & kept head down.

The feeling was did it matter, perhaps? She was there outside, perhaps to briefly show the exterior to a developer as a comparable or rendezvous outside of office etc…

DV’s point is this ‘only one set of keys that never left office’ is highly significant as she & ‘Kipper’ were never there at 37 Shorrolds at all. Someone else was. DV suggests a ruse to get out of office & she thought of it quickly as ‘Kipper’ nickname for her friend JH who had lived at Shorrolds & another property on her open diary page.

As to why she didn’t take the keys, if a ruse to cover back, & DV is correct, perhaps because she forgot in her rush or secondly as she expected to be out only briefly.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

To add to above, some of these thoughts of DV’s were also those of original team. AS:

“Did she really go to Shorrolds Rd? Was HR’s recollection accurate? Was it a genuine appointment with “Mr Kipper” Or did she make up the name as she was up to something she didn’t want the office to know about? If so was it personal or professional?”.

 

[rvlvr]

The preponderance of witness evidence places SL with JC outside the house after a viewing.

At most you can say these sightings place a woman, probably Suzy, with a man, whose identify is unknown. What is the ‘factual evidence’ it was John Cannan?

 

[EddietheEagle]

Kiper was taken very seriously indeed before he was cleared. It wasn’t a jolly for the police. HR may not have been taking things too seriously, (Although you’d think the police’s sincerity may have rubbed off) however, & ofc as you imply I think for NoW about paper sales.

AS does mention HR flagging a ‘struggle’ & doesn’t cite his source. Will look for source that flags ‘van’ etc so we’ve got a bit more clarity here.

On key/s for 37 DV’s whole approach is about going back to start & challenging every assumption. This is how he makes the discovery only one set of keys for Shorrolds.

As DV sees it, the assumption was 37 was a bona fide viewing by SL, nothing more nothing less.

The early assumption was therefore SL had taken keys & shown 37 Shorrolds. Later it was realised keys were there all along & found on peg board. DV provides evidence to this end & MG tacitly agrees only ever one set. Apparently someone in office, that DV declines to name to save them embarrassment, did notice this mistake fairly early on & kept head down.

The feeling was did it matter, perhaps? She was there outside, perhaps to briefly show the exterior to a developer as a comparable or rendezvous outside of office etc…

DV’s point is this ‘only one set of keys that never left office’ is highly significant as she & ‘Kipper’ were never there at 37 Shorrolds at all. Someone else was. DV suggests a ruse to get out of office & she thought of it quickly as ‘Kipper’ nickname for her friend JH who had lived at Shorrolds & another property on her open diary page.

As to why she didn’t take the keys, if a ruse to cover back, & DV is correct, perhaps because she forgot in her rush or secondly as she expected to be out only briefly.

Apologies; I wasn't referring to the police, rather the press who apparently took Mr Riglin along for a jolly. I expect he made up all sorts of things for their benefit. But this isn't evidence. This is entertainment. Evidence is what you sign in front of a police officer.

DV asserts the police must have used the front door key to gain entry as the door appeared to show no sign of damage. He misleads by making leading assertions, does the thinking for others and puts words into their mouths then classifies it all as factual evidence when it's nothing of the kind. Leaving aside the precise particulars as to whether the door would necessarily have shown signs of damage (which is debateable anyway), why would you use a key to get in to search and then go on to assert that in fact you didn't use a key to get in and moreover, that it had gone missing along with SL? It's an absurdity. The police lifted a window, used a back door key or forced their way in somehow and did so that first evening when the estate agency was shut. There's zero record from what I've seen, of the office being opened to hand over a front door key. They could have used a back door key possibly had the agency held one.

As to staff covering up. Why would they potentially expose themselves to a charge of perverting the course of justice? This is a colleague who'd gone missing. You just wouldn't do that, particularly in a pending, potential murder inquiry.

This whole Shorrolds Rd key saga is a red herring. When they eventually caught JC and found various keys in his possession, did the police ever check for the one missing from Shorrolds Road? They worked out a couple, but others were never traced back to a door and JC kept schtum (Berry-Dee). Were these trophies linked to some past, memorable events like the hotel room key used for a dirty weekend with his ice dancer?

 

[WestLondoner]

At most you can say these sightings place a woman, probably Suzy, with a man, whose identify is unknown. What is the ‘factual evidence’ it was John Cannan?

There isn't any. The CPS have stated that the police have never shown that JC and SJL ever met.

IDing HR's 5-second sighting is crucial to the JC-did-it case because there's literally not a thing that says he did. If it can be shown that it was JC outside that house, it's vanishingly unlikely that a different murderer killed her, ergo it had to be JC. So there's quite a lot invested in the idea that this was him. Unfortunately, the descriptions given by two witnesses could have been descriptions of anyone.

 

[WestLondoner]

why would you use a key to get in to search and then go on to assert that in fact you didn't use a key to get in and moreover, that it had gone missing along with SL

Because they were careless and insufficiently thorough?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Apologies; I wasn't referring to the police, rather the press who apparently took Mr Riglin along for a jolly. I expect he made up all sorts of things for their benefit. But this isn't evidence. This is entertainment. Evidence is what you sign in front of a police officer.

DV asserts the police must have used the front door key to gain entry as the door appeared to show no sign of damage. He misleads by making leading assertions, does the thinking for others and puts words into their mouths then classifies it all as factual evidence when it's nothing of the kind. Leaving aside the precise particulars as to whether the door would necessarily have shown signs of damage (which is debateable anyway), why would you use a key to get in to search and then go on to assert that in fact you didn't use a key to get in and moreover, that it had gone missing along with SL? It's an absurdity. The police lifted a window, used a back door key or forced their way in somehow and did so that first evening when the estate agency was shut. There's zero record from what I've seen, of the office being opened to hand over a front door key. They could have used a back door key possibly had the agency held one.

As to staff covering up. Why would they potentially expose themselves to a charge of perverting the course of justice? This is a colleague who'd gone missing. You just wouldn't do that, particularly in a pending, potential murder inquiry.

This whole Shorrolds Rd key saga is a red herring. When they eventually caught JC and found various keys in his possession, did the police ever check for the one missing from Shorrolds Road? They worked out a couple, but others were never traced back to a door and JC kept schtum (Berry-Dee). Were these trophies linked to some past, memorable events like the hotel room key used for a dirty weekend with his ice dancer?

There wasn’t a back door it seems. Getting access difficult that way involved scaling walls & cutting undergrowth etc. Apparently.

At first it was assumed SL took the only set of keys the office had ergo they were missing as she was. Some member of staff later noted the keys on pegboard, allegedly.

I think as SL likely seen there outside at 37 Shorrolds & attending property key logistics poss not seen as a huge issue as matters unfolded. There were a set in the office & there were no official duplicates. Apparently. MG explains how the system worked in this regard & duplicates - if provided - all on one ring, this was how the system worked. Why not then simply use to enter the property later when found? If on wider investigating team etc you’d simply assume a duplicate if a using a provided key. It wasn’t perhaps as it seemed.

Why couldn’t it simply be the original key for 37 Shorrolds stayed in the office the whole time & misapprehensions about it the result of false assumption & earlier error as DV said?

The original team did consider the possibility of a false viewing to get out of the office re: SL, many years prior to DV.

It’s hard to argue Ryan doesn’t see the key anomalies from the conversation he had with DV & colleague I posted up thread. He flags specifically.

The keys in articles I’ve seen re: JC were generally smaller from memory, will look back. More likely for lock ups. I don’t think JC was a trophy keeper so much as highly disorganised, have you seen the list of what was in his BMW boot? A complete mess of rubbish & odd items. Misc umbrellas, macs, champagne corks, papers, leaflets. Crumpled up tax disc - amazingly found - and old pay & display parking tickets. One putting his feet & tyres on ground in right place/time for SC’s murder. BD did great work here.

I don’t see JC as a master puzzler either. I do think there is credible & strong circumstantial evidence for him being ‘Kipper’ but not what’s oft quoted. His own sister asked him to tell police where he’d put SL’s body “What have you got to lose’ (BD). So much for being his staunch alibi in her lifetime then as DV states.

He vehemently denied killing SB too, he was the victim of a conspiracy as per SL. According to him…

 

[Klclevi]

Hello

Apologies if this has already been discussed but can anyone please tell me exactly where in Fulham Palace Road the BW sighting was (see Crimewatch 86 -2000 reconstruction starting at approx 5.19? I have tried to locate via google street search and for the life of me I cannot work it out.

Many thanks for any assistance.

 

[Klclevi]

Also in the Crimes that Shook Britain episode - at approx 5.38 onwards there is very definitely some sort of bag in the backseat. Does not look small to me. Possibly the washing bag from the night before?

Has this ever been discussed anywhere as to what it is ? (see pics below) and link to the episode.
There was also what looks to be a mens signet ring in the dashboard and some sort of rubbish or wrapper . Does anyone know anything on any of these things?

Were signet rings for men big in the 80's (I am kind of thinking yes?) . I have seen a subsequent photo of AL wearing one I guess it could be his and he left it in the car... but when did he leave it? The Friday night ?

Its kind of startling none of these things have ever been discussed, the focus has only ever been the hat, and the purse .

Would appreciate any thoughts on this .

Dailymotion

32 Years Ago Suzy Lamplugh Vanished Without A Trace. Now There Could Be A Break In The Case