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

[Pinkizzy]

The Ch4 programme is worth a watch, bits and pieces I never knew, be interested in what others think of it.

I didn't know the police forgot to caution him before an interview. And someone said he wouldn't receive a fair trial if he is charged with SLs murder

 

[Pinkizzy]

Dbm

 

[FOXINBOX]

I hope everybody here doesn't mind Fox adding her bit.
I'd just like to say IMO Cannon has nothing to do with the case and he's just yanking everyone's chain. He likes an audience, not privacy with his victim. Whatever, whoever he dumped in the River Brent, wasn't Suzy...
Mr Kipper - just a Red Herring? Jack the Kipper?

I reckon it was a local, which can mean any of the shifting population of people in the flats and bedsits of the area, because Fulham is a bit of a backwater. You don't go shopping on Fulham High Street unless you are nearby - Fulham's nice, it's just not a South Ken or Knightsbridge shopping destination. So you won't see Suzy in Sturgis's window unless you work or live nearby.
Work in Fulham? Then you come in on the Tube. Another side-line. Fulham is one of only 9 stations on the Wimbledon branch of the District Line. It's possible that Kipper came in from the wider commuter belt but I don't think so, as he appears to have connections with Fulham Football club - languishing in the Third division in 1986, so either a rival or a fan. Suzy almost certainly caught the tube from Putney East, because her flat was just 350 yards away. Maybe Kipper saw her on the tube. Regular commuter, familiar face...probably never registered with Suzy.

12:45 appointment. She'd never be missed until 2:00 at least...
I trust that the police investigated the witness thoroughly...so onto Kipper.
A very well-dressed guy and that portrait gives him a certain je ne sais quoi. I can see why Suzy got into a car with him, maybe agreed to continue negotiations over lunch at some out-of-town location. She'll drive because he left his car and came on the tube...if Suzy drives, then Kipper can take control easily...

Now I have a "Type" for Kipper. He's a sociopath and a narcissist, very attractive to the ladies, able to give the appearance of a well-to-do man of the upper middle classes, like Malcolm John Webster, maybe even in a similar job [A nurse] ...Websters victims were plied with drugs first. It isn't always a claw hammer to the head in these crimes. Webster wasn't available 28.7.1986...but he was a good ringer for the age bracket. I'm thinking Kipper was between 2 and 8 years older than Suzy - just enough to give him seniority i.e. 28-36 years old. Actually, its a real nuisance Webster was out of the country in '86, because in his younger days he had a good resemblance to Kipper...in this pic he's still too old

I have more thoughts, but if I make the post too long nobody will read it!

 

[FOXINBOX]

Just like to add that at this time, I don't think Malcolm Webster was Kipper - he didn't abduct women, just married them and killed them for their insurance.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I hope everybody here doesn't mind Fox adding her bit.
I'd just like to say IMO Cannon has nothing to do with the case and he's just yanking everyone's chain. He likes an audience, not privacy with his victim. Whatever, whoever he dumped in the River Brent, wasn't Suzy...
Mr Kipper - just a Red Herring? Jack the Kipper?

I reckon it was a local, which can mean any of the shifting population of people in the flats and bedsits of the area, because Fulham is a bit of a backwater. You don't go shopping on Fulham High Street unless you are nearby - Fulham's nice, it's just not a South Ken or Knightsbridge shopping destination. So you won't see Suzy in Sturgis's window unless you work or live nearby.
Work in Fulham? Then you come in on the Tube. Another side-line. Fulham is one of only 9 stations on the Wimbledon branch of the District Line. It's possible that Kipper came in from the wider commuter belt but I don't think so, as he appears to have connections with Fulham Football club - languishing in the Third division in 1986, so either a rival or a fan. Suzy almost certainly caught the tube from Putney East, because her flat was just 350 yards away. Maybe Kipper saw her on the tube. Regular commuter, familiar face...probably never registered with Suzy.

12:45 appointment. She'd never be missed until 2:00 at least...
I trust that the police investigated the witness thoroughly...so onto Kipper.
A very well-dressed guy and that portrait gives him a certain je ne sais quoi. I can see why Suzy got into a car with him, maybe agreed to continue negotiations over lunch at some out-of-town location. She'll drive because he left his car and came on the tube...if Suzy drives, then Kipper can take control easily...

Now I have a "Type" for Kipper. He's a sociopath and a narcissist, very attractive to the ladies, able to give the appearance of a well-to-do man of the upper middle classes, like Malcolm John Webster, maybe even in a similar job [A nurse] ...Websters victims were plied with drugs first. It isn't always a claw hammer to the head in these crimes. Webster wasn't available 28.7.1986...but he was a good ringer for the age bracket. I'm thinking Kipper was between 2 and 8 years older than Suzy - just enough to give him seniority i.e. 28-36 years old. Actually, its a real nuisance Webster was out of the country in '86, because in his younger days he had a good resemblance to Kipper...in this pic he's still too old

I have more thoughts, but if I make the post too long nobody will read it!

You should compare the likeness of Malcolm Webster to the second photo fit. The first photo was a description from an unreliable witness

 

[FOXINBOX]

Looking at the two photofits, they look sufficiently similar for them to be pictures of the same person, don't y'all think? People often describe someone seen fleeing from a crime with slightly different results. The witness that knew Suzy didn't know Kipper from Adam, so both witnesses were on equal footing as to his description. Like the Zodiac ID one size fits too many serial killers...but I do believe Kipper could convince the witness in Shorrolds Road that he "Looked a good sort", and that he seemed very well groomed, which makes me think Kipper was living above his means, that he was a compulsive liar and a con man with links to the Fulham area.

I'll have a go at his possible occupation, the car etc. another time.

PS All anyone has to do to to prove me wrong is to catch the Kipper!

 

[Pinkizzy]

David Videcette has written a book about Suzy Lamplugh

 

[Crusader21]

David Videcette has written a book about Suzy Lamplugh

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0999M1FJ4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_92TDE4V26V7R5K6KMTK0

For those who haven't been following this story, retired policeman David Videcette has conducted his own extensive research into the SL case.

He appears to have concluded that incredibly there was no house viewing, no Mr Kipper, JC was not involved and the mystery of what happened that day lies elsewhere.

I think the SL story may be in the mainstream headlines once again, when this book comes out.

 

[FOXINBOX]

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0999M1FJ4/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_92TDE4V26V7R5K6KMTK0

For those who haven't been following this story, retired policeman David Videcette has conducted his own extensive research into the SL case.

He appears to have concluded that incredibly there was no house viewing, no Mr Kipper, JC was not involved and the mystery of what happened that day lies elsewhere.

I think the SL story may be in the mainstream headlines once again, when this book comes out.

I've had enough with Prof. Wilson's theories. I'll wait for the discussion here before I try the book

 

[FOXINBOX]

I did however google Videcette. He was with the Anti-terrorist squad

 

[Crusader21]

I did however google Videcette. He was with the Anti-terrorist squad

He does seem to know his stuff, give this a listen as a taster -

‎From the Files: Who is Mr. Kipper? with David Videcette on Apple Podcasts

As I say he's on a completely different tangent to the official JC police line. Videcette's observations are more alined to the Stevens book from 1987 (copies selling now for £100 on ebay!), which he appears now to be taking much further.

I think he may have the case sussed ...

 

[FOXINBOX]

So who does Videcette think did it? I know it wasn't Cannan, I've been extremely vocal about it on this very thread

 

[Crusader21]

So who does Videcette think did it? I know it wasn't Cannan, I've been extremely vocal about it on this very thread

He hasn't pubically named anyone yet.

However, have you ever read the Stevens book?

It's already in the public domain that sometime that over that weekend SL 'dropped' (or were they stolen?), valuable personal items from her bag, namely her chequebook, diary and a postcard.

On the Monday morning, the landlord of her local pub indicated that he had her items. Seemingly, for the first and only time, Suzy faked a house viewing in order to go on personal business, ie to collect her items.

Going to collect her items would have meant that she travelled in the opposite direction of the house viewing and in the direction of ultimately, her murder.

 

[Crusader21]

I should also add that David Videcette has mentioned in one of the podcasts, that there was indeed a couple outside no37 Shorrolds Rd around 1pm that Monday.

Seemingly spotted by a handful of witnesses, hence police photofits etc.

A blonde haired lady and smartly dressed gent.

According to Videcette that lady could not have been Suzy.
And this 'fact' is tragic, because it helped send the police investigation completely down the wrong road.

Big question is who was the couple? Were they the couple who were close friends with Suzy as indicated in the Stevens book? The duo who were possibly going in to business with Suzy?

Obvious next question is why didn't that couple come forward to the police?

As I said, if you can get your hands on the Stevens book, it would be a good start in understanding the Lamplugh mystery.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I may not have read the book, but I have read the newspaper archives. And they reported on the chequebook etc. but I've never seen any indication she picked them up, otherwise we'd have another witness i.e. the landlord.
Susy didn't need to fake an appointment. It would have been her lunch hour at 1 pm and she could easily have reached the pub - 1.7 miles, 11 minute drive from Shorrolds Road - you could walk it and be back on time for work, besides, why not wait until the evening, when she would be returning to Disraeli Road anyways.

 

[Crusader21]

I may not have read the book, but I have read the newspaper archives. And they reported on the chequebook etc. but I've never seen any indication she picked them up, otherwise we'd have another witness i.e. the landlord.

The landlord told the police that Suzy had arranged to pick her items up at 6pm. Yet she'd another entry in her diary for 6 o'clock! Very odd.

You're right she didn't pick them up, they were retrieved by the police from the landlord.

Susy didn't need to fake an appointment. It would have been her lunch hour at 1 pm and she could easily have reached the pub - 1.7 miles, 11 minute drive from Shorrolds Road - you could walk it and be back on time for work,

Suzy had on average 6 house viewings per day, there appeared to be no lunch hour per se at Sturgis. Just a quick bite of a sandwich and a smoke. Suzy wasn't granted a 'lunch hour' for the upcoming Wednesday, her mother's 50th birthday. That's why Suzy visited her mum late Sunday night before.

Factoring in lunchtime traffic, it may have been only course of action to fake an appt if Suzy urgently wished to reclaim her items.

besides, why not wait until the evening, when she would be returning to Disraeli Road anyways.

As I've said Suzy had a viewing at 6pm. Evening viewings were 'unmissable' for estate agents, as they tended to mean potential buyers were extremely keen to close so more chance of a sale / commission.

Also Sturgis staff appeared to notice Suzy was 'preoccupied' / very keen to have her items returned that Monday morning.

Put yourself in Suzy's shoes. If you had of had personal items removed from your bag. Including your diary that contained very private and personal info.

You then are made aware that the landlord of your local pub has your items, wouldn't you wish to retrieve your possessions plus establish how they came in to his possession, just as soon as you could?

 

[Terryb808]

The landlord told the police that Suzy had arranged to pick her items up at 6pm. Yet she'd another entry in her diary for 6 o'clock! Very odd.

You're right she didn't pick them up, they were retrieved by the police from the landlord.



Suzy had on average 6 house viewings per day, there appeared to be no lunch hour per se at Sturgis. Just a quick bite of a sandwich and a smoke. Suzy wasn't granted a 'lunch hour' for the upcoming Wednesday, her mother's 50th birthday. That's why Suzy visited her mum late Sunday night before.

Factoring in lunchtime traffic, it may have been only course of action to fake an appt if Suzy urgently wished to reclaim her items.



As I've said Suzy had a viewing at 6pm. Evening viewings were 'unmissable' for estate agents, as they tended to mean potential buyers were extremely keen to close so more chance of a sale / commission.

Also Sturgis staff appeared to notice Suzy was 'preoccupied' / very keen to have her items returned that Monday morning.

Put yourself in Suzy's shoes. If you had of had personal items removed from your bag. Including your diary that contained very private and personal info.

You then are made aware that the landlord of your local pub has your items, wouldn't you wish to retrieve your possessions plus establish how they came in to his possession, just as soon as you could?

Yes agreed, the story from the landlord was that he found them on the front steps when he was locking up.
This in itself is odd, to drop all three items and not notice I’d say is pretty much impossible. I’m guessing Suzy thought this and may have wanted to challenge the landlord about his story.
It’s very possible she left the office at 12.45pm to collect her things and still reach Shorrolds Road by 1.00pm. However, it’s also possible that the Shorrolds Road viewing was just a ruse to get out of the office.

 

[Crusader21]

Yes, there's the real possibility, that the main reason for the fictious house showing, was that Suzy was meeting the couple she knew, that male and female seen outside No37 Shorrolds Rd.

With the intention of retrieving her items from the landlord then heading to No37.

However, obviously she never made it.

In the Stevens book, the female of the couple said that her and Suzy were actually to meet on the Tuesday lunchtime! Which is strange remembering Sturgis policy re lunchtimes.

It's also interesting to note that that female named in Stevens book, has went on to become a bit of a TV celebrity, contributing her expertise in various UK tv programmes over the intervening years.

Bizarrely too, as far as I'm aware, that female has never pubically mentioned of her relationship with Suzy in any media interview! This despite her celebrity, the enormity of the Suzy Lamplugh case and that female being one of those her helped initially fundraise for the launch of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust!

 

[Terryb808]

Yes, there's the real possibility, that the main reason for the fictious house showing, was that Suzy was meeting the couple she knew, that male and female seen outside No37 Shorrolds Rd.

With the intention of retrieving her items from the landlord then heading to No37.

However, obviously she never made it.

In the Stevens book, the female of the couple said that her and Suzy were actually to meet on the Tuesday lunchtime! Which is strange remembering Sturgis policy re lunchtimes.

It's also interesting to note that that female named in Stevens book, has went on to become a bit of a TV celebrity, contributing her expertise in various UK tv programmes over the intervening years.

Bizarrely too, as far as I'm aware, that female has never pubically mentioned of her relationship with Suzy in any media interview! This despite her celebrity, the enormity of the Suzy Lamplugh case and that female being one of those her helped initially fundraise for the launch of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust!

Yes it’s very odd that the female of the two should say they arranged to meet on the Tuesday, given that Suzy could not attend her mother’s 50th celebration, but was able to have lunch with a friend on the Tuesday.
This just does not add up and I wonder why the police didn’t think this was odd?

 

[FOXINBOX]

Has is the blonde woman outside 37 been definitely identified as another person named? If not, the chances that Suzy, who had an appointment to meet outside @ 12:45 pm is the most likely person.

Also, although I disagree with Prof. Wilson's conclusions in the Lamplugh case, I respect him and his contacts enough to be sure he wouldn't have passed up sharing this detail in his programmes.

As Suzy probably had her personal items stolen by someone in the pub [?], I think it's very likely they were taken by a stalker. Criminals to leave their victim's possessions in public places to mislead the investigations. Sorry to do a re-tread on my past theories, but nobody does an abduction in Fulham unless they live or work there.