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

[Taskforce88]

I believe the grand Union canal suitcase dumping is key. Unbelievable that the police never followed it up.

 

[FOXINBOX]

I believe the grand Union canal suitcase dumping is key. Unbelievable that the police never followed it up.

They did indeed follow it up, well sort of...
Police give verdict on Suzy Lamplugh Brentford connection

 

[FOXINBOX]

The thing about the Brentford Canal search is that it was carried out a decade and a half before The Lorry Driver gave his information to the police, and that's 15 years nearer the Lamplugh event. As it stands, George Washington could have given the information, for all the good it does.

 

[FOXINBOX]

The thing about the Brentford Canal search is that it was carried out a decade and a half before The Lorry Driver gave his information to the police, and that's 15 years nearer the Lamplugh event. As it stands, George Washington could have given the information, for all the good it does.

Sigh. I get a slapped wrist for this one, Should read my own sources. It's only 5 years - the search was 2014.

 

[dotr]

Covid pandemic is 'a stalker's paradise' as face mask restrictions linked to rise in cases
July 29 2021
''Dame Vera Baird warned stalkers have taken advantage of Covid restrictions like face coverings, with “obsessive and fixated behaviours” increasing since March 2020, according to separate research carried out by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.''

''There are around 1.5 million stalking cases every year across England and Wales, and according to the latest figures, less that 1 per cent of cases result in a conviction.

The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, named after the estate agent who is believed to have lost her life at the hands of a stalker, is calling on the Government to create a national taskforce to prevent the crime.

Ms Alvarez added: “Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s recent report Unmasking Stalking demonstrates that the pandemic has not deterred stalkers, in fact the intensity and frequency of perpetrators’ obsessive and fixated behaviours has increased for many. ''

 

[Terryb808]

I believe the grand Union canal suitcase dumping is key. Unbelievable that the police never followed it up.

Agree, I believe the Mets head of CID said no stone unturned when interviewed recently, meaning they will follow up on any new lead.
They appear to be talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
They’ve had a file from ex Scotland Yard detective David Videsette for approximately 2 years highlighting an alternative narrative other than John Cannan. But they have done nothing, not looked at his work or followed up on any of it.
The Met are only interested in evidence that confirms it was JC, they made him the only suspect and it appears there’s no going back

 

[WiseOwl]

Agree, I believe the Mets head of CID said no stone unturned when interviewed recently, meaning they will follow up on any new lead.
They appear to be talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
They’ve had a file from ex Scotland Yard detective David Videsette for approximately 2 years highlighting an alternative narrative other than John Cannan. But they have done nothing, not looked at his work or followed up on any of it.
The Met are only interested in evidence that confirms it was JC, they made him the only suspect and it appears there’s no going back

I agree with what you say Terry, The Met are absolutely fixated with John Cannan at the expense of any other potential suspects.

I watched the 2 part 'Mystery of Suzy Lamplugh' on Sky Crime the other day and I felt quite annoyed & sad that the police were so focused on Cannan, it was blinkered beyond belief.

For instance, when Suzy's friend Barbara came forward a week after Suzy went missing to say she had seen her on that day, the police dismissed this evidence saying that they believe Barbara saw her but had got the wrong day. Yet someone came forward in 2000 to say in 1986 he was out running when a BMW pulled up near him, the horn was being pressed and what looked liked a man & a women were either laughing or fighting in the car. He gave a description of the man who the police said 'looked like John Cannan' and took this account to be true.

So they chose to believe this man's 14 year-old story yet they dismiss Barbara's, even though her account of what happened was fresh in her mind!

And what of the pub landlord? Got a brief mention in both parts 1 & 2 but nothing more. Yet, to me anyway, he comes across as suspicious. Firstly he finds Suzy's things on the steps of his pub (although it never specified which day it was, but surely it must have been Friday as Suzy didn't go to the pub Saturday or Sunday).

On the Monday he phones the bank to ask whose cheque book it was (wouldn't it have Suzy's name on it somewhere. Also wouldn't her diary have some info as to who it belonged to?). The bank phone Suzy to tell her the pub landlord has her things, and Suzy phones the pub. The landlord states afterwards that Suzy said she would collect her things at 6pm but her work diary shows she has another appointment at that time. It is said that the call to the pub is the last Suzy made from her office - did she in fact change the time from 6pm to earlier perhaps?

Also the landlord made another odd claim. He said that two people phoned the pub that afternoon asking for Suzy. One was a woman and the other a police officer. But why ring the pub to ask for Suzy, surely they would either phone her home or her work to speak to her? And why on earth would a police officer phone the pub asking for her?

The finding of Suzy's things, the 'alleged' timing of the 6pm meeting with Suzy and the odd account of the phone calls seem suspicious to me, there is something odd about it all. However, I haven't read anywhere that this man was interviewed or even regarded as a potential suspect.

 

[FOXINBOX]

Agree, I believe the Mets head of CID said no stone unturned when interviewed recently, meaning they will follow up on any new lead.
The Met are only interested in evidence that confirms it was JC, they made him the only suspect and it appears there’s no going back

I don't think the Met would publicise any current investigation, they are very careful of any information they release, because it could derail any police work underway.
Personally, I think the suitcase is a Red Herring. The "Lorry Driver" gave the information in 2019. Why wait 33 years before informing the police? How could you remember details [if any] after such a time?
I imagine the Met might undertake a search, budget allowing, but there are a lot of other families who deserve a resolution too, and I guess the Met weigh the expense of the many against the one. They may send Policeman Plod to dig up Cannan's mum's garden [Could Cannan have watched the Porridge episode where a conniving Fletcher pulled the same trick?] but draining and dredging the Brentford Canal would cost a big old wedge of cash.

 

[FOXINBOX]

The reason why so many TV programmes focus on Cannan is that because he is incarcerated for similar, they can accuse him of stuff without risking any legal repercussions. It's TV, serial killers are good for ratings, or in the Met's case, publicity.

 

[FCA]

I agree with what you say Terry, The Met are absolutely fixated with John Cannan at the expense of any other potential suspects.

I watched the 2 part 'Mystery of Suzy Lamplugh' on Sky Crime the other day and I felt quite annoyed & sad that the police were so focused on Cannan, it was blinkered beyond belief.

For instance, when Suzy's friend Barbara came forward a week after Suzy went missing to say she had seen her on that day, the police dismissed this evidence saying that they believe Barbara saw her but had got the wrong day. Yet someone came forward in 2000 to say in 1986 he was out running when a BMW pulled up near him, the horn was being pressed and what looked liked a man & a women were either laughing or fighting in the car. He gave a description of the man who the police said 'looked like John Cannan' and took this account to be true.

So they chose to believe this man's 14 year-old story yet they dismiss Barbara's, even though her account of what happened was fresh in her mind!

And what of the pub landlord? Got a brief mention in both parts 1 & 2 but nothing more. Yet, to me anyway, he comes across as suspicious. Firstly he finds Suzy's things on the steps of his pub (although it never specified which day it was, but surely it must have been Friday as Suzy didn't go to the pub Saturday or Sunday).

On the Monday he phones the bank to ask whose cheque book it was (wouldn't it have Suzy's name on it somewhere. Also wouldn't her diary have some info as to who it belonged to?). The bank phone Suzy to tell her the pub landlord has her things, and Suzy phones the pub. The landlord states afterwards that Suzy said she would collect her things at 6pm but her work diary shows she has another appointment at that time. It is said that the call to the pub is the last Suzy made from her office - did she in fact change the time from 6pm to earlier perhaps?

Also the landlord made another odd claim. He said that two people phoned the pub that afternoon asking for Suzy. One was a woman and the other a police officer. But why ring the pub to ask for Suzy, surely they would either phone her home or her work to speak to her? And why on earth would a police officer phone the pub asking for her?

The finding of Suzy's things, the 'alleged' timing of the 6pm meeting with Suzy and the odd account of the phone calls seem suspicious to me, there is something odd about it all. However, I haven't read anywhere that this man was interviewed or even regarded as a potential suspect.

Stephen says that police were immediately dispatched to B's office to verify the time and date of B's story. It all tallied they said. Why didn't the BMW witness and the canal witness, if the latter so certain, why not call Crimewatch at the time? They did tend to follow things up carefully.

Agree on what you say on Landlord and also note that Suzy lived very close, over the road and there was a postcard found with the diary. It would have had her home address on it. A letter too. Did the pub staff and the landlord not know such a beautiful, charismatic girl and it was her local? Maybe he was very new in the job but if not? Her diary prob had her name and address inside, did anyone check? It had the phone numbers of friends and colleagues inside. The police followed up on a few.

The last call Suzy made was with the landlord's wife, allegedly, just before she left the office. Was this a second call to the pub? Why?

Very strange, the call from the pub, placed by the policeman came before she had been reported missing. The facts about the calls were only on the police radar after a year as they routinely reinterviewed everyone. The police who had first interviewed the landlord were apparently shocked that he said he'd given them a note at the time as they said he had not. This note had the number Suzy was supposed to call later on.

I am sure it was John Cannan as they will have followed all this up at the time and ruled it out. Would have been a huge lead at the time. They said in the documentary the police made a lot of mistakes and had clearly lost the note and implied they covered this up.

 

[WiseOwl]

I don't think the Met would publicise any current investigation, they are very careful of any information they release, because it could derail any police work underway.
Personally, I think the suitcase is a Red Herring. The "Lorry Driver" gave the information in 2019. Why wait 33 years before informing the police? How could you remember details [if any] after such a time?
I imagine the Met might undertake a search, budget allowing, but there are a lot of other families who deserve a resolution too, and I guess the Met weigh the expense of the many against the one. They may send Policeman Plod to dig up Cannan's mum's garden [Could Cannan have watched the Porridge episode where a conniving Fletcher pulled the same trick?] but draining and dredging the Brentford Canal would cost a big old wedge of cash.

It was a cellmate of Cannan's from 2001 who said that Suzy was buried under the patio of Cannan's mother's house in Sutton Coldfield. The police didn't act on this information until October 2018 when they dug up the garden and found nothing.

Maybe this cellmate was a fan of Brookside?!!

 

[WiseOwl]

Stephen says that police were immediately dispatched to B's office to verify the time and date of B's story. It all tallied they said. Why didn't the BMW witness and the canal witness, if the latter so certain, why not call Crimewatch at the time? They did tend to follow things up carefully.

Agree on what you say on Landlord and also note that Suzy lived very close, over the road and there was a postcard found with the diary. It would have had her home address on it. A letter too. Did the pub staff and the landlord not know such a beautiful, charismatic girl and it was her local? Maybe he was very new in the job but if not? Her diary prob had her name and address inside, did anyone check? It had the phone numbers of friends and colleagues inside. The police followed up on a few.

The last call Suzy made was with the landlord's wife, allegedly, just before she left the office. Was this a second call to the pub? Why?

Very strange, the call from the pub, placed by the policeman came before she had been reported missing. The facts about the calls were only on the police radar after a year as they routinely reinterviewed everyone. The police who had first interviewed the landlord were apparently shocked that he said he'd given them a note at the time as they said he had not. This note had the number Suzy was supposed to call later on.

I am sure it was John Cannan as they will have followed all this up at the time and ruled it out. Would have been a huge lead at the time. They said in the documentary the police made a lot of mistakes and had clearly lost the note and implied they covered this up.

Great post FCA and welcome to Websleuths!

It would be interesting to find out what the landlord's movements were the day Suzy disappeared, someone mentioned in an earlier post that apparently it was his day off. Also I have read that he was the acting landlord, so maybe he was just standing in for the usual landlord who may have been away on holiday, or off sick - something like that.

There doesn't seem any information about this man anywhere but the odd things that came up just before Suzy disappeared, the finding of her things, the call to the bank, the alleged arranged meeting at the pub with Suzy at 6pm, the strange phone calls that afternoon - I don't know how or why this all fits in with her disappearance but it seems a strange series of events in such a short time just before & on the day she vanished.

I wonder if the police ever considered him a suspect?

 

[FCA]

Thank you. They didn't, I believe, re: a suspect, they were focused on getting the diary asap and he had called the bank so innocent. From what all have said the focus was on 'Kipper' and Suzy. Suzy had been positively identified outside 37 Shorrolds so no need to look at anything else really or at or for any other suspect. He lived in the pub with his wife, I think, re: landlord so established to a degree. The book published in 1988 has quite a lot of detail you can research around.

 

[Terryb808]

I agree with what you say Terry, The Met are absolutely fixated with John Cannan at the expense of any other potential suspects.

I watched the 2 part 'Mystery of Suzy Lamplugh' on Sky Crime the other day and I felt quite annoyed & sad that the police were so focused on Cannan, it was blinkered beyond belief.

For instance, when Suzy's friend Barbara came forward a week after Suzy went missing to say she had seen her on that day, the police dismissed this evidence saying that they believe Barbara saw her but had got the wrong day. Yet someone came forward in 2000 to say in 1986 he was out running when a BMW pulled up near him, the horn was being pressed and what looked liked a man & a women were either laughing or fighting in the car. He gave a description of the man who the police said 'looked like John Cannan' and took this account to be true.

So they chose to believe this man's 14 year-old story yet they dismiss Barbara's, even though her account of what happened was fresh in her mind!

And what of the pub landlord? Got a brief mention in both parts 1 & 2 but nothing more. Yet, to me anyway, he comes across as suspicious. Firstly he finds Suzy's things on the steps of his pub (although it never specified which day it was, but surely it must have been Friday as Suzy didn't go to the pub Saturday or Sunday).

On the Monday he phones the bank to ask whose cheque book it was (wouldn't it have Suzy's name on it somewhere. Also wouldn't her diary have some info as to who it belonged to?). The bank phone Suzy to tell her the pub landlord has her things, and Suzy phones the pub. The landlord states afterwards that Suzy said she would collect her things at 6pm but her work diary shows she has another appointment at that time. It is said that the call to the pub is the last Suzy made from her office - did she in fact change the time from 6pm to earlier perhaps?

Also the landlord made another odd claim. He said that two people phoned the pub that afternoon asking for Suzy. One was a woman and the other a police officer. But why ring the pub to ask for Suzy, surely they would either phone her home or her work to speak to her? And why on earth would a police officer phone the pub asking for her?

The finding of Suzy's things, the 'alleged' timing of the 6pm meeting with Suzy and the odd account of the phone calls seem suspicious to me, there is something odd about it all. However, I haven't read anywhere that this man was interviewed or even regarded as a potential suspect.

Spot on regarding the landlord, so many inconsistencies in what he did and how his story changed when interviewed a year later.
Apparently the detectives that completed the second interview were justifiably concerned about the changes, but nothing was done. Mets comment was witnesses change their statements all the time, that’s not unusual.
As has been said in this thread, JC is an easy target as he’s incarcerated for a similar offence, which does nothing to help find the truth.
If you read the Stephen book and ignore JC (as he didn’t come into the frame until after the book was published) you get a completely different narrative that leads in another direction altogether.
Suzy never went to Shorrolds Road, the appointment was a ruse to get out of the office on a busy Monday.
So forget JC and lol at why she needed to get out of the office and where she might have gone.

 

[WiseOwl]

I don't believe she went to Shorrolds Road or met up with friends.

The most logical scenario is that she went to the pub to retrieve her missing things.

Did any of Suzy's colleagues say that she mentioned going there at 6pm or do we only have the landlord's word for it?

 

[FCA]

It has been said that most of her colleagues knew where she was possibly planning to go later on, did they know or guess she'd go via the pub at some point (?), probably earlier rather than later, to get her diary? Did they think nothing of it as everyone thought she went missing after meeting Kipper outside Shorrolds? Where she was clearly seen and all press reported this etc? So this was an earlier detail that got lost (?) The manager was out and they were short staffed & busy so it was all hands to deck. She couldn't look to swan off on a personal errand etc... (?)

 

[Teesside]

It was a cellmate of Cannan's from 2001 who said that Suzy was buried under the patio of Cannan's mother's house in Sutton Coldfield. The police didn't act on this information until October 2018 when they dug up the garden and found nothing.

Maybe this cellmate was a fan of Brookside?!!

Trevor Jordache! Well that was 1993, so could have been.....

 

[WiseOwl]

Trevor Jordache! Well that was 1993, so could have been.....

That's the one, dug up by Jimmy Corkhill if I remember correctly!

Maybe Cannan's cellmate remembered this episode, and told a re-hashed version to the police?

 

[Crusader21]

Countdown on now for David Videcette's book for this week.

As I've said massive claims from Videcette. He knows who killed SL, where see is likely to be buried now and that this mystery no longer a mystery.

The ruling out of John Canaan is continuing Suspect in disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh should not have been named

'I failed to find a single shred of evidence that John Cannan even knew Suzy, let alone murdered her.'

... and that of course leads to the question - Who then did murder Suzy Lamplugh?

 

[Taskforce88]

Didn't the canal guy go straight to the police at the time. He went to Cannan's trial to see if it was him that he had seen dumping the suitcase. I believe he went three times to the police but they didn't take him seriously. It was a friend of his that then contacted police many years later and when they looked into it they didn't find any report about it.