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

[Crusader21]

“He must have spent a fortune on the flowers. He asked me out again and was very persistent. I didn’t want the flowers but he insisted I accept them and promised he would be back the next day to ask me out again.

“Luckily, I never saw him again.’’

A week later her dad John, now 76, went to Fulham police station to report what had happened. He said: “It sends shivers down my spine to think what might have happened had she agreed to go out with him.”

Is this a positive identification of JC pestering / stalking / being a nuisance, to a female employee that he's spotted working in a Fulham shop in July 1986?

If so, it puts JC bang in the frame for SLs disappearance...

 

[WestLondoner]

I don't think so. This happened in 1986, it was two years at least before JC was in the paper over Shirley Banks, and it was 14 years later before she was asked to identify him - after he had been repeatedly named. I'd question anyone's ability to remember a face from two years ago never mind 14.

It says someone was possibly up to no good, but we know that already - from SJL's disappearance.

That Sun article is a big part of why this won't be solved - like the police, it starts from the assumption that a named someone did it, so even though the case is feeble, no other candidates are going to be considered. The Ripper police made the identical mistake; whenever a new murder happened, they would pick up a cab driver called Terry Hawkshaw because they were convinced it was him. Later, they dismissed potential suspects because they didn't sound like the guy on the hoax tape. Likewise with Rachel Nickell's murder the police decided it was Colin Stagg, so they ignored Robert Napper, even though there was a serial rapist at work who could not have been Stagg.

If we look at the helpful summary of why JC's a suspect, the poor quality of the case is clear:

1. Mr Kipper. Cannan was nicknamed “Kipper” by others at a bail hostel where he lived at the time — due to his fondness for the fish and a habit of having a kip. Funny, supposedly this was also because he wore kipper ties. Which was it? And anyway, this claim came from another criminal 14 years later, after he'd been named, and has never been substantiated. Why would he anyway use an "alias" that actually identified him? It would be like Reggie Perrin disappearing and coming back as Gerry Reppin.
   
2. Photofit. He bore a strong resemblance to the image of Suzy’s abductor compiled from witnesses. Everyone bears a strong resemblance to that photofit, eg: https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9de7...=max&dpr=2&s=457f0a452617fda86d0349c55edfb3e3
   
3. False alibi. Cannan claimed he was staying with his mum in Sutton Coldfield and had chatted up a local sales assistant the day that Suzy vanished. The woman confirmed Cannan approached her, but doubts later emerged over whether it was on the same day. His mother, sister and brother in law confirmed this alibi
   
4. Brief romance. In 2001, cops uncovered evidence suggesting that Cannan was the “mystery man” Suzy had a brief relationship with. Which was what?
   
5. Bristol businessman. Suzy said her boyfriend was a Bristol businessman — something Cannan pretended to be with other women. Not in 1986. He moved to Bristol in 1987. This conversation was in 1984.
   
6. Stalking. A witness said they saw Cannan staring into Sturgis estate agents, where Suzy worked, shortly before her disappearance. A witness claimed to have remembered this 14 years later. Amazing memory - I can't remember things that happened in the street 14 years ago, nor the exact date they happened
   
7. Gifts. Cannan was known for showering women with flowers and champagne. An eyewitness saw a couple matching Suzy and Cannan’s descriptions laying in a local park with a bottle of bubbly beside them on the day she vanished. Again, years later. If Cannan's alibi is suspect because the date may be wrong, why is witness "evidence" from years after not equally suspect?
   
8. Taxi driver. A cabbie identified Cannan as a man who asked for a lift that lunchtime, while clutching champagne and estate agent house papers. Years later, and long after Cannan had been named. How did this cabbie establish the exact day, date and time?
   
9. The BMW. Detectives suspect Suzy’s killer parked a BMW near the second home in Fulham where she was taking “Mr Kipper” for a viewing in her office Ford Fiesta. Cannan did not have a BMW in 1986 and the one described was not the type he later drove.
   
10. Joking confession. Cannan joked to a former girlfriend, Gilly Paige, that he was Mr Kipper. She later retracted this and admitted it wasn't true.

It could be him, but on the evidence presented, it could equally have been any dark-haired bloke in a suit. What all these years-after-the-event "Cannan" sightings all have in common is that none was volunteered at the time and all emerged after he'd been named. People then start vaguely remembering stuff that a bloke in a suit did in the 80s and suddenly they're dead certain it was JC on or before 28/7/1986.

 

[rvlvr]

Can someone put me out of my misery and PM me the names of the PSS and TS mentioned? Thank you, and thank you for all the contributions in this thread, I’m absolutely fascinated by Suzy’s case.

 

[Crusader21]

I don't think so. This happened in 1986, it was two years at least before JC was in the paper over Shirley Banks, and it was 14 years later before she was asked to identify him - after he had been repeatedly named. I'd question anyone's ability to remember a face from two years ago never mind 14.

I disagree.

I think it is accepted, that we can recall faces of 'important' people. Images fixed in our minds through strong positive or negative associations. Regardless too, of meeting them briefly a period of time ago.

In JCs case many have commented about his distinctive eyes for example ....

 

[WestLondoner]

It would be more persuasive if the supposed witness recollections of JC had not happened 14 years later, after he had been named...

 

[Terryb808]

It would be more persuasive if the supposed witness recollections of JC had not happened 14 years later, after he had been named...

Agree with all of this, as stated earlier it’s easy to get things wrong even seconds after the event, so 14 years, would be very suspect and in DV’s case 30 plus years well, very doubtful.
Having said that my daughter has a photographic memory and is able to describe things she’s seen once in great detail.
We need a witness like this to help us.

 

[Terryb808]

Can someone put me out of my misery and PM me the names of the PSS and TS mentioned? Thank you, and thank you for all the contributions in this thread, I’m absolutely fascinated by Suzy’s case.

Hi and welcome, we can’t put names in the thread as the people are still alive. If you are seriously interested try and get a copy of Andrew Stephen’s book, it’s out of print, but available second hand. Shop around as some charge the earth for a copy.

 

[SaintGertrude]

Suzie's White Ford Fiesta car was found parked in Stevenage Road at 10:01pm on 28th July 1986
Her car keys were gone Where the car keys ever get found?
Did Mr Kipper perhaps take the keys as a souvenir like with the Tunbridge Wells Bedsit murderer.

 

[Terryb808]

Suzie's White Ford Fiesta car was found parked in Stevenage Road at 10:01pm on 28th July 1986
Her car keys were gone Where the car keys ever get found?
Did Mr Kipper perhaps take the keys as a souvenir like with the Tunbridge Wells Bedsit murderer.

The car keys were never found, I think it’s more likely the person who abandoned her car was in a hurry and took the keys as a unconscious gesture.
Not likely to ever find the car keys, they’re not likely to be with SL’s remains.

 

[SaintGertrude]

The car keys were never found, I think it’s more likely the person who abandoned her car was in a hurry and took the keys as a unconscious gesture.
Not likely to ever find the car keys, they’re not likely to be with SL’s remains.

Was there not one spot of another persons DNA in the car if someone else unknown was driving her car? Maybe the police did take some samples from fibres which points towards the unknown person never having had DNA tests done for another criminal activity.
I wonder if there was anything else on the key fob although the missing keys are the only link I can find with the unsolved TW murder case.

 

[Crusader21]

It would be more persuasive if the supposed witness recollections of JC had not happened 14 years later, after he had been named...

If you look at the newspaper report, the girl's father reported the unwelcome attention from the stalker to the police and gave a description just days after SLs disapperance. Not 14 years later (when it appeared in press).

And that fact remains that someone was in the Fulham area was pestering a local female working in a shop. And the police were aware of this in Aug 1986.

Yes years later it the girl claimed it was JC, this may not be but also, she may be right in correctly identifying the nusisance man .....

 

[WestLondoner]

It doesn't indicate that whoever did this was thought at the time to resemble the photofit, though. None of these supposed sightings of him was corroborated by anyone else; nobody else in this shop saw him and noted his face. The article just says her father - who didn't see the man - reported the episode a week after SJL disappeared. The claim that this man looked like the sketch and JC only appears to have emerged 14 years later.

This is the problem with pretty well all of the "case" against him: nobody thought of JC until after his name was mentioned in connection with SJL, whereupon suddenly, only after the police said "JC probably did this", everybody knew he did it. Nobody picked him out in an identity parade; nobody who thought 14 years later that they'd seen him 14 years before was with anyone who could corroborate this.

It is possible that this individual was indeed JC, but my point is threefold really. First, there is nothing that stands up as evidence, so the CPS were clearly right not to prosecute. Second, it's obvious that there was someone up to no good in the area at that time (because SJL disappeared), but it doesn't follow that it had to be JC. The Kipper sketch resembles probably 50% of men under 35 (think of that eccentric who's convinced Fred West did it; he thinks the sketch looks like him). 2,500 people disappear every year, so we don't need to make this fit JC; he wasn't the only nutter at large that day. Third, in key respects this crime does not resemble Cannan's others - he abducted his victims by forcing his way into their car at night; they were always found even when he'd had ample chance to hide them.

She needs to be found, really. I think DV is barking up the wrong tree, but it would help if his thesis could be verified or disproved.

 

[Terryb808]

It doesn't indicate that whoever did this was thought at the time to resemble the photofit, though. None of these supposed sightings of him was corroborated by anyone else; nobody else in this shop saw him and noted his face. The article just says her father - who didn't see the man - reported the episode a week after SJL disappeared. The claim that this man looked like the sketch and JC only appears to have emerged 14 years later.

This is the problem with pretty well all of the "case" against him: nobody thought of JC until after his name was mentioned in connection with SJL, whereupon suddenly, only after the police said "JC probably did this", everybody knew he did it. Nobody picked him out in an identity parade; nobody who thought 14 years later that they'd seen him 14 years before was with anyone who could corroborate this.

It is possible that this individual was indeed JC, but my point is threefold really. First, there is nothing that stands up as evidence, so the CPS were clearly right not to prosecute. Second, it's obvious that there was someone up to no good in the area at that time (because SJL disappeared), but it doesn't follow that it had to be JC. The Kipper sketch resembles probably 50% of men under 35 (think of that eccentric who's convinced Fred West did it; he thinks the sketch looks like him). 2,500 people disappear every year, so we don't need to make this fit JC; he wasn't the only nutter at large that day. Third, in key respects this crime does not resemble Cannan's others - he abducted his victims by forcing his way into their car at night; they were always found even when he'd had ample chance to hide them.

She needs to be found, really. I think DV is barking up the wrong tree, but it would help if his thesis could be verified or disproved.

Agree 100%, you are clearly a very logical thinker. There was no evidence against JC back in 86 and certainly none now, however, like everything else in this case he just can’t be ruled out.
According to the Berry-Dee book Prime Suspect JC attempted car jacking victims in broad daylight and is suspected of committing rape in broad daylight.
I’m guessing this is why the Met are so fixated on him, he makes an ideal suspect.
Your last comment is clearly on the money, the DV theory needs to be proven or disproven once and for all. I’d have thought the Met would be only to keen to do this if they genuinely feel he’s wrong?

 

[Crusader21]

So summing up, it may or may not have been JC. And today, DV may be right or may be wrong.

After 35 years, are we any further on?

 

[Terryb808]

So summing up, it may or may not have been JC. And today, DV may be right or may be wrong.

After 35 years, are we any further on?

You can blame the Met for not proving that DV got it wrong, the cynical among us would say they don’t want to be proved wrong themselves! If DV is right all the Met need to do is seriously interview 2 people and inspect 2 locations. That is not going to be a very expensive business and would close off this particular avenue or solve the case once and for all.
History shows just how stubborn they can be and unwilling to admit they got it wrong.

 

[WestLondoner]

So summing up, it may or may not have been JC. And today, DV may be right or may be wrong.

After 35 years, are we any further on?

We are, I think, a little bit.

What DV has done is pretty much demolish the accepted narrative about SJL's disappearance. Essentially, there are now good grounds to think she never went to Shorrolds Road at all. Not the least of these is that the "reconstruction" produced no further information or sightings. Why not? Well, DV maintains, I think correctly, because what it depicted didn't happen, that's why not. You're not going to jog people's memory or get them to remember stuff that didn't happen. The Cannan stuff only started coming out after he'd been named and is all single source (eg did anyone check this claim, with others imprisoned with him, that Cannan was called "Kipper" - or was that one guy's claim based maybe on a grudge?)

So it now appears she went elsewhere. Here's where I differ from DV. His conjecture is that she set off instead for the pub where she'd left / lost her cheque book and diary.. The pub was closed for stocktaking, but five people were there: the departing tenant couple, the holiday cover tenant couple ("Clive Vole" plus partner), and the cellarman. DV thinks she got there, was killed there, was hidden under the false floor and is still there.

He has not, I am sure, put his whole case out there. But there's no more evidence for what he has said than there is for the JC theory. It's not clear she was deliberately lured to the pub - what does the murderer do when she turns up and four other people are there? It's not clear she's buried there, because as soon as the pub gets reconfigured she gets found, and when she was put there would be obvious from the clues DV relies on. What happens when the tenants return and do a handover stocktake of the cellar? What if the cellarman notices anything?

DV's suggestion also doesn't align with the likely most reliable sighting by BW. An equally plausible alternative, which does align, is that she was intercepted / abducted at her car in Whittingstall Road. Maybe that's the reconstruction they should have done. She never made it to that pub either and that's why she never picked her stuff up. She was made to drive elsewhere, and was seen doing so.

It could be that JC did it, because it fits his MO, but whoever did, it wasn't by meeting her at Shorrolds Road. Even if was JC, this assumption has ensured that no useful or accurate additional information that might convict him was received at the time.

 

[WestLondoner]

You can blame the Met for not proving that DV got it wrong, the cynical among us would say they don’t want to be proved wrong themselves! If DV is right all the Met need to do is seriously interview 2 people and inspect 2 locations. That is not going to be a very expensive business and would close off this particular avenue or solve the case once and for all.
History shows just how stubborn they can be and unwilling to admit they got it wrong.

Absolutely. My interest isn't in true crime at all, personally - I am just interested in cases where investigations completely failed, as investigations of this nature are a bit similar to what I do at work. The biggest threat to a successful murder investigation appears to be the early emergence of a pet, wrong, theory, often focused on fitting up the local weirdo.

Michael Bilton's book on the failed Ripper investigation is very illuminating on this. In that instance the police focused successively on two individuals they thought had done it. At one point they thought it was an eccentric local cab driver and, later, that it was whoever had sent them the obvious hoax tapes. Once they decided they had their man, all evidence otherwise was ignored or dismissed. They stopped trying to catch whoever was doing it and focused on making it fit who they had already decided was doing it.

One example of this is that the detective in charge would explode with rage if anyone pointed out that the taxi driver didn't look like the photofits. He thought photofits were useless. But they weren't; the later investigation-into-the-investigation pulled out the photofit of every stranger assault in the north of England since 1970 and put them all up on a wall. Every single one was a likeness of Peter Sutcliffe. Every single one.

The other thing the Ripper police got wrong was that the avenues of inquiry they were following were beyond their capabilities. For example, they identified the tyres on Sutcliffe's car and narrowed down the range of possible makes. They then tried to locate and inspect every such car to see if it had the Ripper's tyres on it. The trouble was, there were so many cars - hundreds of thousands - to visit that in the time it took to find them all, the tyres would have been replaced anyway. This was a pointless line of inquiry, but it's how they spent their resources.

The same thing has happened here. The investigation started badly because the local police had 40 fraud arrestees to interview, plus they'd never run a major missing person inquiry. They then focused on finding a man in a black BMW in Shorrolds Road.

 

[Crusader21]

Westlonder, if SL was 'taken against her will' at 12.40 at Whittingstall Rd. How would you attempt to explain her driving up the Fulham Palace Rd 2 hours later as seen by BW?

Where was she for 2 hours, moving a distance that would have taken under 10 mins?

If she was abducted and was forced to drive, wouldnt her driving be erratic? Wouldnt she perhaps crash the car to attempt to raise the alarm?

 

[WiseOwl]

It doesn't indicate that whoever did this was thought at the time to resemble the photofit, though. None of these supposed sightings of him was corroborated by anyone else; nobody else in this shop saw him and noted his face. The article just says her father - who didn't see the man - reported the episode a week after SJL disappeared. The claim that this man looked like the sketch and JC only appears to have emerged 14 years later.

This is the problem with pretty well all of the "case" against him: nobody thought of JC until after his name was mentioned in connection with SJL, whereupon suddenly, only after the police said "JC probably did this", everybody knew he did it. Nobody picked him out in an identity parade; nobody who thought 14 years later that they'd seen him 14 years before was with anyone who could corroborate this.

It is possible that this individual was indeed JC, but my point is threefold really. First, there is nothing that stands up as evidence, so the CPS were clearly right not to prosecute. Second, it's obvious that there was someone up to no good in the area at that time (because SJL disappeared), but it doesn't follow that it had to be JC. The Kipper sketch resembles probably 50% of men under 35 (think of that eccentric who's convinced Fred West did it; he thinks the sketch looks like him). 2,500 people disappear every year, so we don't need to make this fit JC; he wasn't the only nutter at large that day. Third, in key respects this crime does not resemble Cannan's others - he abducted his victims by forcing his way into their car at night; they were always found even when he'd had ample chance to hide them.

She needs to be found, really. I think DV is barking up the wrong tree, but it would help if his thesis could be verified or disproved.

I've speculated before on the early photofit's - for me the person seen outside the estate agents and the good-looking, well-dressed man seen in Shorrolds Road I believe to be a description of MG, Suzy's boss at Sturgis. He bears a striking resemblance to JC, especially when you see him in the Crimewatch show from 1986.

 

[WestLondoner]

Westlonder, if SL was 'taken against her will' at 12.40 at Whittingstall Rd. How would you attempt to explain her driving up the Fulham Palace Rd 2 hours later as seen by BW?

Where was she for 2 hours, moving a distance that would have taken under 10 mins?

If she was abducted and was forced to drive, wouldnt her driving be erratic? Wouldnt she perhaps crash the car to attempt to raise the alarm?

Good question. I can only suppose she was being physically threatened. JC's MO, for example, was to make the woman drive at knifepoint to wherever he wanted to go. So the abductor presses a knife into her ribs and says, Drive to X or else. If she crashed the car or attracted attention she'd get stabbed.

What would stop her flashing her lights while driving to attract attention? I don't know. But by the same reasoning, the other conjectural scenarios - where she is removed from her car and forced into another one driven by the abductor - present exactly the same problems. How exactly do you force a woman into your car and if you trick her into it how do you keep her there without her attracting attention in the same way?

X of course is the place she is killed. He then needs to remove her car from that vicinity, otherwise once found, it identifies the crime scene. He doesn't have long. Once she's missed people will be looking out for her car. He has until maybe 4, 5 o'clock to move the car without risk. So he drives her car well away from where she died and dumps it. Perhaps that's where his own car was. Perhaps he just ditched it at random and walked to a busier road and got in a taxi or a bus.

I've speculated before on the early photofit's - for me the person seen outside the estate agents and the good-looking, well-dressed man seen in Shorrolds Road I believe to be a description of MG, Suzy's boss at Sturgis. He bears a striking resemblance to JC, especially when you see him in the Crimewatch show from 1986.

Completely agree. This explains all those sightings, and the blonde woman seen with him but not identified is then SF, the office admin. All that's required is for witness HR to have got the time slightly wrong.