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

[jimbob5]

The Railway Murders and rapes took place between 1982 and 1986, one of the killers continued to rape women until his capture in Nov 1986 and the other one was caught in 1999. Maybe they have a link to SL.

Doesn't fit their MO.

 

[WestLondoner]

I get your point, but we cannot really in any way compare JC to those people other than Bulsara. Stagg was just a horny guy who lacked experience with women & at worst got naked in somewhere vaguely public, where a woman saw him. Jeffries only crime was to be the landlord of the missing woman, have a somewhat odd appearance & being eccentric. Kiszo had the mental age of a child & his only crime was to fall victim to the police. JC let us not forget was a prolific sex offender, robber & woman beater-who thought nothing of raping a woman in front of her mother & infant daughter. We also have to bear in mind he is a compulsive liar & manipulator- who lied through his teeth about Shirley Banks, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.

I'd suggest that what they all had in common was that they were all the local expendable weirdo. JC is slightly different, inasmuch as if it could be pinned on him the police would have their case apparently solved. If they have to fit him up a bit to get it over the line, well, who cares about JC anyway? Many, myself included, don't think he should ever be let out anyway based on what he's already known to have done. In each case, therefore, these are people quite easy to fit up (and look at the Portuguese police and the McCanns for an example of this being commonplace).

A problem not often discussed with the JC hypothesis is why he was in a pre-release hostel at all. Why wasn't he out on parole in the usual way?

The answer is that when he became eligible for parole, he was asked where he'd live upon release. He said he had nowhere to go except his mother's house. As this was too close to where one of his victims still lived, parole was denied and hence he went to a hostel on day release.

If JC had had the wherewithal to fund some sort of accommodation elsewhere, he'd surely have done so and thereby been at complete liberty six months sooner. That he did not do so suggests he had no such means; he stayed in semi-prison until the end of July because he had to. Hence he surely can't have had a place near Fulham from which to carry out abductions - so how did he go about it? Where did he take her in a city centre where he could murder her and hide her body?

He has also been linked to Sandra Court, who was murdered in May, but again the hostel situation is a problem. She was last seen dropped off by a minicab driver at 3am. There's no way JC was out and about 100 miles from London at 3am; he had to be in by about 10 and was then locked in till 7.

 

[jimbob5]

I'd suggest that what they all had in common was that they were all the local expendable weirdo. JC is slightly different, inasmuch as if it could be pinned on him the police would have their case apparently solved. If they have to fit him up a bit to get it over the line, well, who cares about JC anyway? Many, myself included, don't think he should ever be let out anyway based on what he's already known to have done. In each case, therefore, these are people quite easy to fit up (and look at the Portuguese police and the McCanns for an example of this being commonplace).

A problem not often discussed with the JC hypothesis is why he was in a pre-release hostel at all. Why wasn't he out on parole in the usual way?

The answer is that when he became eligible for parole, he was asked where he'd live upon release. He said he had nowhere to go except his mother's house. As this was too close to where one of his victims still lived, parole was denied and hence he went to a hostel on day release.

If JC had had the wherewithal to fund some sort of accommodation elsewhere, he'd surely have done so and thereby been at complete liberty six months sooner. That he did not do so suggests he had no such means; he stayed in semi-prison until the end of July because he had to. Hence he surely can't have had a place near Fulham from which to carry out abductions - so how did he go about it? Where did he take her in a city centre where he could murder her and hide her body?

He has also been linked to Sandra Court, who was murdered in May, but again the hostel situation is a problem. She was last seen dropped off by a minicab driver at 3am. There's no way JC was out and about 100 miles from London at 3am; he had to be in by about 10 and was then locked in till 7.

Except he never was fitted up for it by the cops-even though he had a long history to where he would have been a high interest suspect, but he wasn't even interviewed regarding her until 1989.

JC clearly was a resourceful conman/grifter with considerable charm & blag, presenting himself as a confident & successful/wealthy person-borrowing cars, finding places etc from family, friends, acquaintances, even getting then on Hire Purchase etc would not have been an issue. Nor would stealing them, altering them & fixing fake plates-as he did with his victim Shirley Banks vehicle that he stole & no doubt he would have done the same to Julia Holman, if his attempt to abduct her a day before Banks had been successful. As we have seen from other cases record keeping at those places was shambolic-people signing in for other people, those in charge just signing them in etc.

 

[WestLondoner]

The SJL inquiry used the same paper card index system in 1986/7.

This limitation was in fact general with the Ripper inquiry: the leads they tried to follow were beyond their investigative resources. At one point they had the tyre prints left by his car. They established from the track that it was one of a number of models and that it had odd tyres. They therefore sent officers out to locate every such car and inspect the tyres.

There were 53,000 of them.

You'd think it would have been bleedin' obvious that, in the time taken to visit 53,000 owners, quite a few would have routinely changed the tyres. Nonetheless, that was one of the lines of inquiry they tried to follow.

In the SJL case it's unclear what difference the card index system made since they were probably chasing a ghost anyway.

 

[WestLondoner]

Except he never was fitted up for it by the cops

Agreed, but they're fitting him up now.

 

[jimbob5]

Agreed, but they're fitting him up now.

Not really-he is their prime suspect, but unless they find her body & can get anything from it that ties him in, or it is recovered at his mothers house or an address he is known to have used in the 1980's then he is never going to be convicted. It is more he has been convicted in the court of the media & public opinion.

I certainly am not as sure as I used to be over his guilt in this case, although still lean toward him.

 

[Konstantin]

If JC had had the wherewithal to fund some sort of accommodation elsewhere, he'd surely have done so and thereby been at complete liberty six months sooner. That he did not do so suggests he had no such means; he stayed in semi-prison until the end of July because he had to. Hence he surely can't have had a place near Fulham from which to carry out abductions - so how did he go about it? Where did he take her in a city centre where he could murder her and hide her body?

He has also been linked to Sandra Court, who was murdered in May, but again the hostel situation is a problem. She was last seen dropped off by a minicab driver at 3am. There's no way JC was out and about 100 miles from London at 3am; he had to be in by about 10 and was then locked in till 7.

He has nowhere to take SJL to murder her unless he had a different car to take her somewhere, which means he would have had to control her while he was driving. I think that would be not easy to achieve. There was no sign of him in SJLs car.

If SJL did make a dash for the pub to grab her diary, she could have parked just outside on Oxford Road, if she was only intending to be there for a few minutes, surely. Its a red route today but it would not have been in 1986.

If her diary did have some details of her more exciting exploits, and given that SJL was an attractive woman, CV could have made a pass at her, thinking she was up for it, spur of the moment, she pushes him away and he pushes back harder. It's not even a difficult scenario to imagine. But I am not convinced this is what happened. If the AS book is correct, and SJL was expected that night at the pub then CV would be scared that the police would be round there to ask about her. Although in his interview with DV he seems to have expressed some surprise that SJL was looked for so fast as she was an adult.

But lets hypothesize he did it. THe pub was closed that day after the stock take (was it open in the evening?) He is then presumably under some pressure to get rid of SJL and invent a cover story to explain that SJL did not come to the pub as she had intended. I think the phone calls he says happened do a good job of that. They establish that SJL never came, and bring others into the equation who discussed her not having attended the pub. He has the chequebook and diary to give the police to show she never collected them

And CV was then lucky that the police believed SJLs rather flimsy excuse to be out of hte office and never sought witnesses around the pub/ Oxford Road/Disraeli road...

 

[TimFisher1965]

ISTR from the AS book - but it's been 30 years, so I could easily be wrong - that the police never did identify the rich guy with the Mayfair flat. Of course, if said rich guy was a john who booked SJL through an agency, of course they'd struggle.

The police did identify and interview the guy, his identity is known to some of us

If any of our speculation is accurate - promiscuous, bunny girl (interesting, Pinkizzy), on the actual game - it would probably have been catastrophic for the investigation. Because suddenly she's not an innocent any more so far as Joe and Jane Public are concerned.

@WiseOwl makes a good point that if this was suspected, the police, obviously in thrall to the Lamplughs, would probably have felt obliged to suppress it, like AS did.

The only thing that makes me consider JC could have been involved is this. During the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, the WY plod focused first of all on fitting up a local minicab driver who was a known peeping Tom. Every time there was a killing, they'd round up their usual suspect. Then they fell for the Wearside Jack hoax, so they started dismissing all suspects who weren't Geordies, hoping to find a suspect who was. Following Sutcliffe's arrest (by another force) and trial, Sir Laurence Byford wrote a report into the shortcomings of the investigation. One thing he did was pull the photofit of every stranger assault in the area for the last 15 years and cover a wall with them. Every single one was a recognisable sketch of Sutcliffe.

Had the WY police done this, they'd have realised one man whose name they knew was their entire crime wave. Any other conclusion would imply there were at least two different criminals out there, with the same MO in the same area at the same time. That would be so vanishingly unlikely they would surely have suspected and arrested Sutcliffe. They didn't because they'd already decided who was doing it.

So perhaps it is equally unlikely that, as well as JC, there was another abductor of random women at large in the area. Of course, if SJL was not a random civilian but something else, this may not have been the work of anyone similar at all...

 

[WestLondoner]

It is more he has been convicted in the court of the media & public opinion.

As DV points out, the problem with this is that the Parole Board has the power to make a finding of fact even if there have been no charges. This means they can keep him in jail indefinitely on the basis that he probably did it. The police bandying this stuff about because it was what DL wanted thus has serious consequences.

I couldn't care less about JC but this power is sure at some point to be used to keep someone in jail who's innocent.

 

[WestLondoner]

If SJL did make a dash for the pub to grab her diary...if she was only intending to be there for a few minutes...If her diary did have some details of her more exciting exploits

This must be a pretty good precis of what DV thinks actually did happen, but look at all the ifs just to put SJL at the pub...!

 

[jimbob5]

As DV points out, the problem with this is that the Parole Board has the power to make a finding of fact even if there have been no charges. This means they can keep him in jail indefinitely on the basis that he probably did it. The police bandying this stuff about because it was what DL wanted thus has serious consequences.

I couldn't care less about JC but this power is sure at some point to be used to keep someone in jail who's innocent.

I am not sure exactly what power the parole board has over things somebody has never been convicted of. I have never heard of that happening. Personally I would have little issue with JC being released in a years time or so-at that point he will be pushing 70, his young glib charm will be gone, he will no longer be a fit young man & frankly he has served the best part of 35 years for his crimes. Frankly while I suspect strongly he did murder SL the police have had decades to find her body/tie him to it & haven't done so, therefore he should not be punished for that case

Parole Hearings - consideration of unproven allegations (Morris v Parole Board) - Georgia Beatty & Joe O'Leary for Lexis Nexis PSL

 

[WiseOwl]

He has nowhere to take SJL to murder her unless he had a different car to take her somewhere, which means he would have had to control her while he was driving. I think that would be not easy to achieve. There was no sign of him in SJLs car.

If SJL did make a dash for the pub to grab her diary, she could have parked just outside on Oxford Road, if she was only intending to be there for a few minutes, surely. Its a red route today but it would not have been in 1986.

If her diary did have some details of her more exciting exploits, and given that SJL was an attractive woman, CV could have made a pass at her, thinking she was up for it, spur of the moment, she pushes him away and he pushes back harder. It's not even a difficult scenario to imagine. But I am not convinced this is what happened. If the AS book is correct, and SJL was expected that night at the pub then CV would be scared that the police would be round there to ask about her. Although in his interview with DV he seems to have expressed some surprise that SJL was looked for so fast as she was an adult.

But lets hypothesize he did it. THe pub was closed that day after the stock take (was it open in the evening?) He is then presumably under some pressure to get rid of SJL and invent a cover story to explain that SJL did not come to the pub as she had intended. I think the phone calls he says happened do a good job of that. They establish that SJL never came, and bring others into the equation who discussed her not having attended the pub. He has the chequebook and diary to give the police to show she never collected them

And CV was then lucky that the police believed SJLs rather flimsy excuse to be out of hte office and never sought witnesses around the pub/ Oxford Road/Disraeli road...

In DV's book CV clearly states that the pub was open that day, although he doesn't give a time.

He said that 'he phoned the bank that morning to say he had Suzy's chequebook and that he got a phone call back around lunchtime, before we opened.' He later elaborated on this and said it was Suzy who called him, and she would be round to collect it later.

In Andrew Stephen's book he says that Suzy's last call from the office was believed to be to the pub. As we know she left around 12.40, so the call must have been made shortly before. This would tie in with CV's claim that he received this call around lunchtime, so it would appear he's telling the truth about this.

Also interesting is who was it that told the police about the missing chequebook and diary? In DV's book no-one mentions it at all except SF, and even then she can only vaguely remember it. In AS's book he says that Suzy was anxious about her missing items that morning, presumably she mentioned this in the office to someone so this information must have come from one of her work colleagues. It seems an important issue on the morning she disappeared so it's a little bit surprising no-one can seem to remember it - except CV of course!

 

[Terryb808]

In DV's book CV clearly states that the pub was open that day, although he doesn't give a time.

He said that 'he phoned the bank that morning to say he had Suzy's chequebook and that he got a phone call back around lunchtime, before we opened.' He later elaborated on this and said it was Suzy who called him, and she would be round to collect it later.

In Andrew Stephen's book he says that Suzy's last call from the office was believed to be to the pub. As we know she left around 12.40, so the call must have been made shortly before. This would tie in with CV's claim that he received this call around lunchtime, so it would appear he's telling the truth about this.

Also interesting is who was it that told the police about the missing chequebook and diary? In DV's book no-one mentions it at all except SF, and even then she can only vaguely remember it. In AS's book he says that Suzy was anxious about her missing items that morning, presumably she mentioned this in the office to someone so this information must have come from one of her work colleagues. It seems an important issue on the morning she disappeared so it's a little bit surprising no-one can seem to remember it - except CV of course!

I suppose it’s not that surprising when you consider the time that has elapsed, it’s been over 30 years and that’s the problem with DV’s approach, on one hand he might get something new, but on the other hand AS’s accounts being compiled so close to the actual event have to be more accurate.
The fact that CV recalls things so well is the thing that is odd and stands out, this may be down to guilt, or just that he’s been the focus of so much discussion. As you say his account syncs generally with SJL and the Stephen book (maybe he’s got a copy).

 

[Pinkizzy]

I suppose it’s not that surprising when you consider the time that has elapsed, it’s been over 30 years and that’s the problem with DV’s approach, on one hand he might get something new, but on the other hand AS’s accounts being compiled so close to the actual event have to be more accurate.
The fact that CV recalls things so well is the thing that is odd and stands out, this may be down to guilt, or just that he’s been the focus of so much discussion. As you say his account syncs generally with SJL and the Stephen book (maybe he’s got a copy).

Didn't the interview expert (psychologist) suggest that a liar would answer questions briefly and an innocent man would answer questions with added information?

 

[WestLondoner]

@jimbob5

Your link says it all - the Parole Board can take allegations into account and make findings of fact. The cited case describes someone on a minimum term having their sentence extended via this power.

JC murdered at least one woman and raped three at least, so why we want this guy back on the streets I can't imagine. The current situation, though, is that someone eligible for release can be kept in jail on the basis of hearsay.

@WiseOwl

That supposed police call is very odd. The police were not involved at that point. I think the call came from the abductor trying to find out either when she was expected or if she had already been. There is no record on the police side of any such call.

The call from the woman is also weird: 'tell her to call me and don't let her leave'. Who was this, a madam she owed money to?

 

[Pinkizzy]

Don't you think it is risky leaving a corpse hidden in a pub when colleagues know they are heading there at some point during the day (6pm)? The cops searched her house that night by didn't search the pub. Why didn't the regulars or staff make a note of the smell?

 

[jimbob5]

@jimbob5

Your link says it all - the Parole Board can take allegations into account and make findings of fact. The cited case describes someone on a minimum term having their sentence extended via this power.

JC murdered at least one woman and raped three at least, so why we want this guy back on the streets I can't imagine. The current situation, though, is that someone eligible for release can be kept in jail on the basis of hearsay.

@WiseOwl

That supposed police call is very odd. The police were not involved at that point. I think the call came from the abductor trying to find out either when she was expected or if she had already been. There is no record on the police side of any such call.

The call from the woman is also weird: 'tell her to call me and don't let her leave'. Who was this, a madam she owed money to?

Depends on his behaviour in jail really. You cannot keep everybody locked up forever-he has served nearly 35 years & his ability to commit crimes easily has gone-he is now a pensioner, doesn't have the young good looks/charm to entice women into situations, likely not especially mobile as he was as a thrusting young criminal, the gun laws changed post Hungerford & again post Dunblane-so getting hold of a firearm will not be very easy for him, even if he still has any sexual urges. His risk factor to women at 70 odd is likely pretty low & he would be on licence. I certainly wouldn't lobby for his release, but I don't think he is likely to pose a huge risk to women any longer. I think like Pitchfork recently he will be released at some point in the next few years.

 

[jimbob5]

Don't you think it is risky leaving a corpse hidden in a pub when colleagues know they are heading there at some point during the day (6pm)? The cops searched her house that night by didn't search the pub. Why didn't the regulars or staff make a note of the smell?

Maybe the pub was frequented by some smelly people-I know from working in shops & offices you get all sorts in as customers & staff. I think bodies can take 24 hours to several days to really start humming from decomposition & that will likely depend on the heat, if it has been wrapped etc-especially the temperature of the room it is in, so if it was a fairly cool/cold room then it likely wouldn't notice. Can remember that girl who was murdered by her uncle or stepdad several years back, he had hidden her wrapped up & under some junk in the loft & that was searched multiple times-before they finally took a cadaver dog up & found her.

 

[Pinkizzy]

The current pub landlord should have a nosey in the void and see what materialises.

 

[Terryb808]

The current pub landlord should have a nosey in the void and see what materialises.

The same staff (mostly) and certainly the landlord were re- employed by the new owners. So he’s the same landlord that DV knows and appeared so helpful in his book.
I’m sure DV said that either the landlord or most likely the new owners are not cooperating.