UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #6

[Terryb808]

Not have access to

 

[Eastend Eagle]

This wasn't put to me and I can't speak for others obviously but FWIW there are for me some good and weak points about DV's case.

Good points: first, he cogently challenges the 37SR narrative. HR never ID'ed SJL, but said he heard a door slam as she left the house and saw her bundled into a vehicle. He later retracted the last part, the first can't be true because fingerprints say she never went inside and the keys never went missing, so that leaves nothing of HR's statement.

In addition, though this is not a point DV makes, I don't know how you can assume anyone seen near 37SR was SJL unless you know how routinely busy the street was. If it were Piccadilly Circus there'd be loads of passers-by and you'd never assume anyone seen was SJL. So how busy was Shorrolds? If you saw a woman there, did that have to be SJL because nobody ever saw women in that street?

Next, DV deconstructs what was afoot in the office that day, and where she might have been going, and follows that train of thought. The police in contrast instantly bought the Mr Kipper line, initially focused entirely on finding out who that was, then latterly pivoted to 'proving' it was Cannan.

DV shows clearly how disastrous the family's involvement was, with DL convening her own press conferences in which she distributed misleading and out of date photographs of SJL; editing the information given to the police about their last conversations with her; and Quakerishly being more concerned with managing her posthumous reputation than finding her killer. They were apparently aghast that she slept with blokes and wanted this hushed up. Well FFS look at her, and imagine the offers she got - at what point did she get one she couldn't bring herself to refuse? Probably not far past about 19 if I had to guess.

DV's audit of how JC came to be in the case is absolutely merciless.

The weak points: having established that SJL could have gone to the PoW, and that it contains a place you could hide a body, DV doesn't show that the pub was definitely empty bar the temp landlord, nor that there was any reason he'd attack SJL, nor why he'd do so literally within an hour of having the pub handed over. It's like there's a big missing piece of logic or fact (which for all I know is true, because e.g. legal concerns).

He indicates that in 1984 the pub floor had been raised - creating a space underneath - and tiled. In 2007, "...during a purely cosmetic makeover, the stage area had been lowered from above, and the floor put back to its original height, before being tiled over again." - I struggle to see this. A floor that you can lower must be suspended, i.e. it would sit on something such as crosswise joists. To "lower" it you'd surely have to take it up, cut and refix those joists, then re-lay the floor. I don't see how you do all this without anyone noticing the famous dead estate agent under the floor.

His interview technique does not appear up to much for trained LE - the majority of his witnesses get in a huff.

He tends to omit without explanation things that undermine his PoW theory. For me, if your theory doesn't accommodate the BW sighting, it's in trouble.

The weaknesses don't completely trash his argument, which is interesting. It is possible SJL went to the PoW, but it does not seem possible she never left and is still there.

On balance, DV has persuaded me that she went into a house, flat or other building, accompanied but unobserved, and was there presumably first SA'd and then killed, also unobserved. If the building allowed for her to be loaded into a car unobserved and driven away, then that's what happened. If not, you can do what DV says of the pub, which is take up the ground floor boards to expose dirt and hide a body in the foundations before putting the floor back. In neither event will she ever be found until the building in question is demolished or a very well-informed snitch comes forward.

If Suzy Lamplugh was abducted from what was just a service road for businesses including the Crocodile Tears back in 1986, into a property backing onto this road, then what chance there would remain forensic evidence at that address after all these years?

 

[Terryb808]

If Suzy Lamplugh was abducted from what was just a service road for businesses including the Crocodile Tears back in 1986, into a property backing onto this road, then what chance there would remain forensic evidence at that address after all these years?

I’d say not much chance of any forensics, if that happened then her car wouldn’t have been parked in Whittingstall Road, but Radipole Road as James C apparently said when questioned fairly recently.
This is covered in the posts by Tim Fisher, coincidentally (can’t recall his name, sorry) there was a convicted rapist living on Radipole Road. But he was in prison when SJL disappeared.

 

[WestLondoner]

If Suzy Lamplugh was abducted from what was just a service road for businesses including the Crocodile Tears back in 1986, into a property backing onto this road, then what chance there would remain forensic evidence at that address after all these years?

Low, but if the site's undisturbed, not nil. You might find hair or blood (e.g. single hairs could fall through the gaps between floorboards).

Someone talking their way into her car as soon as she left the office, perhaps the person she was intending to meet, would enable the Fiesta to appear outside 123SR at 12.45.

The BW sighting is then quite difficult to fit in.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

I’d say not much chance of any forensics, if that happened then her car wouldn’t have been parked in Whittingstall Road, but Radipole Road as James C apparently said when questioned fairly recently.
This is covered in the posts by Tim Fisher, coincidentally (can’t recall his name, sorry) there was a convicted rapist living on Radipole Road. But he was in prison when SJL disappeared.

You don't think it possible that the car was parked in the service road behind the Crocodile Tears wine bar, the road now called Rostrevor Mews? Afterall, the story of where the car was parked has already changed once, astonishingly indeed after 35 years.
Apparently, company cars of Chestertons Estate Agents, which now occupies the premises formerly used by Suzy Lamplugh's employer Sturgis, are electric charged in Rostrevor Mews.

 

[Terryb808]

You don't think it possible that the car was parked in the service road behind the Crocodile Tears wine bar, the road now called Rostrevor Mews? Afterall, the story of where the car was parked has already changed once, astonishingly indeed after 35 years.
Apparently, company cars of Chestertons Estate Agents, which now occupies the premises formerly used by Suzy Lamplugh's employer Sturgis, are electric charged in Rostrevor Mews.

It’s possible, it’s narrow, not sure what it was like in 86.
While browsing I came across a very ridiculous theory base on Fred West and his brother being responsible.
Apparently, there plan involved abducted SJL from that mews. But on the day she went missing it said they had to change there plan because her car wasn’t parked there.
The idea of abduction as she collected her car would work in Whittingstall Road, the bottom end as it bends, is generally very quiet.
In that case two perpetrators, one takes her away, the other abandoned her car in Stevenage Road. Wendy Jones is then correct.

 

[sl77]

Hi RB and welcome to the thread.

It sounds like you have some acquaintance with the pub - are you suggesting that when it was said recently that police had searched under the pub floor, that this might in fact have been a reference to DV himself having looked under the pub floor when researching his book?!

Hiding a body in a pub seems a very stupid idea. Surely the smell would escape and you've have 100+ people smelling it?

If the pub has a garden, that would be a better idea...

 

[sl77]

This wasn't put to me and I can't speak for others obviously but FWIW there are for me some good and weak points about DV's case.

Good points: first, he cogently challenges the 37SR narrative. HR never ID'ed SJL, but said he heard a door slam as she left the house and saw her bundled into a vehicle. He later retracted the last part, the first can't be true because fingerprints say she never went inside and the keys never went missing, so that leaves nothing of HR's statement.

In addition, though this is not a point DV makes, I don't know how you can assume anyone seen near 37SR was SJL unless you know how routinely busy the street was. If it were Piccadilly Circus there'd be loads of passers-by and you'd never assume anyone seen was SJL. So how busy was Shorrolds? If you saw a woman there, did that have to be SJL because nobody ever saw women in that street?

Next, DV deconstructs what was afoot in the office that day, and where she might have been going, and follows that train of thought. The police in contrast instantly bought the Mr Kipper line, initially focused entirely on finding out who that was, then latterly pivoted to 'proving' it was Cannan.

DV shows clearly how disastrous the family's involvement was, with DL convening her own press conferences in which she distributed misleading and out of date photographs of SJL; editing the information given to the police about their last conversations with her; and Quakerishly being more concerned with managing her posthumous reputation than finding her killer. They were apparently aghast that she slept with blokes and wanted this hushed up. Well FFS look at her, and imagine the offers she got - at what point did she get one she couldn't bring herself to refuse? Probably not far past about 19 if I had to guess.

DV's audit of how JC came to be in the case is absolutely merciless.

The weak points: having established that SJL could have gone to the PoW, and that it contains a place you could hide a body, DV doesn't show that the pub was definitely empty bar the temp landlord, nor that there was any reason he'd attack SJL, nor why he'd do so literally within an hour of having the pub handed over. It's like there's a big missing piece of logic or fact (which for all I know is true, because e.g. legal concerns).

He indicates that in 1984 the pub floor had been raised - creating a space underneath - and tiled. In 2007, "...during a purely cosmetic makeover, the stage area had been lowered from above, and the floor put back to its original height, before being tiled over again." - I struggle to see this. A floor that you can lower must be suspended, i.e. it would sit on something such as crosswise joists. To "lower" it you'd surely have to take it up, cut and refix those joists, then re-lay the floor. I don't see how you do all this without anyone noticing the famous dead estate agent under the floor.

His interview technique does not appear up to much for trained LE - the majority of his witnesses get in a huff.

He tends to omit without explanation things that undermine his PoW theory. For me, if your theory doesn't accommodate the BW sighting, it's in trouble.

The weaknesses don't completely trash his argument, which is interesting. It is possible SJL went to the PoW, but it does not seem possible she never left and is still there.

On balance, DV has persuaded me that she went into a house, flat or other building, accompanied but unobserved, and was there presumably first SA'd and then killed, also unobserved. If the building allowed for her to be loaded into a car unobserved and driven away, then that's what happened. If not, you can do what DV says of the pub, which is take up the ground floor boards to expose dirt and hide a body in the foundations before putting the floor back. In neither event will she ever be found until the building in question is demolished or a very well-informed snitch comes forward.

Thank you. I enjoyed reading this and I understand your point.

I must admit killing someone in a pub when they popped in at lunchtime to collect their diary always seemed a bit..... rushed..... to me.

So if it's not PoW or JC.... what else could have happened?

 

[Terryb808]

Thank you. I enjoyed reading this and I understand your point.

I must admit killing someone in a pub when they popped in at lunchtime to collect their diary always seemed a bit..... rushed..... to me.

So if it's not PoW or JC.... what else could have happened?

Because of the time that’s elapsed and the lack of concrete 1000% sightings there’s a lot of options.
Sadly none (at present) can be proved and that includes both DV & the JC did it theories .

 

[Terryb808]

There are a number of excellent books for those new to the Suzy Lamblugh case, they help understand some of the references made in this thread.
I can recommend 3 to get started, they are:

The Suzy Lamplugh Story by Andrew Stephen – ISBN 0 571 15415 8
This is the earliest book published on this case and the closest to the actual event itself, its said the author had unprecedented access to police files. If that’s the case it’s a very good start point.
It’s out of print, however, copies can be purchased via used book retailers, but, they can be expensive.

Finding Suzy by David Videcette – ISBN 9780993426377
The latest of the 3 books, David’s approach differs from many other authors in that he completely rethought what was generally accepted as fact and (IMO) corrected many errors. While many disagree with his conclusions, you can’t argue with his research and it takes Suzy’s disappearance a little closer to a conclusion.

Prime Suspect by Christopher Berry Dee & Robin Odell – ISBN 9781844546121
Anyone interested in knowing what John Cannan is like and getting an inkling into why the police have him as their Prime Suspect should take a look at this book. It will allow you to decide if you think he could possibly have murdered Suzy and got away with it.

The last 2 books are available Kindle E Books, at least when I purchased mine they were, if you read these 3 books you’ll generally find most of what you read on WS will be in one of these books. What’s not in them is theoretical narrative that’s not based on facts.

I hope this is helpful as the case is a very complex one.

 

[Supersleuth22]

There are a number of excellent books for those new to the Suzy Lamblugh case, they help understand some of the references made in this thread.
I can recommend 3 to get started, they are:

The Suzy Lamplugh Story by Andrew Stephen – ISBN 0 571 15415 8
This is the earliest book published on this case and the closest to the actual event itself, its said the author had unprecedented access to police files. If that’s the case it’s a very good start point.
It’s out of print, however, copies can be purchased via used book retailers, but, they can be expensive.

Finding Suzy by David Videcette – ISBN 9780993426377
The latest of the 3 books, David’s approach differs from many other authors in that he completely rethought what was generally accepted as fact and (IMO) corrected many errors. While many disagree with his conclusions, you can’t argue with his research and it takes Suzy’s disappearance a little closer to a conclusion.

Prime Suspect by Christopher Berry Dee & Robin Odell – ISBN 9781844546121
Anyone interested in knowing what John Cannan is like and getting an inkling into why the police have him as their Prime Suspect should take a look at this book. It will allow you to decide if you think he could possibly have murdered Suzy and got away with it.

The last 2 books are available Kindle E Books, at least when I purchased mine they were, if you read these 3 books you’ll generally find most of what you read on WS will be in one of these books. What’s not in them is theoretical narrative that’s not based on facts.

I hope this is helpful as the case is a very complex one.

AS book is excellent and is a good overview of the case, however although he spoke to the police and the friends, family and Sturgis staff it also contains the errors and oversights that were reported from the start. Still an excellent book but not definitive but definitely a book to own and read if you want to learn about the case and probably the best one to date. There is a good article written by Anita Brookner who made notes (available via a Texas library) who defends AS, her notes are interesting and support a lot of AS work and ask good questions.

DV's book is also superb..............to a point.

His research and checking threw up many fantastic points of fact that were not previously known and for that he should be applauded. Like the lunch meeting involving Perry which provides a solid reason for the kipper entry that SL put in her diary. The stock check at the POW that was previously unknown. The interviews with Sturgis staff that proved a relationship between two staff, who actually hired SL, the fact that the keys were on one fob and many other very good things. I thought his book was excellence and gave it 5 stars on amazon and defended the negativity his book got when he would not state his conclusions. I was a strong defender of his work, research and detective work at least I was until I went to the POW and met the manager named in the book who told me quite a different story. He refuted some of the things in the book and told me things that made me less than confident in what was written. I will not quote everything he told me here but what I can say is that when I contacted DV and disclosed my findings he immediately blocked me on ALL social media and would not speak to me. The one thing he seemed to take particular issue with was the fact that the manager told me that the police have been to the POW and they have searched the cellar and found nothing. I also found it difficult that he was so rude and mocking of Wendy Jones in the book and was left feeling that he did so because if her account was true there was no way SL went directly to the POW and there met her fate. After going to the POW and talking to the manager I felt very strongly that DV had confirmation bias and desperately wanted his theory to be correct but the facts do not support his conclusion which is not directly stated but annoyingly hinted it but left hanging leaving you the reader feeling short changed.

I cannot comment on Barry Dee's book because I have not read it, I do not believe that JC had anything to do with it and I have read very negative reviews of his book but as I have not read it it's just an opinion. BUT if it was 100% proved JC did it I would be to the first to admit I was wrong. As the CPS have not proceeded due to lack of evidence I have to say I still think JC did not do it but is merely playing games with detectives.

I think if you use the first 2 books there is much superb info in there to help research the case but I found out far more by doing my own research.

The one overriding thing I would say is this.

I am astonished that the police and other researchers did not ask what i think are the most basic questions or do the most basic things like.

Obtain ALL the office phone records to ascertain who called who in the office in the week up to and including the day SL disappeared. If they knew what time the bank and POW phone calls were made they could work out a more realistic timeline of events. They do not seem to know who called who and when. They also could have checked the "alleged" phone call from "Sarah" to the POW and either find a lead or perhaps come to the conclusion the KH had questions to answer?

They seemed to have placed a very low importance on her lost possessions and from the start ran with the story that they were lifted on Friday night with AL over drinks at the POW something he denied to DV years later ever happened.
I think it's almost now certain her possessions were lost on Sunday night and that KH the temporary landlord found them minutes later. Which leads to an obvious question.

The POW pub is less than 3 minutes walk to her flat (I know I walked it) so if she drove home and parked 3 minutes from the POW how did her possessions end up outside the POW about 10.30pm to 10.40pm on a Sunday night? The only thing that makes sense is that she used one of the public phone boxes outside the POW and dropped or left her stuff there when getting change to make a call. It is of course possible she went in and had a drink but the landlord told DV the possessions were outside.

I agree with Terry a VERY complex case but it can only be moved on by removing the things that are untrue and seeing what remains. There are still many people who can be spoken to who may hold vital info that they do not realise is important.

DV said one thing I really agree with when he spoke to people nearly everything in the public domain was untrue and contradicted when he spoke to people which is what I found too. The public knowledge of what they think happened is I think a long way from actually could have and in fact did happen.

Having been to the sights and walked them and spoken to some witnesses I would say the books are a start but do not help beyond giving you an overview.

I asked a researcher early on when I first looked at this case and said do you think it can be solved? yes was the answer and I agree but only by speaking to the witnesses and having an open mind to what are facts not presumed by repeating what has previously been erroneously reported.

New info comes up all the time, there was a crimewatch special in 2000 and a new reconstruction with "new info" including a new witness who saw SL and a man in Stevenage Road and saw them apart looking at houses (clip below)

YouTube link

 

[sl77]

I believe JC had the capability to do it. However, from my limited memory when I lasted listened to DV I recall he gave a decent reason why JC didn't do it.

I think JC, like Levi Bellfield, just likes playing mind games making people think he did it.

 

[Supersleuth22]

I believe JC had the capability to do it. However, from my limited memory when I lasted listened to DV I recall he gave a decent reason why JC didn't do it.

I think JC, like Levi Bellfield, just likes playing mind games making people think he did it.

I think psychologically he is a perfect fit, however there are many things to be considered. JC was caught re Shirley banks due to his incredibly stupid mistakes, his dead victims were found or survived because he didn't kill them. SL disappeared without a trace and the perp left no clues.

A lot of the sightings and so called facts were all stated well after the crime and after many tv documentaries and crimewatch appeals. None of these sightings or things were reported when they happened. The jogger who saw a BMW with a person allegedly holding down the horn at the entrance to Bishops park said nothing until 2000. The SL case was all over the news and a massive story in July/August 1986 surely he must of known this when it happened why did he come forward 14 years later only? No proof JC was in Fulham and the case against him is massively circumstantial which is why the CPS would not proceed. Jim Dickie said there should have been an ID parade and lots of other leads should have been followed in 1986 perhaps if they had JC would have been ruled out in 1987.

To my mind her vanishing without trace and with no clues or forensic evidence suggests she went somewhere with someone she knew or it was a professional job. If that is true then who who wanted this to happen or who that she knew would take such a drastic step and be able to cover their tracks so well?

The question is seldom asked why was SL supposedly abducted and killed?
Sexual, personal or a professional reason.

I think it's interesting that we only know several absolute facts says a lot.

She went to work and arrived at about 8.45am to 9am
She left her office between 12.30pm and 12.40pm
Her car was found at 10.01pm in Stevenage Road

That is all we actually know for certain

 

[Terryb808]

AS book is excellent and is a good overview of the case, however although he spoke to the police and the friends, family and Sturgis staff it also contains the errors and oversights that were reported from the start. Still an excellent book but not definitive but definitely a book to own and read if you want to learn about the case and probably the best one to date. There is a good article written by Anita Brookner who made notes (available via a Texas library) who defends AS, her notes are interesting and support a lot of AS work and ask good questions.

DV's book is also superb..............to a point.

His research and checking threw up many fantastic points of fact that were not previously known and for that he should be applauded. Like the lunch meeting involving Perry which provides a solid reason for the kipper entry that SL put in her diary. The stock check at the POW that was previously unknown. The interviews with Sturgis staff that proved a relationship between two staff, who actually hired SL, the fact that the keys were on one fob and many other very good things. I thought his book was excellence and gave it 5 stars on amazon and defended the negativity his book got when he would not state his conclusions. I was a strong defender of his work, research and detective work at least I was until I went to the POW and met the manager named in the book who told me quite a different story. He refuted some of the things in the book and told me things that made me less than confident in what was written. I will not quote everything he told me here but what I can say is that when I contacted DV and disclosed my findings he immediately blocked me on ALL social media and would not speak to me. The one thing he seemed to take particular issue with was the fact that the manager told me that the police have been to the POW and they have searched the cellar and found nothing. I also found it difficult that he was so rude and mocking of Wendy Jones in the book and was left feeling that he did so because if her account was true there was no way SL went directly to the POW and there met her fate. After going to the POW and talking to the manager I felt very strongly that DV had confirmation bias and desperately wanted his theory to be correct but the facts do not support his conclusion which is not directly stated but annoyingly hinted it but left hanging leaving you the reader feeling short changed.

I cannot comment on Barry Dee's book because I have not read it, I do not believe that JC had anything to do with it and I have read very negative reviews of his book but as I have not read it it's just an opinion. BUT if it was 100% proved JC did it I would be to the first to admit I was wrong. As the CPS have not proceeded due to lack of evidence I have to say I still think JC did not do it but is merely playing games with detectives.

I think if you use the first 2 books there is much superb info in there to help research the case but I found out far more by doing my own research.

The one overriding thing I would say is this.

I am astonished that the police and other researchers did not ask what i think are the most basic questions or do the most basic things like.

Obtain ALL the office phone records to ascertain who called who in the office in the week up to and including the day SL disappeared. If they knew what time the bank and POW phone calls were made they could work out a more realistic timeline of events. They do not seem to know who called who and when. They also could have checked the "alleged" phone call from "Sarah" to the POW and either find a lead or perhaps come to the conclusion the KH had questions to answer?

They seemed to have placed a very low importance on her lost possessions and from the start ran with the story that they were lifted on Friday night with AL over drinks at the POW something he denied to DV years later ever happened.
I think it's almost now certain her possessions were lost on Sunday night and that KH the temporary landlord found them minutes later. Which leads to an obvious question.

The POW pub is less than 3 minutes walk to her flat (I know I walked it) so if she drove home and parked 3 minutes from the POW how did her possessions end up outside the POW about 10.30pm to 10.40pm on a Sunday night? The only thing that makes sense is that she used one of the public phone boxes outside the POW and dropped or left her stuff there when getting change to make a call. It is of course possible she went in and had a drink but the landlord told DV the possessions were outside.

I agree with Terry a VERY complex case but it can only be moved on by removing the things that are untrue and seeing what remains. There are still many people who can be spoken to who may hold vital info that they do not realise is important.

DV said one thing I really agree with when he spoke to people nearly everything in the public domain was untrue and contradicted when he spoke to people which is what I found too. The public knowledge of what they think happened is I think a long way from actually could have and in fact did happen.

Having been to the sights and walked them and spoken to some witnesses I would say the books are a start but do not help beyond giving you an overview.

I asked a researcher early on when I first looked at this case and said do you think it can be solved? yes was the answer and I agree but only by speaking to the witnesses and having an open mind to what are facts not presumed by repeating what has previously been erroneously reported.

New info comes up all the time, there was a crimewatch special in 2000 and a new reconstruction with "new info" including a new witness who saw SL and a man in Stevenage Road and saw them apart looking at houses (clip below)

YouTube link

My intention by recommending these 3 books was not to provide a definitive guide that answers all the questions. But to provide a base from which posters can form their own opinions.
I’m not pushing any particular narrative, letting people form their own views often provides a new narrative and that’s really valuable.

 

[Terryb808]

I think psychologically he is a perfect fit, however there are many things to be considered. JC was caught re Shirley banks due to his incredibly stupid mistakes, his dead victims were found or survived because he didn't kill them. SL disappeared without a trace and the perp left no clues.

A lot of the sightings and so called facts were all stated well after the crime and after many tv documentaries and crimewatch appeals. None of these sightings or things were reported when they happened. The jogger who saw a BMW with a person allegedly holding down the horn at the entrance to Bishops park said nothing until 2000. The SL case was all over the news and a massive story in July/August 1986 surely he must of known this when it happened why did he come forward 14 years later only? No proof JC was in Fulham and the case against him is massively circumstantial which is why the CPS would not proceed. Jim Dickie said there should have been an ID parade and lots of other leads should have been followed in 1986 perhaps if they had JC would have been ruled out in 1987.

To my mind her vanishing without trace and with no clues or forensic evidence suggests she went somewhere with someone she knew or it was a professional job. If that is true then who who wanted this to happen or who that she knew would take such a drastic step and be able to cover their tracks so well?

The question is seldom asked why was SL supposedly abducted and killed?
Sexual, personal or a professional reason.

I think it's interesting that we only know several absolute facts says a lot.

She went to work and arrived at about 8.45am to 9am
She left her office between 12.30pm and 12.40pm
Her car was found at 10.01pm in Stevenage Road

That is all we actually know for certain

Very true, the known fact were quoted back in 86 by Detective Mike Barley, IMO a first rate detective.
He also interviewed JC, if you search YouTube you’ll find his opinion on this interview.
Because of the priority of the time, the Met put their resources into the “cement works job” and not Suzy’s disappearance.
After doing this they were always playing catch up.
When the media ramped up the focus, (again IMO) the just went straight for the Mr Kipper apparent lead.

 

[Supersleuth22]

Very true, the known fact were quoted back in 86 by Detective Mike Barley, IMO a first rate detective.
He also interviewed JC, if you search YouTube you’ll find his opinion on this interview.
Because of the priority of the time, the Met put their resources into the “cement works job” and not Suzy’s disappearance.
After doing this they were always playing catch up.
When the media ramped up the focus, (again IMO) the just went straight for the Mr Kipper apparent lead.

I wish they had checked out JC it would have eliminated him early on (IMO)

 

[Terryb808]

I wish they had checked out JC it would have eliminated him early on (IMO)

Unfortunately they didn’t leaving a mess behind them. WestLondoner has said many times on this thread the Met failed to check recent sex offender released from local prisons.
A very basic error when you consider a women was abducted from Fulham and raped just one week before Suzy disappeared.

 

[Supersleuth22]

Unfortunately they didn’t leaving a mess behind them. WestLondoner has said many times on this thread the Met failed to check recent sex offender released from local prisons.
A very basic error when you consider a women was abducted from Fulham and raped just one week before Suzy disappeared.

Obviously we consider JC a vile dangerous person who should not be released but I maintain he had nothing to do with SL. If I am ever proved wrong I will hold up my hands and say I was wrong but there are so many errors and assumptions about this man.

He liked BMWs? s
So what he didn't have access to one in July 1986

JC resembled the photofit of Mr Kipper?
So did Mark Guerdon and half of London, according to Peter Johnson so did the diamond dealer Kyper whose BMW was found in London

He was the businessman from Bristol
He had NO connection to Bristol prior to July 1986 his connection was the year after

He was known as Kipper in jail?
Really says who?

He frequented the wine bars and pubs in Fulham
With what money? he was working part time earning very poor money, how did he dress well and live that lifestyle? SL would have seen straight through him i'm sure

He allegedly was the person looking at empty properties in Fulham and through the Sturgis window the day before SL went missing?
Witness statements 14 years later, SL was all over the news if this had happened why wasn't it reported at the time but only 14 years later

Everything about JC was circumstantial, inaccurate and mostly reported well after the event after reconstructions and media coverage. I do not remember what I was doing in 2010 on this day unless it was memorable.

Well meaning people trying to help but giving inaccurate accounts.

The CPS called it right, not enough evidence and all that there was was circumstantial.

IF the police had done a better job with this in 1986 I firmly believe they would discover that JC was innocent of this crime

 

[Terryb808]

Obviously we consider JC a vile dangerous person who should not be released but I maintain he had nothing to do with SL. If I am ever proved wrong I will hold up my hands and say I was wrong but there are so many errors and assumptions about this man.

He liked BMWs? s
So what he didn't have access to one in July 1986

JC resembled the photofit of Mr Kipper?
So did Mark Guerdon and half of London, according to Peter Johnson so did the diamond dealer Kyper whose BMW was found in London

He was the businessman from Bristol
He had NO connection to Bristol prior to July 1986 his connection was the year after

He was known as Kipper in jail?
Really says who?

He frequented the wine bars and pubs in Fulham
With what money? he was working part time earning very poor money, how did he dress well and live that lifestyle? SL would have seen straight through him i'm sure

He allegedly was the person looking at empty properties in Fulham and through the Sturgis window the day before SL went missing?
Witness statements 14 years later, SL was all over the news if this had happened why wasn't it reported at the time but only 14 years later

Everything about JC was circumstantial, inaccurate and mostly reported well after the event after reconstructions and media coverage. I do not remember what I was doing in 2010 on this day unless it was memorable.

Well meaning people trying to help but giving inaccurate accounts.

The CPS called it right, not enough evidence and all that there was was circumstantial.

IF the police had done a better job with this in 1986 I firmly believe they would discover that JC was innocent of this crime

By the same token there’s no evidence that JC did or didn’t access to a BMW in 86. Given his prison life I’d bet he knew a lot of people who could have helped out here.
But there’s no evidence he did or didn’t because no on checked him out at the time.
JC was a rapist & a thief, as the old saying goes “a leopard never changes its spots”.
As soon as opportunity presented itself he’d have been back to his thieving, but again, no one checked, so there’s no evidence he wasn’t.
I agree, witnesses that came forward 14 years after the event and not at the time are of little use.
Photofits are very general, so it may or may not have looked like JC at the time, as he wasn’t questioned and there’s no (AFAIK) photo of JC from July 86 we can’t say.
The criteria placed on the police by the CPS is very demanding, they require that any evidence presented has a very high percentage of achieving a conviction.
As there was no solid evidence at all this would not have been passed this criteria.
While there’s no evidence JC actually committed this crime, there’s also none that he didn’t either. Even the most inept criminal has to have luck on his side at some point.
Maybe this was JC’s time.

 

[Supersleuth22]

By the same token there’s no evidence that JC did or didn’t access to a BMW in 86. Given his prison life I’d bet he knew a lot of people who could have helped out here.
But there’s no evidence he did or didn’t because no on checked him out at the time.
JC was a rapist & a thief, as the old saying goes “a leopard never changes its spots”.
As soon as opportunity presented itself he’d have been back to his thieving, but again, no one checked, so there’s no evidence he wasn’t.
I agree, witnesses that came forward 14 years after the event and not at the time are of little use.
Photofits are very general, so it may or may not have looked like JC at the time, as he wasn’t questioned and there’s no (AFAIK) photo of JC from July 86 we can’t say.
The criteria placed on the police by the CPS is very demanding, they require that any evidence presented has a very high percentage of achieving a conviction.
As there was no solid evidence at all this would not have been passed this criteria.
While there’s no evidence JC actually committed this crime, there’s also none that he didn’t either. Even the most inept criminal has to have luck on his side at some point.
Maybe this was JC’s time.

I dismiss him because he made loads of mistakes in his previous crimes, there was zero trace of him with SL, no forensics no clues nothing. It was in a part of London he did not know how so did he dispose of her body which has never been found? Every time I hear his name in this case I just roll my eyes. Its just speculation and fluff there is NO evidence whatsoever.

It's possible he did it of course he certainly fits the profile but I am 100% certain he had nothing to do with it.

I think the only reason he has talked about is so he could use it for leverage when applying for his parole saying he was tried in the media and persecuted by the police which I think has backfired on him