UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #4

[Whitehall 1212]

JC was a clumsy criminal who acted spontaneously in anger or predatory need to abuse it seems and with narry a care about outcome, consequences, and pretty much absence of considering cause and effect. He must have acted remarkably out of character to get away with this crime for so long with not a jot of evidence? So to my mind, it's important to keep all other options wide open and on the table.

But there is a shed load of evidence that points at JC and additionally a shed load of work on other possible offenders, who have all been eliminated.

JC didn't act out of character. He very much acted in character....look at the evidence.

There is no evidence for the other options, so they are dead in the water.

This need to believe that there MUST be another answer after ALL the work the police have done, just because JC hasn't been charged and convicted is built on sand.

 

[WestLondoner]

I wonder what evidence there was to allow a for a dig in Sutton Coldfield?!

I also wonder how a judge was persuaded that JC could have dug up and then made good his mother's garden and garage floor without his mother noticing.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I wonder what evidence there was to allow a for a dig in Sutton Coldfield?!

I understand that it was a voluntary search, with the permission of the owner of the property.

No lawful authority would be required in such a case.

In any case, that JC had returned there after SJL disappeared and there was information that JC had made changes at the address, would have been more than enough for a warrant.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So in this same regard there has never been any evidence linking JC to the PoW or the area surely would have been searched?

Anecdotally and no.

How do you make the jump between a bloke going for a drink in a pub to him having the opportunity to conceal a body there?

C'mon.....this is in the realm of ridiculous.

Maybe considering the evidence would be a worthy road to follow, which some seem reluctant to do

 

[Crusader21]

I understand that it was a voluntary search, with the permission of the properties owner.

No lawful authority would be required in such a case.

Really?!

So the new property owner voluntarily allowed his garage floor to be dug up?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Really?!

So the new property owner voluntarily allowed his garage floor to be dug up?

Yep....on the condition that any damage was made good....which the police failed to do in a timely way!

I saw an interview with the owner. Essentially he said he wanted the search to put the rumours, that SJL was buried there, to bed.

In reality it's probably the lesser of two evils as with a warrant the home owner has no agreement on the extent of the search or the police making good on the damage caused.

 

[RichardKimble]

I wonder what evidence there was to allow a for a dig in Sutton Coldfield?!

Was it Cannan telling another prisoner,

Cannan, himself, orchestrated that dig, deliberately leaking the information to someone, smug in the knowledge it would be passed to police, claims Mr Berry-Dee. Police should have realised Suzy's body would not be found, he insists.

CANNAN IS TOYING WITH POLICE. HE'S A CONTROL FREAK. HE'S LAPPING IT UP. - Free Online Library

Free Online Library: CANNAN IS TOYING WITH POLICE. HE'S A CONTROL FREAK. HE'S LAPPING IT UP.(News) by "Sunday Mercury (Birmingham, England)"; General interest Murder

www.thefreelibrary.com

The Sun reported this week's search follows information received from another inmate in 2002 that Suzy was buried under the patio at the Sutton Coldfield property.

Police dig up garden in Suzy Lamplugh murder investigation

The property is the former home of the mother of John Cannan, the prime suspect in the estate agent's disappearance in 1986.

news.sky.com

Information was first received in December 2002 from one of Cannan’s fellow prisoners, that Suzy was buried under the patio at his mother’s house.

Cops dig for Suzy Lamplugh's body in suspect's mum home to end 32-year probe

COPS searching for the body of estate agent Suzy Lamplugh began digging up a garden yesterday — in the hope of solving a 32-year mystery. The property in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, is the for…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Cherwell]

Wasn't that stunt pulled by Norman Stanley Fletcher in Porridge? He contrived to get his own garden dug over by police to save his wife the trouble.

 

[WestLondoner]

Wasn't that stunt pulled by Norman Stanley Fletcher in Porridge? He contrived to get his own garden dug over by police to save his wife the trouble.

LOL, it also reminded me of the episode where they convince another lag who's about to be released to go dig a hole somewhere for buried valuables. As he's doing so the floodlights come on and he's in the middle of a football pitch....

The digs in preposterous places must have had JC in absolute fits. Excellent psychopath bantz.

 

[Konstantin]

So in this same regard there has never been any evidence linking JC to the PoW or the area surely would have been searched?

But searched for what? It is not likely, I would say even impossible that JC (if he was responsible for SJL's murder) committed the crime of murder or abduction at the POW. If JC killed her then the POW, a busy pub, could not be the deposition site for a body.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something

 

[WestLondoner]

Information was first received in December 2002 from one of Cannan’s fellow prisoners, that Suzy was buried under the patio at his mother’s house.

Cops dig for Suzy Lamplugh's body in suspect's mum home to end 32-year probe

COPS searching for the body of estate agent Suzy Lamplugh began digging up a garden yesterday — in the hope of solving a 32-year mystery. The property in Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, is the for…

www.thesun.co.uk

That Sun front page is very interesting. It's from the Wednesday, so it must be based on information disseminated at the press conference on Tuesday afternoon, and it's full of discrepancies versus later accounts. In particular:

• she is first referred to as "Susannah" - the "Suzy" thing, presumably adopted because it's shorter, had not yet caught on
• she apparently went to meet [Mr Kipper] "after he phoned her office". Really? There was a phone call? How was that established? I've never heard that before
• "Susie" and Mr Kipper "were last seen driving away from [37SR]". Again, really? I've never heard that before
• Mr Kipper got into the passenger seat of her Fiesta. Again, really? I've never heard that before. What's the source, I wonder? Was that seen or just assumed? Did all this come from HR? What happened to Mr Kipper's own car?
• the Railway Ripper (singular) gets a mention as a possible perpetrator
• It says her car was found half a mile away. 123SR is actually over a mile from 37SR.
• It says her purse was found on the front seat. Every other source says in the door pocket.

Were all these mistakes and assumptions made by Michael Fielder, the Sun journalist, or was all this inaccurate stuff actually said by the police at the prezzer and Fielder has accurately reported it? I think it has to be the latter, as you can get hold of the Guardian's report of 31 July 1986. It contains a lot of the same misinformation, plus more:

• 'Mr Kipper' who had telephoned the Sturgis estate agency and asked to view the pounds 130,000 property. If nobody else had heard of him how is it known he spoke to SJL?
• Her car was found outside another house, also being sold by Sturgis, and one theory is that she had also shown 'Mr Kipper' around that property. So she took two sets of keys with her? And went to 123SR without an appointment?
• The artist's impression, drawn with the help of neighbours who saw Miss Lamplugh leaving the house in Shorrolds Road, is of an 'extremely smart' man in a dark suit with dark, swept back, hair. He is between 5ft 7in and 5ft 9in tall, white and aged between 25 and 30. Does this fit Cannan? If so, he was 5'7" and she was 5'6", so why did he need to move the Fiesta's seat back?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But there is a shed load of evidence that points at JC and additionally a shed load of work on other possible offenders, who have all been eliminated.

JC didn't act out of character. He very much acted in character....look at the evidence.

There is no evidence for the other options, so they are dead in the water.

This need to believe that there MUST be another answer after ALL the work the police have done, just because JC hasn't been charged and convicted is built on sand.

In terms of evidence there is not a jot. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything except lack of evidence.

One cannot ever prove a negative. There's a lot of negative space and a lot of lack in this case IMO for one clear reason IMO - a narrative was so rapidly developed and adhered to that all other possibilities were ignored. Sadly, due to SJL's active life with many facets, those possibilities are wide ranging whilst the focus of enquiry was a narrow focus.

Reduced to an either/or argument, either we are to be convinced that someone, or a group of people, have pulled off the most immaculately sophisticated undetected crime perpetrated in broad daylight in a wealthy suburb of a huge and densely populated city -or- the investigation was not looking in any of the right places.

To take the middle ground would paradoxically be to take a far more extreme stance - an averagely clumsy murder took place, perpetrated by a run of the mill psychopath, and the investigation was so fixated on one narrative and one narrative only that to this day they have quite literally got away with it.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

But searched for what? It is not likely, I would say even impossible that JC (if he was responsible for SJL's murder) committed the crime of murder or abduction at the POW. If JC killed her then the POW, a busy pub, could not be the deposition site for a body.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something

I don't feel this is true to say. I have raised this point before despite there is no proof or evidence or witness to put JC at the PoW. Were it to be the proven case that JC was frequenting the PoW, he would certainly be manipulative, predatory, coercive, mercenary, and exploitative in all his affairs. That could mean a thousand things.

He would be likely to befriend staff and management, be looking for odd jobs for cash, possibly be renting or using a room, a storage cupboard, a shed, a garage or any type of structure indoors or outdoors that was going free that he could utilise for any type of purpose. He would be likely to sneak around and exploit such spaces even without permission or knowledge of staff or management.

The pub was a huge premises with many rooms above, attics / roof space, cellars below, outdoor space, adjacent railway banking, and no doubt many cavities, spaces, cupboards, comprising indoor and outdoor areas probably many that weren't in frequent or daily use.

God only knows what has happened to SJL but if the argument is to be made that JC was provenly around the PoW and knowing how he operates and that for some reason SJL was intending to go there, that perhaps her 'lost' items were a lure, then absolutely it makes sense that the PoW should be a red hot location.

 

[WestLondoner]

This is also interesting - a contemporary write-up of the BW sighting.

In particular,

Police yesterday toured pubs and wine bars in the Fulham area, hoping to find someone who saw Miss Lamplugh and the well-dressed Mr Kipper. "We are anxious to fill the gap between 1pm and 2.45pm, and we are visiting hotels, wine bars and pubs because Suzy may have had lunch with this man", said DSI Nick Carter.

You can sort of imagine an abductor suggesting a quick lunch and then taking her somewhere that she can be attacked. So that line of inquiry's actually quite intelligent. Of course, we know of at least one pub where police turned up, asked if she'd been there, were told not, and accepted it. So unfortunately this approach was also clearly futile in the end, because no other sightings were reported, nor was any candidate empty property ever found.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

One cannot ever prove a negative.

Every criminal in history could rely on this as a defence! It's the defence of someone who knows they are up against cold, hard reality and can't offer anything tangible to counter.

Rocky Price tried it with the 'mystery man' who asked him to move a body for some money. To this day there are sleuthers who still believe there must have been a mystery man

Why is it that some can ignore the evidence. Other hypotheses were not ignored....other possible suspects were identified and investigated....they were eliminated.

The public face of the police did not discuss the alternatives at the time because the evidence was very much taking their investigation in one direction only. The public appeals had to be focused and not confused. The alternative possibilities were very much investigated....just in the background.

The fact is that all the evidence points back at JC and none of it points anywhere else!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

He would be likely to befriend staff and management, be looking for odd jobs for cash, possibly be renting or using a room, a storage cupboard, a shed, a garage or any type of structure indoors or outdoors that was going free that he could utilise for any type of purpose. He would be likely to sneak around and exploit such spaces even without permission or knowledge of staff or management.

But without witnesses and evidence to support such hypotheses the whole argument remains just that....a hypothesis!

You can't go anywhere without evidence, no matter how sexy and entertaining the crime novel is. Obtaining evidence is not sexy......it's a damn hard slog.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

This is also interesting - a contemporary write-up of the BW sighting.

In particular,

Police yesterday toured pubs and wine bars in the Fulham area, hoping to find someone who saw Miss Lamplugh and the well-dressed Mr Kipper. "We are anxious to fill the gap between 1pm and 2.45pm, and we are visiting hotels, wine bars and pubs because Suzy may have had lunch with this man", said DSI Nick Carter.

You can sort of imagine an abductor suggesting a quick lunch and then taking her somewhere that she can be attacked. So that line of inquiry's actually quite intelligent. Of course, we know of at least one pub where police turned up, asked if she'd been there, were told not, and accepted it. So unfortunately this approach was also clearly futile in the end, because no other sightings were reported, nor was any candidate empty property ever found.

So the police pub and wine bar tour was a great idea but fallible on the grounds that staff or manager would be believed on face value. I imagine everyone in Fulham would have been racking their minds as to who they may have seen whilst going about their day and had SJL actually had a lunch with someone it would have been quickly established.

Something I always wonder is if SJL went to SR, waited 15 / 20 mins, maybe inside, and the viewer never came. How long would SJL wait for a 'no show'? What was the usual protocol when that happened? Find a phone to try call the viewer? Or find a phone to report back to the office that your viewer didn't turn up and they might phone the office so please tell them to re-arrange? Quit your losses and say oh well that was a waste of time, I'll deal with it later? Go for lunch? Go pick up your stuff from the PoW sooner than later as a bit of time freed up?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So the police pub and wine bar tour was a great idea but fallible on the grounds that staff or manager would be believed on face value.

So you think that a pub and wine tour is fallible on account of the police taking people at face value!

You could not be more wrong.

House-to-house (pub-to-pub/wine bar/restaurant) enquiries have long been an exceedingly valuable investigative tool.

Investigators are experienced in picking up the tiny clues that indicate that someone is not being honest or withholding detail. Comparison with what others say is also a way of spotting where further investigation is needed.

Police also identify when people make themselves scarce and are 'not avaialble'.

People with something to hide draw attention to themselves and are subject to closer scrutiny.

Examples:

Ian Huntley, Stuart Hazell, John Tanner, Tracey Andrews, Mick and Mairead Philpott, Iftikar and Farzana Ahmed etc

Police have been known to brief the press before press conferences because they don't have evidence to arrest but want to ask the family member a direct question and see the reaction.....'Last question please'....'Mr X.....did you kill your wife'?

The responses are very telling and enhance the police suspicion, which often gives the justification and proportionality for intrusive investigation techniques.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Every criminal in history could rely on this as a defence! It's the defence of someone who knows they are up against cold, hard reality and can't offer anything tangible to counter.

Rocky Price tried it with the 'mystery man' who asked him to move a body for some money. To this day there are sleuthers who still believe there must have been a mystery man

Why is it that some can ignore the evidence. Other hypotheses were not ignored....other possible suspects were identified and investigated....they were eliminated.

The public face of the police did not discuss the alternatives at the time because the evidence was very much taking their investigation in one direction only. The public appeals had to be focused and not confused. The alternative possibilities were very much investigated....just in the background.

The fact is that all the evidence points back at JC and none of it points anywhere else!

There is no evidence whatsoever that points to JC unless the police are refusing to declare it. Hypotheses are not evidence, they are speculation. We don't even have circumstantial evidence on JC.

<modsnip>

Absolutely one cannot prove a negative and that is probably why the police have never progressed this allegation to the courts. We live in a country with a rigorously tested justice system thanks be to goodness. IMO JMO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There is no evidence whatsoever that points to JC unless the police are refusing to declare it. Hypotheses are not evidence, they are speculation. We don't even have circumstantial evidence on JC.

<modsnip>

Absolutely one cannot prove a negative and that is probably why the police have never progressed this allegation to the courts. We live in a country with a rigorously tested justice system thanks be to goodness. IMO JMO

There is plenty of evidence and it all points at JC.

<modsnip>

Investigations are evidence driven based on an initial assessment of possible hypotheses. It would be ludicrous for an investigation to conclude on the basis of unknown unknowns, i.e. we can't prove the negative that may or may not exist.

This is why reasonable hypotheses are brain-stormed at the beginning of an investigation and evidence or counter-evidence identified to progress of eliminate them, accordingly.

Your argument is a disingenuous one and does nothing to advance the discussion.

<modsnip>