UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, and you had to keep them separate so thieves couldn't steal your cheque book and cheque card simultaneously. SJL's cheque would be in her purse so anyone lifting the cheque book would need to lift the purse too.

If she'd never been to the PoW how did her stuff get there? If the nearest she had been was Mossop's on Friday how her stuff take 48 hours to travel to the PoW?

Why was there so little curiosity about this in 1986 given that is the best attested likely destination for her on Monday?

So little curiosity for many nonsensical and puzzling things that all happened on the last week that SJL was known to be alive and yet we are supposed to believe that a serial killer snatched her for completely separate reasons.

Either SJL had a very drama filled chaotic life -or- some things started to escalate and involved odd events that then somehow culminated in her murder?

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Maybe someone stole SJLs possessions and went to the PoW in the hopes to pass off or cash a dodgy cheque? Pubs used to cash cheques for known customers or maybe even randoms if they could seem trustworthy.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Why was there so little curiosity about this in 1986 given that is the best attested likely destination for her on Monday?

There is absolutely no evidence that SJL went to the PoW.

Whereas there IS evidence that SJL went to 37 SR, which no one has provided evidence to refute.

No matter how assertively the point is made, if there is no evidence for it the argument is a hollow one.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

So little curiosity for many nonsensical and puzzling things that all happened on the last week that SJL was known to be alive and yet we are supposed to believe that a serial killer snatched her for completely separate reasons.

Either SJL had a very drama filled chaotic life -or- some things started to escalate and involved odd events that then somehow culminated in her murder?

Think bigger, much bigger!

 

[Pinkizzy]

Think bigger, much bigger!

Explain this

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

This post lands at random.

Misinformation is not a violation of TOS. Please don't Report posts by telling us "that's not true". If you think a stated fact is not true, find a link to refute or to support what IS true and post it on the thread.

Websleuths has a very small volunteer staff, well over 200,000 members, and thousands of active discussions. Mods are here to ensure compliance with TOS, not know the intricacies of every single case or to do research on your behalf. If someone says "blue" and you think "green", find a link to support what IS true and post the link to substantiate.

Also, don't Report a wall of text 6" long and say "there's no link to support this". Mods are left staring and saying "support what?". If you need a link to information stated as fact, politely ask the OP for it on the thread. If the OP fails or refuses to provide a link, then let us know and we'll deal with it then as a violation of TOS.

Now if someone posts something like "baby born with wooden leg", maybe let us know and we're probably going to have a look at that

 

[asyousay]

So does anybody have any opinions on where she was snatched and how it went down.


1) Was it just after she left the office ?
2) at a empty property ?
3) in her car?
4) POW ?
5) somewhere I haven’t mentioned ?

 

[WestLondoner]

My own current thinking, and I stress 'current ' because it changes in response to knowledgeable posts by others, is that SJL left the office intending to head to the PoW. I don't think she ever got there.

I don't think she went to 37SR for a number of reasons, but mainly that no witness identified her there unprompted; the only one who thinks he saw anything is grossly unreliable and doesn't know what he saw; others entered the property using keys she should have had; and no-one since has sighted 'Mr Kipper' ever again, anywhere, that day or any other.

I don't think she reached the PoW because if she did and was killed there it would require spontaneous homicide, staggering luck by the killer and an incredible lack of diligence by the police who went there. It seems more probable that there were three or four staff about and a similar number of punters than that CV was there on his own.

So this leaves abduction by persons unknown. The problems with this for me are 1/ who? and 2/ if this was multiple people why has nobody spilled the beans? If career criminals abducted her how have they maintained silence for so long?

 

[Cluesleuth]

If career criminals abducted her how have they maintained silence for so long?

Omerta

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Omerta

PRO secrecy and DA notices.

BBC NEWS | In Depth | UK Confidential | Unlocking the secrets of government

news.bbc.co.uk

The D-notice system: a typically British fudge that has survived a century

This collaboration between state and media has offered a compromise between national security and press freedom – yet sometimes has been tested to the limit

www.theguardian.com

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Think bigger, much bigger!

How big? Intergalactic? Alien abduction? International? Explain pls.


I reckon this is a local crime, perpetrator(s) local, and SJL didn’t go far. Think smaller I say, much smaller, as small as the area SJL lived, worked, and socialised within.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

So does anybody have any opinions on where she was snatched and how it went down.


1) Was it just after she left the office ?
2) at a empty property ?
3) in her car?
4) POW ?
5) somewhere I haven’t mentioned ?

I vote 4)

My personal opinion is en route to or at the PoW to collect her stuff and I do not see that possibly was even acknowledged at the time, never mind rigorously investigated or any persons suspected, least of all ruled out.

 

[EddietheEagle]

Why wasn't the video ID procedure used when it was introduced in 2003, with the several eye witnesses who claim to have seen Mr Kipper? - "Can you recognise the man you saw on July 28th 1986?"

Cannan had been re-arrested in 2000 and subjected to several police interviews from that point. Maybe by that point, his face had already become too well known for video ID to have any value as admissable evidence, I don't know. The question is worth asking.

I can't see anything in PACE Code D that would appear to rule out use of video ID to this case.

 

[Terryb808]

My own current thinking, and I stress 'current ' because it changes in response to knowledgeable posts by others, is that SJL left the office intending to head to the PoW. I don't think she ever got there.

I don't think she went to 37SR for a number of reasons, but mainly that no witness identified her there unprompted; the only one who thinks he saw anything is grossly unreliable and doesn't know what he saw; others entered the property using keys she should have had; and no-one since has sighted 'Mr Kipper' ever again, anywhere, that day or any other.

I don't think she reached the PoW because if she did and was killed there it would require spontaneous homicide, staggering luck by the killer and an incredible lack of diligence by the police who went there. It seems more probable that there were three or four staff about and a similar number of punters than that CV was there on his own.

So this leaves abduction by persons unknown. The problems with this for me are 1/ who? and 2/ if this was multiple people why has nobody spilled the beans? If career criminals abducted her how have they maintained silence for so long?

Agree, if WJ sighting of SJL’s car is correct then she was snatched as she reached her car after leaving the office.
This would involve at least two people, one to take SJL away and the other to abandon her car in Stevenage Road.
I don’t believe DV’s assessment of WJ, he had good reason to cast doubt on her as a witness, if she’s a good witness (and Detective Barley must have thought she was) the DV has no narrative.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Why wasn't the video ID procedure used when it was introduced in 2003, with the several eye witnesses who claim to have seen Mr Kipper? - "Can you recognise the man you saw on July 28th 1986?"

Cannan had been re-arrested in 2000 and subjected to several police interviews from that point. Maybe by that point, his face had already become too well known for video ID to have any value as admissable evidence, I don't know. The question is worth asking.

I can't see anything in PACE Code D that would appear to rule out use of video ID to this case.

1. 2003 was far too long after the event for a positive ID to have any credibility.

2. Any positive ID may have been compromised by press coverage. The defence would likely succeed in having it ruled inadmissible.

3. If the ID is positive then they identification is not based on the suspect in 1986 but in 2003, or later. Further admissibility issues all the way.

4. Police only consider using VIPER when the victim (ideally) or a witness is very confident that they will recognise the suspect.

5. It would be folly to go through the witnesses until a positive ID is made. This information is disclosable to the defence and would be ripped apart in court, based on the probability of a positive ID if enough witnesses are subjected to VIPER.

Once an positive ID is made then no further witnesses can be asked to submit to VIPER. This is why police need to be sure of the victims (ideally) or witnesses confidence that they will positively ID the suspect. A positive ID first time is what is required,

 

[asyousay]

Thanks for the replies

That’s my issue is all my theory’s have holes to them. I still think her personal life holds clues to who did this.


I don’t buy JC as the guilty party and POW makes zero sense.

Moo

 

[Konstantin]

To eliminate the possibility that the man he saw was MG?

He did see MG. MG and another colleague must have spoken to him in person when they went to 37SR looking for SJL because this is when HR said he had seen the male he described with a female outside the property.

MG went back to 37SR later that day before going to the police to report the disappearance. AS notes that when he did report the disappearance, HR was "now saying" that he recalled the woman being bundled into a car or vehicle by the male, which is why the police took it so seriously. As HR was "now saying" something this suggests MG spoke to him twice and while we don't know how it happened, the most likely is when he went back to SR a second time.

The idea that HR recalled MG when later asked about the male he saw outside the property doesn't really make much sense. It might have if HR and MG hadn't spoken in person. The police would have known exactly how HR got involved and that he had seen and spoken to MG in person.

There is a lot of mystery around SJL's Kipper appointment but I don't think that this is part of it. We can accept that there is some doubt over if the appointment was a real one without needing to explain away the evidence that points toward it being real (real in the sense that SJL attended 37SR, not that there was a real live man whose government documents list him as surname Kipper).

 

[Konstantin]

Are we now questioning all the facts that were established at the time of Suzy's disappearance? If you accept the evidence compiled by Andrew Stephen, there seems little doubt that she was going to meet a client outside 37 Shorrolds Road. What is the basis for scepticism regarding these events? There is solid, factual witness evidence she was there.

I wanted to include this quote in the above post but pressed post too soon.

I would agree with this, whether you believe that Kipper was a real person or not (clearly there is something fishy, pun intended about him) it does seem that there was a young female matching SJL's description seen outside the property by multiple witnesses.

To dismiss this, you have to believe that there is a massive police conspiracy, which would take time and effort to come up with and maintain, or all the witnesses are lying, and the point of trying to dismiss all this is only to boost the POW theory which barring another series of conspiracies doesn't really add up. I get why DV wants to do that--he has to because he wants to put as much weight as possible on his theory.

But really we have no idea what happened to SJL except that she left the office around 12:40 and her car was found at what? 22;00 ish that same night?

Also, on another note that might get deleted I think things in the thread are getting a bit heated between those who believe in one theory or another. For my part, I'm not into that at all, I respect all of you, so if you don't agree with me on anything bring it on, because debate and discussion are always good and interesting. I don't take that as you disliking me personally lol but if you do I won't get upset (I do sometimes wear sandals with socks though, so factor that in).

 

[Terryb808]

I wanted to include this quote in the above post but pressed post too soon.

I would agree with this, whether you believe that Kipper was a real person or not (clearly there is something fishy, pun intended about him) it does seem that there was a young female matching SJL's description seen outside the property by multiple witnesses.

To dismiss this, you have to believe that there is a massive police conspiracy, which would take time and effort to come up with and maintain, or all the witnesses are lying, and the point of trying to dismiss all this is only to boost the POW theory which barring another series of conspiracies doesn't really add up. I get why DV wants to do that--he has to because he wants to put as much weight as possible on his theory.

But really we have no idea what happened to SJL except that she left the office around 12:40 and her car was found at what? 22;00 ish that same night?

Also, on another note that might get deleted I think things in the thread are getting a bit heated between those who believe in one theory or another. For my part, I'm not into that at all, I respect all of you, so if you don't agree with me on anything bring it on, because debate and discussion are always good and interesting. I don't take that as you disliking me personally lol but if you do I won't get upset (I do sometimes wear sandals with socks though, so factor that in).

Very sensible approach, debate is good as long as it’s not personal. This thread is a very active one and SJL’s case a challenging one.
No real concrete fact apart from (as you say) left the office at 12.40 ish, car found at 10.03pm ish.
As I’ve said before the key to this is determining when SJL’s car appears in Stevenage Rd. This helps with confining which witnesses are most likely correct and what narrative fits best.
I’d say use the best sources available, ignore opinions, focus on facts, and pull together a theory.
IMO you need a theory first and then you need to assemble the evidence. There’s enough intelligent people reading this thread to get the bits of the puzzle in the correct order.

 

[EddietheEagle]

I think the issue or number, of front door keys is irrelevant. Missing one? You call the owner and explain the problem. It's not as if the owner has given up possession of his property.

Nowhere is it reported of a problem obtaining access to 37 Shorrolds Road, whether by the manager in the afternoon, or subsequently by police. This indicates there were other keys to enter the house. Videcette himself has established that the police didn't break in. Has it been established definitively anyway, that there were only one set of keys held by the agent?

Conversely, it is known and reported that the front door to Suzy Lamplugh's flat was forced, presumably because police couldn't find her tenant, Nick Bryant, in time (ASage 12).