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

[WestLondoner]

A lot of signs of stalking in this case as well: anonymous 'phone calls to Suzy at her flat and place of work, some answered by her flatmate (he reports on these in a Sunday Magazine article from 1988 which I have yet to unearth); flower bouquets delivered to the office and flat; someone staring in at her through the shop window.

In those crimes of his which are known about definitively, Cannan seems to strike opportunistically, working in the moment, striking at random almost. Moreover, it is almost infantile, the way he leaves clues strewn around the place. The Shirley Banks case was handed to police on a plate.

The Suzy Lamplugh case by contrast seems premeditated and planned i.e. not really Cannan's style. Or was he 'entertaining' himself while whiling away the hours inside?

Bear in mind a lot of this stuff did not surface until 14 years later. Can you remember if you saw anyone staring in a shop window in 2008? I can't. This stuff is of no value IMHO.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Also, he saw 'Mr Kipper' for 5 to 7 seconds through a net curtain. We know MG went there. MG looks like Mr Kipper. What's the heat-seeking bit of proof that Mr Kipper was not MG?

When first seen MG's in a suit. Second time, suppose he's in a shirt and tie. You've had a 7-second look 2 hours ago. What are the chances you realise it's the same guy again? Was this clarified before the Mr Kipper sighting was made public? How and when was there time?

Do you not think that the police would have checked with MG when he first went to Shorrolds Road?

This would have been critical in the time line so would undoubtedly been confirmed to rule out that HR identified MG. It's basics!

 

[WestLondoner]

The more you look, additional suspects appear, you can effectively fit them into one narrative or another.
For example JC could fit with BW’s sighting at approximately 2.45pm. As he’s more likely to have had a place in the Acton area.
An abduction from SR tends to suggest an organised gang with more than one member.
To vanish with no real concrete witnesses is unusual and the key to understanding this is within SJL’s complicated and secretive lifestyle.
Someone knows something important, but may not understand just how important that info is.
Why was she so secretive and why does this trend seem to continue today.
For example IMO AL knows more than he’s letting on. I can’t believe he didn’t know what SJL was up to?

What I find bemusing is the claim that as SJL was not known to have put phoney appointments on her diary the Kipper appointment must have been real.

<modsnip: Not victim friendly>

 

[WestLondoner]

Thanks - I had never seen it confirmed he was in Fulham that day. I wonder what evidence they have that places him there.

I'd like to know that too. It hasn't convinced the CPS. Was it one of these miracle memories 14 years after the fact, or was it just JD's personal confidence, like the BMW he is personally confident JC had that has never been found?

 

[WiseOwl]

Do you not think that the police would have checked with MG when he first went to Shorrolds Road?

This would have been critical in the time line so would undoubtedly been confirmed to rule out that HR identified MG. It's basics!

I agree with you when you say it would have been critical in the timeline as to when MG first went to Shorrolds Road. However, MG would have told them that he didn't have a key to the property, so why did the police not visit Shorrolds Road that evening? Instead, they broke into Suzy's flat.

MG would also have told them about her diary entry for 37SR that day, and that she hadn't been seen since the so-called viewing that lunchtime. I don't understand why they left it to the following morning to visit the property, It should have been their first port of call.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

What I find bemusing is the claim that as SJL was not known to have put phoney appointments on her diary the Kipper appointment must have been real.

Yet would SJL deliberately lie at work? She was very work focussed and keen to progress.

It is somewhat different to playing away from home with the guy that you are about to give the Dear John letter to. She was having fun.

The diary being genuine is always presented as a stand alone issue. Yet it is not.

What always seems to be omitted is that the witnesses in Shorrolds Road confirm the activity shown in the diary....although Kipper is a bogus/made up/misspelling of Cooper or Keeper etc.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I'd like to know that too. It hasn't convinced the CPS. Was it one of these miracle memories 14 years after the fact, or was it just JD's personal confidence, like the BMW he is personally confident JC had that has never been found?

Can i just say that if JD, of all people, states that:

"We know that JC was in Fulham that day"

Then it doesn't mean he's hedging his bets or taking a punt etc It means that the investigation team confirmed that JC was in Fulham that day.

If you are seeking facts in this case, then I suggest that this statement is just that.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

However, MG would have told them that he didn't have a key to the property, so why did the police not visit Shorrolds Road that evening? Instead, they broke into Suzy's flat.

Can you please provide the MSM that confirms police didn't check 37SR on the evening of the 28th July?

I would be blown over sideways if 37SR was not searched by police ASAP and that is not the next day....I mean one of the first things the police would do....that evening!

 

[asyousay]

Can i just say that if JD, of all people, states that:

"We know that JC was in Fulham that day"

Then it doesn't mean he's hedging his bets or taking a punt etc It means that the investigation team confirmed that JC was in Fulham that day.

If you are seeking facts in this case, then I suggest that this statement is just that.

Well he has still never been charged with the crime. So the evidence they have isn’t enough to charge him.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Well he has still never been charged with the crime. So the evidence they have isn’t enough to charge him.

I didn't say it was.

I said that JC is known by the police to have been in Fulham on 28th July 1986.

This is a circumstantial fact, of which the police have many.

However, circumstantial evidence is very rarely if ever sufficient for the CPS to assess that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I'd like to know that too. It hasn't convinced the CPS. Was it one of these miracle memories 14 years after the fact, or was it just JD's personal confidence, like the BMW he is personally confident JC had that has never been found?

Likewise with the BMW.

If JD says that JC had access to a BMW at the time then this is a statement of fact, direct from the former SIO, who was privy to all the evidence and conduct of the review.

Such fact can be relied upon, unlike other MSM, which often fails fact checking and accuracy.

 

[asyousay]

I didn't say it was.

I said that JC is known by the police to have been in Fulham on 28th July 1986.

This is a circumstantial fact, of which the police have many.

However, circumstantial evidence is very rarely if ever sufficient for the CPS to assess that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

There have been loads of documentaries on this case why have LE never said what proof they have he was in Fulham?


You may be willing to take this at face value but I’m not inclined to when we haven’t seen a bit of proof.


moo

 

[Whitehall 1212]

There have been loads of documentaries on this case why have LE never said what proof they have he was in Fulham?


You may be willing to take this at face value but I’m not inclined to when we haven’t seen a bit of proof.


moo

Because it is still an open investigation and the police do not publicise their evidence to protect witness confidentiality, investigation process and to maintain the integrity of any future prosecution.

Some information may be obtained by technical or covert policing methods, which are protected for operational reasons and may never be revealed.

The former SIO is being utterly unambiguous with circumstantial fact and yet some find it impossible to take it at face value and want to see the proof for themselves.....why?

Many appear to place faith in what is written in other MSM, AS, CBD and maybe even DV.....even though they have financial and other motives driving them......whilst the police in the SJL enquiry have one objective.....arresting and prosecuting the killer of SJL.

Words almost fail me.....thankfully!

 

[asyousay]

The facts speak for themselves JC has never been charged in relation to the murder. So their so called evidence isn’t all that.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The facts speak for themselves JC has never been charged in relation to the murder. So their so called evidence isn’t all that.

Can I ask what you understand by the Full Code Test?

It often helps to develop a good understanding of the different types of evidence and how they interact when it comes to criminal trial.

It does not follow that as JC has not been charged it means the "evidence isn't all that." Familiarity with the threshold applied in the Full Code Test would clearly demonstrate that.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

You may be willing to take this at face value but I’m not inclined to when we haven’t seen a bit of proof.

So the Senior Investigating Officer who supervised the full reveiw says that JC being in Fulham on 28th July 1986 and having access to a BMW is fact.

Why would you not believe it? Are you implying that the SIO is lying? Are you implying that he is incompetent? Are you questioning his integrity? If so, can you provide any evidence for any reason to doubt what he says?

Many are quite happy to jump on the DV's bandwagon when there is no evidence to support what he says NOR is there any evidence to rebutt the evidence from SJL's diary and the witnesses in Shorrolds Road.

It's hardly a consistent approach to the principle of evidence......more a case of 'I'll only believe it if it fits into what I want it to be'....which is EXACTLY DV's selective and manipulative approach to investigation.

This is not an objective mindset. It is one steeped in error and negative bias.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The Shirley Banks case was handed to police on a plate.

It wasn't though. If it hadn't have been for JC being charged and remanded in custody for the attempted robbery in Leamington Spa in 29th October 1987, then JC would have been released on bail for the Shirley Banks murder as the evidence was all circumstantial.

It took until 23rd December until JC was charged with SB's abduction and murder as a result of SB's thumb print being found on a document in JC's flat.....a place he always denied she had been.

The Suzy Lamplugh case by contrast seems premeditated and planned i.e. not really Cannan's style. Or was he 'entertaining' himself while whiling away the hours inside?

JC most definitely has previous offending history for using extreme sexual and physical violence towards women he is in a relationship with, when they have rejected him. This included throttling them.

If JC was known to SJL or was stalking her, as is believed, then if she rejected his advances then that could very much lead to extreme violence.

The hypothesis is that JC, as a means to meet SJL, arranged a house viewing or possibly SJL accepted the request as an opportunity to tell JC that she wasn't interested in continuing their contact.

SJL rejected JC and he overpowered her, raped her and possibly kept her hostage for a matter of hours before killing SJL and disposing of her body.

JMO

 

[RichardKimble]

Can i just say that if JD, of all people, states that:

"We know that JC was in Fulham that day"

Then it doesn't mean he's hedging his bets or taking a punt etc It means that the investigation team confirmed that JC was in Fulham that day.

If you are seeking facts in this case, then I suggest that this statement is just that.

The crucial part of that would be around the time that SL was last seen, 24 hrs in a day so what is timeline he was seen there .

 

[Terryb808]

Im just wondering which time you are working off for the WJ sighting
In AS book WJ says she sighted the car at 12.45
IN DV book its 12.30-12.45

WJ sees SJL’s car at approximately 12.45pm, (she was in the bank at 12.49pm.
Sturgis office has no clock, so the time placed on SJL leaving the office (IMO) can’t be 100% reliable.
While tight it is possible for WJ to have see SJL’s car at approximately 12.45pm.
She had a reason to notice it, its obstructing her friends garage access.
Detective Barley thought she was correct and IMO he’s and experienced officer and a good detective.
For this to be the case, SJL was either taken when she got to her car and an accomplice dumped her car there immediately.
Or as Detective Barley thought, she went straight to Stevenage Road.
You need to make up your own mind on this, I feel if her car never moved the is is the first option.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The crucial part of that would be around the time that SL was last seen, 24 hrs in a day so what is timeline he was seen there .

The crucial element circumstantially is that JC was known to be in Fulham.....which somewhat counters his assertion that he has never been to Fulham.

The police are unlikely to reveal how and why they know or the detail, to protect the confidentiality of the source and the investigation.