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

[WiseOwl]

Although BW may not have been sure she saw Suzy, didn't she say she saw the straw hat in the back window? Maybe I've remembered incorrectly but, if she did, to me this adds weight to her seeing Suzy's car because it's a very specific detail (although I appreciate it's not unique, and doesn't corroborate day /time of the sighting...)

I don't think BW mentioned the straw hat did she? She doesn't mention it in the Crimewatch episode, or in this interview with Thames News (20.08.1986):

There is no mention of the straw hat either in this interview with The Guardian (21.08.1986):

Witness reports Suzy Lamplugh in a car with Mr. Kipper

Clipping found in The Guardian published in London, Greater London, England on 8/21/1986. Witness reports Suzy Lamplugh in a car with Mr. Kipper

www.newspapers.com

Did WJ ever mention seeing the straw hat in the car?

 

[Terryb808]

I don't think BW mentioned the straw hat did she? She doesn't mention it in the Crimewatch episode, or in this interview with Thames News (20.08.1986):

There is no mention of the straw hat either in this interview with The Guardian (21.08.1986):

Witness reports Suzy Lamplugh in a car with Mr. Kipper

Clipping found in The Guardian published in London, Greater London, England on 8/21/1986. Witness reports Suzy Lamplugh in a car with Mr. Kipper

www.newspapers.com

Did WJ ever mention seeing the straw hat in the car?

It’s a tough one, I’m not sure if I was not prompted I’d remember a straw had in the back of a passing car.
She cycling and although the car isn’t travelling fast, she wouldn’t have had long to observe.
Remember that when she saw the car Suzy hadn’t be reported missing, so it would be just a none important event at the time.

 

[Terryb808]

Hat

 

[WiseOwl]

It's probably been discussed before but i wonder if WJ saw two different cars that day? The one she saw when she left to go shopping at 12.45 might have been very similar to Suzy's, and might not have been parked over the lip of the driveway to the garage.

WJ was gone until 3.30, so that is nearly 3 hours until she returned. During that time, the first car she saw might have gone and then later been replaced by Suzy's, which is the one she saw when she got home? If they were very similar, she could have easily had the impression that they were one and the same car.

Unless she had noticed the straw hat in the back of course!

 

[Terryb808]

It's probably been discussed before but i wonder if WJ saw two different cars that day? The one she saw when she left to go shopping at 12.45 might have been very similar to Suzy's, and might not have been parked over the lip of the driveway to the garage.

WJ was gone until 3.30, so that is nearly 3 hours until she returned. During that time, the first car she saw might have gone and then later been replaced by Suzy's, which is the one she saw when she got home? If they were very similar, she could have easily had the impression that they were one and the same car.

Unless she had noticed the straw hat in the back of course!

Possible, according to another post Stevenage Road isn’t very wide. So, if you’re standing on the pavement outside WJ’s house any car would be very close.
As I’ve said before it all depends on what makes a person notice the car. It’s just another ordinary day until the police turn up that evening.
I’d guess she noticed it because it was parked badly and partially obstructing her friends right of way.
That’s just my view on it.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The original Crimewatch video narration states that WJ saw the car as she left to go shopping at 12:45, and that when she returned at 3:30 it was still in "exactly the same place, slightly overlapping the entrance to a neighbour's garage."

Which isn't absolute proof, but does strongly suggest WJ noted the position of the car when she first saw it. Like @Terryb808, I think the odd position of the car is likely what made WJ notice it.

 

[Terryb808]

The original Crimewatch video narration states that WJ saw the car as she left to go shopping at 12:45, and that when she returned at 3:30 it was still in "exactly the same place, slightly overlapping the entrance to a neighbour's garage."

Which isn't absolute proof, but does strongly suggest WJ noted the position of the car when she first saw it. Like @Terryb808, I think the odd position of the car is likely what made WJ notice it.

Okay, take this a step further, it was there at 12.45pm. This is possible is Suzy went straight to Stevenage Road, then for some reason pushed the seat back at she got out of the car.
If this was the case there’s really only one explanation as to why the car war left as it was and that’s the conclusion Detective Mike Barely came to.
He said she went straight to Stevenage Road and was immediately abducted by forcing her into another car.
It’s just possible that the phone call she received just before she left was to redirect her to Stevenage Road.
IMO Suzy would’ve left her car in the condition it was found and gone walkabout with someone as some witnesses have said.
As has been pointed out, none of this can be proved.

 

[Terryb808]

Wouldn’t

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Okay, take this a step further, it was there at 12.45pm. This is possible is Suzy went straight to Stevenage Road, then for some reason pushed the seat back at she got out of the car.
If this was the case there’s really only one explanation as to why the car war left as it was and that’s the conclusion Detective Mike Barely came to.
He said she went straight to Stevenage Road and was immediately abducted by forcing her into another car.
It’s just possible that the phone call she received just before she left was to redirect her to Stevenage Road.
IMO Suzy would’ve left her car in the condition it was found and gone walkabout with someone as some witnesses have said.
As has been pointed out, none of this can be proved.

I still feel like the woman on Shorrolds Road at 12:45-1:00PM was most likely Suzy. Although MG and a female coworker went to 37SR later in the afternoon, at around 4:30PM, it would be odd for so many witnesses to be three or four hours off with their timing if they were mistaking MG for Mr. Kipper.

Detective Barley possibly isn't too far wrong. But I wonder if Suzy drove to 123SR to meet Mr. Kipper, then he drove them both to 37SR. It could be done in just about ten minutes:

654 Fulham Rd. to 37 Shorrolds Rd

www.google.com

If Suzy and Kipper returned to 123SR, where they were also possibly seen by witnesses, something could have happened to Suzy in her car as she was getting ready to leave again. It would essentially be Detective Barley's scenario, but as she was leaving rather than arriving. If Suzy *had* been arguing with Kipper during the afternoon, it might be more likely that he would do something to her as she tried to leave.

I'm starting to think it's *just about* possible for most (not all) of the sightings to be accurate, but it would be a very tight timeframe with a lot of very precise and somewhat strange actions required. If nobody has done it already (they probably have?) I'll make up a timeline to clearly show how the witness statements fit together.

 

[WestLondoner]

MB's theory means the schoolboy's sighting and BW's are both wrong, but then, any sighting you accept makes several others wrong.

It's probably been discussed before but i wonder if WJ saw two different cars that day?

Yes, discussed a page or two back. Personally I think it is more likely that witnesses misremembered when they saw something than that they totally imagined having seen something they did not. This means that almost any witness can be misleading unintentionally.

For example, ND1 is usually cited as one of the witnesses who saw SJL in the street outside 37SR. On closer examination, maybe not:

There was Nicholas Doyle, who claimed to have seen a woman and a man near to 37 Shorrolds Road. But he couldn’t confirm the time, only that it was sometime between noon and 4 p.m. And Doyle didn’t agree with the artist impression created by Harry Riglin; this wasn’t the man he’d seen, he said. The woman was with a different man altogether.

Videcette, (p. 124).

This doesn't stop his "sighting" being regularly cited as evidence she went there. It is actually a better fit for a sighting of MG and SF than of JC and SJL, and he can't clarify for us which it most likely was, because he doesn't remember when it happened (which would have told us). A Spanish schoolteacher called Jesus Inchada saw a man in Shorrolds but also disagreed with HR's description. DV makes the point that like the other witness, Noel Devere (ND2), whose account repeats what he saw in the TV reconstruction, these people took weeks to come forward with anything, so how could their memories be relied on? Same applies to BW of course.

I'm still not persuaded by HR at all. He described someone coming out of the house yet there is no evidence of SJL inside, she may not even have had the keys, he retracted bits of his statement later, and he even ID'ed the Belgian guy as Mr Kipper. Nobody ever put anyone on an ID parade to work out who actually saw whom.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Is there an update on the smudged fingerprint on the mirror in Suzy's car?

 

[WestLondoner]

I still feel like the woman on Shorrolds Road at 12:45-1:00PM was most likely Suzy. Although MG and a female coworker went to 37SR later in the afternoon, at around 4:30PM, it would be odd for so many witnesses to be three or four hours off with their timing if they were mistaking MG for Mr. Kipper.

Posts crossed.

What if anything happened in Shorrolds is a mystery, but what I think is that the supposed sightings there have been curated ever since, especially by TV and press rehashed. These leave in the accounts that suggest she went there, always omit those that undermine this, and never challenge any witness.

1. HR is exact about the time, but is also the only witness to say they went into the house, which they almost certainly didn't, the only one to say he saw her bundled into a car, which he later admitted she wasn't, ID'ed someone quite spurious as "Kipper", who wasn't, and never said he saw SJL.
2. ND2 corroborates every detail of what's left of HR.
3. ND1 isn't at all sure when he saw anything, but he is sure he did not see the man HR described. AIUI ND1 was a small-time criminal, so he could have been currying favour with the police.
4. JI disagrees about Mr Kipper's appearance, and thought he had a suntan.
5. A woman saw a couple in Stevenage Road, the man resembling JI's description.

All you ever hear is that HR saw her and 2 x ND corroborated it. You never hear 4 or 5 above raised, nor the uncertainty of 3.

If 5 is correct then the bit where something happens outside 123SR looks very likely.

Detective Barley possibly isn't too far wrong. But I wonder if Suzy drove to 123SR to meet Mr. Kipper, then he drove them both to 37SR...If Suzy and Kipper returned to 123SR, where they were also possibly seen by witnesses, something could have happened to Suzy in her car as she was getting ready to leave again. iI would essentially be Detective Barley's scenario, but as she was leaving rather than arriving.

I really like this idea, because it does not require her to have left her car unlocked - with the purse in the door pocket and the handbrake off - for hours. Instead she could have done this on returning.

 

[WestLondoner]

Is there an update on the smudged fingerprint on the mirror in Suzy's car?

I've seen nothing since the middle of last year, which added nothing to what emerged in 2022 (that there was possibly testable DNA).

I'm not sure where it would lead though. Apparently, the problem with the DNA found in Cannan's scrapped Sierra - I forget if this was a partial match with SJL or SC - was that the CPS didn't know when it got there. I.e. she'd been in the car, but possibly before or after Cannan owned it. Would not the same argument apply to DNA found now in SJL's car?

 

[Terryb808]

Just to add theory to the Shorrolds Road above, Suzy had a lunch planned with PSS & TS that Monday. She wouldn’t have been allowed to keep this (she’d already been denied time off for her mother’s 50th).
However, may the Kipper appointment was entered to allow her to keep this lunchtime appointment with PSS &TS?
It doesn’t make sence to actually meet outside 37SR apart from to been seen with potential clients.
But, it could have been PSS & TS that witnesses saw, she was blonde and he could well have been the suntanned male.
Just another one of the many theories in this case.

 

[Terryb808]

I've seen nothing since the middle of last year, which added nothing to what emerged in 2022 (that there was possibly testable DNA).

I'm not sure where it would lead though. Apparently, the problem with the DNA found in Cannan's scrapped Sierra - I forget if this was a partial match with SJL or SC - was that the CPS didn't know when it got there. I.e. she'd been in the car, but possibly before or after Cannan owned it. Would not the same argument apply to DNA found now in SJL's car?

Wasn’t it a partial match for Sandra Court and not Suzy?
Regarding the DNA in Suzy’s car, you’ll only hear about this if it actually matched JC. This would then provide a concrete link between Suzy and JC, which is missing.
If it’s anybody else’s, you’ll never know as it’s not confirming what the police want.

 

[WestLondoner]

Just to add theory to the Shorrolds Road above, Suzy had a lunch planned with PSS & TS that Monday. She wouldn’t have been allowed to keep this (she’d already been denied time off for her mother’s 50th).
However, may the Kipper appointment was entered to allow her to keep this lunchtime appointment with PSS &TS?
It doesn’t make sence to actually meet outside 37SR apart from to been seen with potential clients.
But, it could have been PSS & TS that witnesses saw, she was blonde and he could well have been the suntanned male.
Just another one of the many theories in this case.

The obstacle to this for me is why they'd drive to one place in order to drive to another for lunch when she's short of time. Why not just drive straight to lunch?

 

[WestLondoner]

Wasn’t it a partial match for Sandra Court and not Suzy?

I wasn't sure, but you are right I think. Same applies though - if he didn't necessarily kill her because we don't know when she was in his car, defence counsel would argue that we don't know when Cannan was in SJL's car, either. It might have been months before and when it wasn't even her driving it. The case has to be beyond reasonable doubt so that's all the defence has to raise - it could have got there at some other time and it could have been someone else with him i.e. it could be true he never met her.

Regarding the DNA in Suzy’s car, you’ll only hear about this if it actually matched JC. This would then provide a concrete link between Suzy and JC, which is missing.
If it’s anybody else’s, you’ll never know as it’s not confirming what the police want.

So true. No news in 2 years = no link to Cannan, I reckon.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I've said the position of Suzy's car was odd, and that the only explanation I can think of is that another vehicle or obstacle prevented it from being parked any further forwards, clear of the garage entrance.

The obvious answer could be that Kipper's vehicle was parked in front of Suzy's, closer to 123SR. Even if both cars came and went a few times over the course of the afternoon, if Kipper's was always parked in the same place in front, and Suzy's was always parked in the same place behind, then their relative positions wouldn't change and any movement might not be noticed.

Say Suzy did meet Kipper at 123SR, go to 37SR, and then return to 123SR. Kipper's car would only have been outside 123SR for a brief time before Suzy arrived, a brief time when she returned, and *possibly* for a short time between 2:00PM and 3:30PM if BW's account is accurate. By sheer luck, it's possible his car might not have been seen. Or at least not noticed.

 

[Terryb808]

FWIW and it’s JMO it’s an error to try and reconcile all the witness sightings of Suzy on that Monday.
As suggested, if you make a timeline it’s apparent that they all can’t be accurate.
Regardless of your opinion of DV’s narrative, he has realised this and with good research applied logic to decide where he thought Suzy was going.
Unless his prime suspect has a motive, or DV has more evidence that’s not in his book, his prime suspect just doesn’t hold up.
If you’re going to come up with a workable narrative, you need to decide which sightings you believe to be correct and go from there.
I believe BW to be correct and as has been pointed out in recent posts, this sighting may have sealed her fate.

 

[WiseOwl]

FWIW and it’s JMO it’s an error to try and reconcile all the witness sightings of Suzy on that Monday.
As suggested, if you make a timeline it’s apparent that they all can’t be accurate.
Regardless of your opinion of DV’s narrative, he has realised this and with good research applied logic to decide where he thought Suzy was going.
Unless his prime suspect has a motive, or DV has more evidence that’s not in his book, his prime suspect just doesn’t hold up.
If you’re going to come up with a workable narrative, you need to decide which sightings you believe to be correct and go from there.
I believe BW to be correct and as has been pointed out in recent posts, this sighting may have sealed her fate.

I agree with what you say about the witness sightings and timelines @Terryb808:

So much so that yesterday evening i had a look in AS book about WJ and her view on the white Ford Fiesta being parked on Stevenage Road (pages 26 - 27).

In the Crimewatch reconstruction (1986), WJ can be seen leaving her property around 12.45 to go to the bank, and she crosses the road before passing the Ford Fiesta, which would indicate she got to have a good look at the car and how it was parked. However, in AS book this isn't actually what happened:

'Mrs Jones told a policeman that the previous day she took her dog for a very brief walk at 12.40, before calling for a neighbour Mrs Mahon. She noticed as she did so a white Ford Fiesta was parked by the Mahon's garage, slightly overlapping the entrance, and wondered whether Mrs Mahon's husband would have dificulty getting his car into the garage that evening.'

So, completely left out of the Crimewatch reconstruction, comes the astonishing news that WJ went out with AM that lunchtime, the very same Mrs M who's husband LM would come home at 5.15 to find the car (still?) parked overlapping the entrance to the garage. I must admit i don't recall reading that bit of information before, and it came as a surprise to me!

Does the fact that WJ knew the garage owners add any credence to her story?

To continue (Page 26):

'The two women then drove to the NatWest Bank by Fulham Cross, where AM was changing a large amount of coins from a pay phone in her house. She was embarrassed taking time doing this when there were other lunchtime customers waiting behind her. She glanced at the bank clock and noticed it was 12.49.'

The way it is written sounds like it was AM, not WJ, who noticed the time on the bank clock. Why has AM never been viewed as an important witness to the car being parked where it was? And the timeline doesn't seem right. Taking the dog for a walk, bringing it home, going to call for AM, getting in the car (who's car was it? where was it parked?), driving to the bank, parking the car, and then going into the bank. Did all that really only take 9 minutes?