UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 July 1986

[elliefant]

Apologies if this has already been posted :


Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder launches bid to be freed
Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder John Cannan launches bid to be freed from jail | Daily Mail Online

 

[Crusader21]

Apologies if this has already been posted :


Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder launches bid to be freed
Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder John Cannan launches bid to be freed from jail | Daily Mail Online

Oh dear, here we go ....

 

[Pinkizzy]

Apologies if this has already been posted :


Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder launches bid to be freed
Prime suspect in Suzy Lamplugh's murder John Cannan launches bid to be freed from jail | Daily Mail Online

We can block his move to an open prison

 

[WestLondoner]

DV raises an interesting point about this in his book.

....throughout the duration of Cannan’s 1989 trial for the murder of Shirley Banks, Suzy’s name had never once been mentioned in Exeter Crown Court.....Nor was Suzy’s name mentioned during his appeal in 2008, where the whole-life term was changed, and he was given a thirty-five-year minimum tariff. But now, all these years later, the Parole Board was asking...about Cannan’s involvement in Suzy’s disappearance. ​

He goes on:

The Parole Board was the statutory body that would decide on the recategorisation or release of Cannan from custody....The Parole Board would investigate whether Cannan still posed a risk to the public....But under the new rules, consideration would also now be given to mere allegations, allegations that had never been charged by the police, let alone placed before a court. Alarmingly, under the new laws, the Parole Board had the ability to make a finding of fact. They could decide, without any criminal trial whatsoever, on a much lower burden of proof, that John Cannan had indeed murdered Suzy Lamplugh. Moreover, Parole Board panels could be presented with allegations that have been made against the prisoner or those that were under active investigation by the police, enabling the board to adjudicate on them as if they were true.
​

Cannan is arguing that as he has had a stroke, he no longer represents a danger to the public, so can safely be let out on completion of his revised sentence (which changed in 2008 from whole-of-life to 35 years minimum). The Parole Board can keep him in prison forever by deciding that he killed SJL.

I could not personally give a proverbial if Cannan never gets out. I don't agree that any murderer is somehow entitled to be released. The "I've had a stroke" argument reminds me of A Clockwork Orange, where the thuggish Alex character isn't a reformed criminal at all - he still wants to maim and kill, but is physically prevented from doing so by the treatment he's received. JC's argument is essentially similar - "let me out, even though I'd probably like to murder and rape, because in fact I can't".

I am disturbed, though, by the idea that people convicted of lesser crimes on shorter sentences could be incarcerated for longer than they should be because the police have claimed - as here in SJL's case with literally nil evidence - that they did other things too. Worse, the police are here also refusing to pursue plausible lines of alternative inquiry that might actually exculpate Cannan of this.

As I say, I hold no brief for the likes of Cannan, but this seems to me to be a really gross abuse of law and power. It might well be a good idea to keep this particular lowlife in the slammer forever, but it won't necessarily be the case every time.

 

[WestLondoner]

I guess SL may have returned home to Disraeli Rd and met her killer there before she was killed elsewhere.

You're quite right about this I think. In his book DV omits to consider two things - this possibility, and the BW sighting.

This is not to say he hasn't considered them at all; just not in his book. Re the BW sighting, someone asked him via Twitter "What do you make of the sighting by her friend on Fulham Palace Rd at 2.45pm?", to which he replied "Everything I can currently put into the public domain about this case is in my book" (my bold). He doesn't mention BW at all.

As to the other, your question of did she first go home, DV thinks she had two errands to run. One was retrieving her diary and cheque book from the pub. The other was fetching her tennis kit from home - 300 yards away from the pub - because she had a game booked at 7pm, right after a 6pm house viewing.

She could not have done both errands after 6 but before 7, because there'd have been no time. She could not have done both just before her 6pm meeting, because in 1986 pubs closed at 3 and reopened at 6, so before 6 the pub would have been shut. She therefore had to run both errands at lunchtime, because the pub would be open, and she could swing by home before or after.

She never did retrieve her tennis kit, so presumably DV intuits that she went to the pub first and never did go home. Thus, per DV, she met her fate at the pub.

Of course there's no evidence she reached either place. There's only evidence that she was headed that way. After leaving the office, she could have been abducted at any point in between Whittingstall Road, the pub, and her own front door. It fits the facts, it allows the possibility that she went home first but never made it inside, and it makes the BW sighting report accurate.

My guess is that DV's omission of any mention of BW is deliberate. We don't know what any of "Clive Vole"'s actual movements were on the afternoon in question. But BW saw SJL with a man in a car and later it was found with the seat pushed back to accommodate someone taller or stouter than herself. "Clive" would fit that latter description so maybe DV re-interviewed BW and she recalled that the bloke she saw looked a bit stout?

As hers is the most reliable witness account, it seems very unlikely to me that DV ignored it. It is also not a very credible conjecture that CV done it if the sole basis is that he was at the pub she headed to - if so, so what? No, I reckon DV has more information about CV that points to him, and I would guess that BW is part of that added information.

 

[Terryb808]

DV raises an interesting point about this in his book.

....throughout the duration of Cannan’s 1989 trial for the murder of Shirley Banks, Suzy’s name had never once been mentioned in Exeter Crown Court.....Nor was Suzy’s name mentioned during his appeal in 2008, where the whole-life term was changed, and he was given a thirty-five-year minimum tariff. But now, all these years later, the Parole Board was asking...about Cannan’s involvement in Suzy’s disappearance. ​

He goes on:

The Parole Board was the statutory body that would decide on the recategorisation or release of Cannan from custody....The Parole Board would investigate whether Cannan still posed a risk to the public....But under the new rules, consideration would also now be given to mere allegations, allegations that had never been charged by the police, let alone placed before a court. Alarmingly, under the new laws, the Parole Board had the ability to make a finding of fact. They could decide, without any criminal trial whatsoever, on a much lower burden of proof, that John Cannan had indeed murdered Suzy Lamplugh. Moreover, Parole Board panels could be presented with allegations that have been made against the prisoner or those that were under active investigation by the police, enabling the board to adjudicate on them as if they were true.
​

Cannan is arguing that as he has had a stroke, he no longer represents a danger to the public, so can safely be let out on completion of his revised sentence (which changed in 2008 from whole-of-life to 35 years minimum). The Parole Board can keep him in prison forever by deciding that he killed SJL.

I could not personally give a proverbial if Cannan never gets out. I don't agree that any murderer is somehow entitled to be released. The "I've had a stroke" argument reminds me of A Clockwork Orange, where the thuggish Alex character isn't a reformed criminal at all - he still wants to maim and kill, but is physically prevented from doing so by the treatment he's received. JC's argument is essentially similar - "let me out, even though I'd probably like to murder and rape, because in fact I can't".

I am disturbed, though, by the idea that people convicted of lesser crimes on shorter sentences could be incarcerated for longer than they should be because the police have claimed - as here in SJL's case with literally nil evidence - that they did other things too. Worse, the police are here also refusing to pursue plausible lines of alternative inquiry that might actually exculpate Cannan of this.

As I say, I hold no brief for the likes of Cannan, but this seems to me to be a really gross abuse of law and power. It might well be a good idea to keep this particular lowlife in the slammer forever, but it won't necessarily be the case every time.

Well said, I agree with every word, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? A parole board should not have the power to do things a court has not decreed necessary.

 

[Terryb808]

You're quite right about this I think. In his book DV omits to consider two things - this possibility, and the BW sighting.

This is not to say he hasn't considered them at all; just not in his book. Re the BW sighting, someone asked him via Twitter "What do you make of the sighting by her friend on Fulham Palace Rd at 2.45pm?", to which he replied "Everything I can currently put into the public domain about this case is in my book" (my bold). He doesn't mention BW at all.

As to the other, your question of did she first go home, DV thinks she had two errands to run. One was retrieving her diary and cheque book from the pub. The other was fetching her tennis kit from home - 300 yards away from the pub - because she had a game booked at 7pm, right after a 6pm house viewing.

She could not have done both errands after 6 but before 7, because there'd have been no time. She could not have done both just before her 6pm meeting, because in 1986 pubs closed at 3 and reopened at 6, so before 6 the pub would have been shut. She therefore had to run both errands at lunchtime, because the pub would be open, and she could swing by home before or after.

She never did retrieve her tennis kit, so presumably DV intuits that she went to the pub first and never did go home. Thus, per DV, she met her fate at the pub.

Of course there's no evidence she reached either place. There's only evidence that she was headed that way. After leaving the office, she could have been abducted at any point in between Whittingstall Road, the pub, and her own front door. It fits the facts, it allows the possibility that she went home first but never made it inside, and it makes the BW sighting report accurate.

My guess is that DV's omission of any mention of BW is deliberate. We don't know what any of "Clive Vole"'s actual movements were on the afternoon in question. But BW saw SJL with a man in a car and later it was found with the seat pushed back to accommodate someone taller or stouter than herself. "Clive" would fit that latter description so maybe DV re-interviewed BW and she recalled that the bloke she saw looked a bit stout?

As hers is the most reliable witness account, it seems very unlikely to me that DV ignored it. It is also not a very credible conjecture that CV done it if the sole basis is that he was at the pub she headed to - if so, so what? No, I reckon DV has more information about CV that points to him, and I would guess that BW is part of that added information.

Again spot on, I would guess DV gave the Met everything, not just what went into the book. On this basis it’s even more strange that they have failed to act?
Maybe the impending JC parole decision has influenced the Mets time plan.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I guess SL drove her killer to collect his car on Stevenage Rd as @WiseOwl mentioned earlier. However, something sinister happened on the way and the killer drove her car to its final destination

 

[Crusader21]

Didn't BW say that she recognised and was concentrating on the driver SL, as she cycled past at 2.45?

Yes BW did also notice a male passenger, but SL had her head turned to the left, towards the male and away from BW.

Also 35 years on, how would BW be able to give DV or anyone else, any more of a description, including the build, of this male passenger that she had a fleeting glimpse of?

 

[WiseOwl]

I do understand where DV is heading with his theory of what happened to Suzy and her heading off to the Prince of Wales pub in Putney that lunchtime to collect her chequebook & diary.

However, looking at the location of the PoW it is on a busy junction of Upper Richmond Road & Oxford Road. There doesn't appear anywhere near to the pub to park a car so if Suzy did go to the PoW that day, where did she park her car? The nearest place would appear to be a side road, Disraeli Road off Oxford Road.

So if the acting landlord was responsible for Suzy's disappearance then how did he know:

1. Where Suzy had parked her car

2. What type of car she was driving

I don't see how he would know either of these things.

 

[WestLondoner]

Also 35 years on, how would BW be able to give DV or anyone else, any more of a description, including the build, of this male passenger that she had a fleeting glimpse of?

She couldn't, clearly - any new detail added only now would be unpersuasive. The only way would be if her actual description back then was subtly different or more detailed than is usually reported, and she confirmed it on being reminded. The male passenger being the wrong body shape to be Mr Kipper / JC is exactly the kind of detail that should have made the police revise their hypothesis, but in practice would have just got her statement ignored.

...looking at the location of the PoW it is on a busy junction of Upper Richmond Road & Oxford Road. There doesn't appear anywhere near to the pub to park a car so if Suzy did go to the PoW that day, where did she park her car? The nearest place would appear to be a side road, Disraeli Road off Oxford Road.

So if the acting landlord was responsible for Suzy's disappearance then how did he know:

1. Where Suzy had parked her car

2. What type of car she was driving

I don't see how he would know either of these things.

Really good detail points. The PoW doesn't have a car park now, nor is it obvious where one could have been then.

Re 1, DV's theory would require the parking to have been different in 1986, so that SJL could park much closer than in her own road (Disraeli). I've no idea how you'd find out where the double yellows were in 1986, but she could perhaps be assumed to have parked as close as possible.

Next, re 2, she would have then gone inside carrying her car keys (she didn't take her handbag). These would be on a Ford key fob. So if the killer didn't casually ask SJL "Where did you park?", he has to find which Ford these keys fit, and he knows she's likely parked as near as the yellow lines permit.

Sturgis employees were apparently known to borrow each others' cars, so it is juuuuust possible her key had a tag with the number plate helpfully written on it (a stupid practice if so, because if you drop your keys in the street a thief knows which car he can steal with them). So the killer either heads to the closest point where one could park looking for Fords, and tries the keys till he finds the one they open; or he asked her where she parked and went there; or he searches around until he finds a Ford the keys fit or the one with the right numberplate.

And it all takes time. And somehow she's seen 2 hours later elsewhere by someone who knew her.

The thing I don't get about DV's theory is this. There were five people at the pub: the outgoing tenant couple, the cover tenant couple (CV plus his now ex), and the mysterious Brendan the cellarman, mentioned only once. We can rule out the first couple because they had gone by lunchtime. We hear nothing about Brendan, so the obvious inference is that it was CV, because there's nobody else. But inference is all it is. There's no evidence except the possibility of a body there, there's no motive, there are a lot of practical obstacles to his having done it - those Wise Owl mentions plus others, eg the risk of someone disturbing him while he hastily disposes of a body, of his being challenged when he disappears to find and then dump, her car, and so on. It could be Brendan and DV has avoided talking about him like he's not mentioned BW, but Brendan has exactly the same problems CV would have had, so he's no better placed to have done it.

Unless CV and his missus are another Fred and Rose West, I wonder if there is some deliberate misdirection going on here?

 

[Pinkizzy]

She couldn't, clearly - any new detail added only now would be unpersuasive. The only way would be if her actual description back then was subtly different or more detailed than is usually reported, and she confirmed it on being reminded. The male passenger being the wrong body shape to be Mr Kipper / JC is exactly the kind of detail that should have made the police revise their hypothesis, but in practice would have just got her statement ignored.



Really good detail points. The PoW doesn't have a car park now, nor is it obvious where one could have been then.

Re 1, DV's theory would require the parking to have been different in 1986, so that SJL could park much closer than in her own road (Disraeli). I've no idea how you'd find out where the double yellows were in 1986, but she could perhaps be assumed to have parked as close as possible.

Next, re 2, she would have then gone inside carrying her car keys (she didn't take her handbag). These would be on a Ford key fob. So if the killer didn't casually ask SJL "Where did you park?", he has to find which Ford these keys fit, and he knows she's likely parked as near as the yellow lines permit.

Sturgis employees were apparently known to borrow each others' cars, so it is juuuuust possible her key had a tag with the number plate helpfully written on it (a stupid practice if so, because if you drop your keys in the street a thief knows which car he can steal with them). So the killer either heads to the closest point where one could park looking for Fords, and tries the keys till he finds the one they open; or he asked her where she parked and went there; or he searches around until he finds a Ford the keys fit or the one with the right numberplate.

And it all takes time. And somehow she's seen 2 hours later elsewhere by someone who knew her.

The thing I don't get about DV's theory is this. There were five people at the pub: the outgoing tenant couple, the cover tenant couple (CV plus his now ex), and the mysterious Brendan the cellarman, mentioned only once. We can rule out the first couple because they had gone by lunchtime. We hear nothing about Brendan, so the obvious inference is that it was CV, because there's nobody else. But inference is all it is. There's no evidence except the possibility of a body there, there's no motive, there are a lot of practical obstacles to his having done it - those Wise Owl mentions plus others, eg the risk of someone disturbing him while he hastily disposes of a body, of his being challenged when he disappears to find and then dump, her car, and so on. It could be Brendan and DV has avoided talking about him like he's not mentioned BW, but Brendan has exactly the same problems CV would have had, so he's no better placed to have done it.

Unless CV and his missus are another Fred and Rose West, I wonder if there is some deliberate misdirection going on here?

I guess CV may have waited outside the pub for SL to arrive in her Ford

 

[WiseOwl]

She couldn't, clearly - any new detail added only now would be unpersuasive. The only way would be if her actual description back then was subtly different or more detailed than is usually reported, and she confirmed it on being reminded. The male passenger being the wrong body shape to be Mr Kipper / JC is exactly the kind of detail that should have made the police revise their hypothesis, but in practice would have just got her statement ignored.



Really good detail points. The PoW doesn't have a car park now, nor is it obvious where one could have been then.

Re 1, DV's theory would require the parking to have been different in 1986, so that SJL could park much closer than in her own road (Disraeli). I've no idea how you'd find out where the double yellows were in 1986, but she could perhaps be assumed to have parked as close as possible.

Next, re 2, she would have then gone inside carrying her car keys (she didn't take her handbag). These would be on a Ford key fob. So if the killer didn't casually ask SJL "Where did you park?", he has to find which Ford these keys fit, and he knows she's likely parked as near as the yellow lines permit.

Sturgis employees were apparently known to borrow each others' cars, so it is juuuuust possible her key had a tag with the number plate helpfully written on it (a stupid practice if so, because if you drop your keys in the street a thief knows which car he can steal with them). So the killer either heads to the closest point where one could park looking for Fords, and tries the keys till he finds the one they open; or he asked her where she parked and went there; or he searches around until he finds a Ford the keys fit or the one with the right numberplate.

And it all takes time. And somehow she's seen 2 hours later elsewhere by someone who knew her.

The thing I don't get about DV's theory is this. There were five people at the pub: the outgoing tenant couple, the cover tenant couple (CV plus his now ex), and the mysterious Brendan the cellarman, mentioned only once. We can rule out the first couple because they had gone by lunchtime. We hear nothing about Brendan, so the obvious inference is that it was CV, because there's nobody else. But inference is all it is. There's no evidence except the possibility of a body there, there's no motive, there are a lot of practical obstacles to his having done it - those Wise Owl mentions plus others, eg the risk of someone disturbing him while he hastily disposes of a body, of his being challenged when he disappears to find and then dump, her car, and so on. It could be Brendan and DV has avoided talking about him like he's not mentioned BW, but Brendan has exactly the same problems CV would have had, so he's no better placed to have done it.

Unless CV and his missus are another Fred and Rose West, I wonder if there is some deliberate misdirection going on here?

As well as the points you make WestLondoner, there is something else I believe DV has skimmed over. In his book when he speaks to CV about the day in question, CV clearly states that the pub was open that day.

So not only does that leave CV, his wife and B the cellarman around, there would also be customers and potentially bar staff in the pub that afternoon. So how would CV have the time to find Suzy's car, drive it to Fulham and then get back to the pub, as well as having to hide a body in his cellar at the same time? It just doesn't add up at all.

The only way CV could have accomplished this is if he had help from either his wife or B the cellarman but how unlikely does that seem?

 

[Bickles]

The only way CV could have accomplished this is if he had help from either his wife or B the cellarman but how unlikely does that seem?[/QUOTE]

In DV's book, CV says he was in by himself while all this was going on. I wonder for how long he was at the pub alone? The permanent landlords left at some point to visit family. Where was CV's partner and the bar staff I wonder?

 

[Terryb808]

The only way CV could have accomplished this is if he had help from either his wife or B the cellarman but how unlikely does that seem?

In DV's book, CV says he was in by himself while all this was going on. I wonder for how long he was at the pub alone? The permanent landlords left at some point to visit family. Where was CV's partner and the bar staff I wonder?[/QUOTE]
It was outlined in DV's book that they had to do a stock take, that this was usually complete by midday, so maybe (as pubs closed at 3.00pm back then) it was deemed that reopening should be early evening. This would have left CV in on his own (possibly), but I don't think the cellar man would have stayed after the stock take was completed. He would have needed to be back at the PoW before 5.00pm and if the other timings are correct that would make the hurried abandonment of SJL's car understandable.
What doesn't fit at all is the sighting by BW at 2.45pm going towards Hammersmith, this is completely wrong. DV has only put in the book what he can make public, therefore, he must have a lot more information that he just can't let out.

 

[WiseOwl]

In DV's book, CV says he was in by himself while all this was going on. I wonder for how long he was at the pub alone? The permanent landlords left at some point to visit family. Where was CV's partner and the bar staff I wonder?

It was outlined in DV's book that they had to do a stock take, that this was usually complete by midday, so maybe (as pubs closed at 3.00pm back then) it was deemed that reopening should be early evening. This would have left CV in on his own (possibly), but I don't think the cellar man would have stayed after the stock take was completed. He would have needed to be back at the PoW before 5.00pm and if the other timings are correct that would make the hurried abandonment of SJL's car understandable.
What doesn't fit at all is the sighting by BW at 2.45pm going towards Hammersmith, this is completely wrong. DV has only put in the book what he can make public, therefore, he must have a lot more information that he just can't let out.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem we all have is trying to decipher CV's interview in the book. He briefly states 'I was by myself while this was going on' but is no more elaborate than that. So I don't think we can just assume that CV was alone for too long as surely he would need help to run the pub that afternoon? I say afternoon because CV does say 'I got a phone call back about dinner time, before we opened' which would suggest that they would be open that afternoon. He said that the caller said she (Suzy) would be round later to pick her things up, so presumably this call was from Suzy's bank.

So when CV says dinner time, I would think he meant around 12.00, as we know Suzy didn't leave work until 12.45.

This is something DV should have picked up on when interviewing CV. He should have asked how long he was by himself for or what time the pub opened that day. Unless he did of course and is keeping this information out of the book for some reason?

 

[WestLondoner]

What doesn't fit at all is the sighting by BW at 2.45pm going towards Hammersmith, this is completely wrong. DV has only put in the book what he can make public, therefore, he must have a lot more information that he just can't let out.

Agree. The "case" against CV is inferential, in that if it happened at the pub, he's the only person said to have been at the pub at that time, ergo the reader deduces it was him. As CV's real name is given in the 1988 book on this case and it's not "Clive Vole", this supports the idea that a name has been changed as a precaution.

DV certainly knows this is well short of a proper case, so he's surely got something else. The something else may be something that accommodates the BW sighting, but that can't be put in the public domain.

In a way, his book only does half the job. It does a complete and proper number on the police investigation, but is then a very incomplete speculation on who actually did this instead.

 

[WestLondoner]

I think the problem we all have is trying to decipher CV's interview in the book. He briefly states 'I was by myself while this was going on' but is no more elaborate than that. So I don't think we can just assume that CV was alone for too long as surely he would need help to run the pub that afternoon? I say afternoon because CV does say 'I got a phone call back about dinner time, before we opened' which would suggest that they would be open that afternoon. He said that the caller said she (Suzy) would be round later to pick her things up, so presumably this call was from Suzy's bank.

The two calls are intriguing. One was supposedly from a police officer about the chequebook. But the police were never involved in this until much later, after SJL was reported missing. If as I suspect this call was from the killer, checking when and if SJL was expected there, then CV can't have done it. The call from the woman is baffling because she said to keep SJL there, when she came, until she got there (the caller). That wouldn't have been the bank and is too early to have been DL - so who was it?

Does anyone know where the account of two phone calls originated? Was it with CV himself, or someone else?

 

[WiseOwl]

Agree. The "case" against CV is inferential, in that if it happened at the pub, he's the only person said to have been at the pub at that time, ergo the reader deduces it was him. As CV's real name is given in the 1988 book on this case and it's not "Clive Vole", this supports the idea that a name has been changed as a precaution.

DV certainly knows this is well short of a proper case, so he's surely got something else. The something else may be something that accommodates the BW sighting, but that can't be put in the public domain.

In a way, his book only does half the job. It does a complete and proper number on the police investigation, but is then a very incomplete speculation on who actually did this instead.

I agree with your comments WL, it is just speculation on DV's part that implies that CV had something to do with Suzy's disappearance. In his book he states that 'If Suzy's final destination was the Prince of Wales pub, as all of the evidence suggests it was'. All of what evidence? We know that Suzy's chequebook & diary were found at the pub but there is absolutely no evidence to prove she was ever there that afternoon, none whatsoever.

For me, the book threw up more questions than answers. For a start, the keys to Shorrolds Road.

DV was told that Sturgis only held one set of keys to each property, yet on the Tuesday morning the police seemingly used a set of keys to get into the property. Where did they come from?

In his 2nd interview with MG (Suzy's boss at Sturgis), DV asks him where the police got the keys from to Shorrolds Road. MG seems evasive at this question and suggests that maybe they found them in Suzy's car before saying that he didn't know where they came from.

However, if you watch the Crimewatch show about Suzy from October 1986 MG actually takes part in this. Firstly he is seen at the Sturgis office, then he is seen at 37 Shorrolds Road (with another man, NH possibly?) knocking on the door and looking for Suzy.

Shortly after this clip Det Supt Nick Carter is talking to Sue Cook and he clearly states that the keys to 37 Shorrolds Road are still missing.

I would have presumed that MG & all the other staff who worked with Suzy would have watched this show, and I find it astonishing that not one of them picked up on this when Crimewatch was shown.

Or did one of them know about the keys but decided to keep their mouths shut for some reason?

 

[Konstantin]

Just a few thoughts after reading the DV book and this thread, and the Medium true crime posts that reference the 1988 book.

1. If SJL didn't take the keys to the Mr Kipper property and she didn't go there, then there is no basis whatsoever to suspect JC. The only real piece of (not very good) "evidence" against JC is the photofit that kind of might look like him. Although as DV and I think others have noted, the witness in that case is not very reliable. Initially he seems to have claimed he saw a woman or someone bundled into van and then retracted it (can anyone confirm that is what happened?), he doesn't remember what the woman he claims to have seen looked like and could not describe her, and in all likelihood this witness statement is just not reliable enough at all to place SJL at the Kipper house. That with DV's claim that the keys to the house were not missing, and the fact that Sturgis had no record made of a Mr Kipper, really do suggest she never went there and the entry in her diary was scribbled in to let her leave the office to run a quick errand (she didn't take her bag-- I think that suggests she did not mean to be gone very long).

How long was the car journey from the Sturgis office to the pub?

2. If as DV seems to be strongly inferring CV may have been responsible for, or associated with, SJL's death, then he has a very good reason actually to lie about/ invent the phone calls afterwards. It's also possible he just got confused with what days the police call happened on although in DV's book he seemed certain.

If he was responsible then he needs to establish to the police that SJL never came to the pub (since if he admits she did go there, then it puts him in the picture). So claiming that people called him asking after her later that afternoon gives him the opportunity to establish his version that she did not attend the pub. It gives him the chance to put forward a narrative whereby when he was asked (by people who cannot be traced) if SJL had been there, he could say she had not. That kind of gives him a sort of alibi for not having crossed paths with SJL. It was known that SJL planned to go to the pub to collect her stuff, so CV has to make a story that explains that she did not. If he just says no she didn't show up, that is less powerful than a story that involves others, where he told them she did not show.

I think DV offers an explanation which I don't think is very plausible, of SJL having gone shopping in Putney or being in Putney and seeing a friend of her mother or something and maybe she told her she was going to the pub, but if that is the case then how come that never came out in any media reporting or why would it not have changed the police insistence that she went to Shorrolds road. I need to find his explanation again to understand more what he was trying to suggest.

3. If JC was responsible(which I do not believe as there is zero evidence, see point 1 above) then it makes no logical sense for him to force SJL to phone the pub to give a reason for why she has not shown up there. The people who are going to miss SJL are her colleagues at Sturgis, so I would assume if he wanted to pull the same stunt he did with Shirley Banks, he would have got her to phone Sturgis and say she was taken ill, and had gone somewhere to lie down. That solves the problem for him of Sturgis raising the alarm. But no one called Sturgis.

4. I think that SJL's friend who claims to have seen her may have just got the time or the day wrong. If SJL planned to stay out of the office longer I assume she would have taken her bag or invented a longer or a series of appointments, since she was allegedly seen driving around at a later time not in distress, this does not make much sense. Although there could be other explanations for this sighting. I don't want to discount it just because its inconvenient.

5. DV's book seems to establish that the pub was most likely closed during the day so if SJL had gone there at lunch time then the only people there would have been CV, his wife and possibly the cellar man although as others have mentioned if it was closed there was no reason for him to be there.