Suzy Lamplugh - 33 years since she went missing

[MarathonMo]

33 years since she went missing and all evidence seemed to point to John Canaan as the man responsible.

David Videcette states he has compelling evidence that Canaan wasn't responsible & claims he now has the proof after a 3 year private investigation.

He believes the 'Mr Kipper' appointment was a red herring and Suzy left the office to go on a personal errand (?). Allegedly, the police missed a lot in their initial investigations.

He claims the police focused on the wrong man as they did in the Rachel Nickell case (Colin Stagg).

Perhaps one day this will be solved and her family will get closure.

new twist?

If all the other staff 'knew what Mr Kipper meant' I take that to mean it was a euphemism for something else; AND if they knew that the only key and the yellow fob never left the office, that means they conspired to mislead the police from the very beginning judging by the contents of the Crimewatch programme. ...Is that possible or likely?

Anything is possible. As for likely ... well if SL was up to something other than her day job and it was common knowledge/accepted practice, then it might explain why there was less concern when SL failed to appear initially.

On the flip side, one thing police tend to be good at - and detectives very good at - is finding the oddness in multiple statements to alert them to such funniness. And hopefully they'll have the experience and imagination to understand that people can lead complicated lives and not every inconsistency is evidence of guilt.

"Mr. Kipper" could have been a sort of superficial code - much like the reported names that get called out over airport tannoys to alert staff without spooking passengers.

However, that said, the police pretty quickly announced a search for "Mr. Kipper" which means they had no reason to suspect it was anything other than a real person - albeit under a false name. And at the time it was repeated mentioned that "Mr. Kipper" was not only possibly but most likely an alias.

There's a documentary online called 'The Man Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh' it 's much longer and more detailed than others and makes claims that are not elsewhere.

They include the fact that around 1980 there were a series of rapes at properties for sale in the Sutton Coldfield area, where John C lived at the time. He was never interviewed and they remain unsolved.

The police say they have some DNA evidence that Sandra Court, who went missing in the Bournemouth area, may have been in a red sierra used by John. He was supposed to have been in the are a on the day she was murdered.

Also, John allegedly told colleagues at the prop hire firm where he worked, when in the halfway house hostel, he was dating a girl called 'Su Su' who was an 'uptown girl'.

The landlady or similar is interviewed, from the Prince of Wales pub, Putney, she says John was a regular pretty much with the most compelling eyes and movie star looks.

It's stated the police think John C was in this pub when Suzy was there on the Friday before she disappeared with her boyfriend.

Suzy's boyfriend is interviewed and he explains how a chequebook, postcard and personal items of Suzy's were stolen that night from her handbag in the pub. It meant a lovely evening was spoiled. Why not money or credit cards? Did she have her purse separately?

Someone rang the office claiming to be a policeman (? this part wasn't too clear) stating that they had these personal items.

The policeman in the documentary says that this was untrue as no policeman had made this call but someone else certainly had.

The documentary mentions unwelcome deliveries of flowers Suzy received.

I wonder if the Prince of Wales pub was later discounted as being significant etc? The items going missing so close to her disappearance might tie into all this somehow, or a coincidence?

Or was the story proved false or inaccurate later on? Or is this what is meant by evidence being discounted, prematurely, at the time?

Another documentary suggested that Suzy had an appointment to collect these belongings from the pub around 6:30pm I think.

Was any evidence - fingerprints or whatever - ever found that proved Susy had been in the Shorrolds Road house? Because if there was, someone else must have gone there with a key.

@BurningTheToast the new evidence apparently points to Suzy never entering the house or doing a viewing as she never had the keys.

^@DGRossetti
^
"Mr. Kipper" could have been a sort of superficial code - much like the reported names that get called out over airport tannoys to alert staff without spooking passengers.

The above can be discounted totally. If Mr Kipper was a code in the office the manager and colleague wouldn't have gone to Shorrolds mid afternoon looking for Suzy. The name Mr Kipper would have been found in other people's diaries too if it was used as a code. it's a stretch of the imagination to think the staff would have conjured such a strange name as a code, A code for what? They are estate agents, not a public airport or suchlike. People are getting too carried away on that and the staff were getting concerned where Suzy was long before they called the police, that's why they went to Shorrolds just a few hours later

^@DGRossetti
^
"Mr. Kipper" could have been a sort of superficial code - much like the reported names that get called out over airport tannoys to alert staff without spooking passengers.

The above can be discounted totally. If Mr Kipper was a code in the office the manager and colleague wouldn't have gone to Shorrolds mid afternoon looking for Suzy. The name Mr Kipper would have been found in other people's diaries too if it was used as a code. it's a stretch of the imagination to think the staff would have conjured such a strange name as a code, A code for what? They are estate agents, not a public airport or suchlike. People are getting too carried away on that and the staff were getting concerned where Suzy was long before they called the police, that's why they went to Shorrolds just a few hours later

^@DGRossetti
^
"Mr. Kipper" could have been a sort of superficial code - much like the reported names that get called out over airport tannoys to alert staff without spooking passengers.

The above can be discounted totally. If Mr Kipper was a code in the office the manager and colleague wouldn't have gone to Shorrolds mid afternoon looking for Suzy. The name Mr Kipper would have been found in other people's diaries too if it was used as a code. it's a stretch of the imagination to think the staff would have conjured such a strange name as a code, A code for what? They are estate agents, not a public airport or suchlike. People are getting too carried away on that and the staff were getting concerned where Suzy was long before they called the police, that's why they went to Shorrolds just a few hours later

@Ihaveseenalot I believe new evidence has pointed to the staff possibly knowing what the Kipper entry meant. In which case why didn't any of them let anyone know?

Had Suzy made an arrangement to go to see the man who her 'found' her possessions to get her things back (which were stolen on the Friday night)? Was this the 'errand' that she ran that afternoon? Whoever had them was potentially her stalker and 'Kipper'?

I can't believe that the alleged fact a bogus policeman rang the office to say he had her belongings never made it on to the Crimewatch programme and hasn't been more widely commented on or seemingly investigated?

This is stated as fact by police on a documentary on the case. Her boyfriend, Adam, also says these were personal items that were taken from her bag three days before she went missing.

There's other commentary and evidence out there that suggests Suzy didn't do the viewings and someone else was driving her car that afternoon and she went somewhere else. The keys apparently never left the office, etc.

@MarathonMo I don't buy this new theory that everyone in the office knew what Mr Kipper meant. It sounds like a murder mystery intrigue you see in far fetched dramas on tv. Suzy had written the address of the property down which had only been on the market for a week so did all the staff put Mr Kipper in their diaries with a random property when they wanted a sneaky hour off? It's ridiculous especially using such a fishy name! The story he's telling doesn't add up with the events of the day. Suzy left the office at 12:40 and got in her car which must have been nearby, and it wasn't there anymore so unless she was abducted within just yards of the office on a hugely busy High Road without anyone seeing she must have driven off! The car had gone hadn't it!

About 3 different witnesses saw who they thought was Suzy outside Shorrolds Road too including the one who saw her arguing with a man of Canaan's description. The weird part IMO is that her car was spotted at 12:45 in Stevenage Road and never left the spot until it was found by police at 10pm. That is the major puzzle. A witness who lived in Stevenage Road described Suzy and a man who looked like Cannan talking in the same road at exactly 12:45 so there were several sighting from several witnesses who all seemed the same looking couple in 2 different roads at around the SAME time. Those roads are about a mile apart and Suzy's car was outside a property Sturgis had up for sale in Stevenage Road

Somehow and for some reason it sounds like Suzy first went to Stevenage Road and then to Shorrolds in a different car, that's if all the witnesses were correct but not all those witnesses could have described both Suzy and Cannan in the same way so it's a real mystery.

@MarathonMo Where did you read Suzy had a boyfriend called Adam and that the police interviewed him? There's suggestions she was dating a man with Bristol connections who she was suspicious of and it's possible she had more than one boyfriend and played the field, nothing wrong in that when you're young free and single

The Man Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh

Re: Adam. Scroll down for video clip 'The Man Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh'. I can't find this elsewhere and it seems to contradict other evidence. The boyfriend is also well documented in Andrew Stephen's book (The Suzy Lamplugh Story) and appeared at some of the early press conferences I believe.

Note the mentions of the Prince of Wales pub in Putney. There is a lot here that I think is potentially significant that seems not to have been fully investigated or seen as important at the time. Suzy was half perched on top of her desk, just before she left the office, on the phone sorting something out about items that she'd lost or had been discovered there. See on...

I think there are two important points that come out here:

1. The only real, solid sighting of Suzy IMO is the one by her friend, Barbara, who knew her. This happened around 2:45pm. She saw her in a white fiesta, which she assumed was her car, heading out towards Hammersmith on the Fulham Palace Road. She looked serious but not alarmed and was talking to a male passenger. Was she heading out of London?

The fiesta was spotted in Stevenage Road from 12:45pm approx, if the witness sighting was accurate. This is the second most credible sighting of the car/her car I feel.

I think both Stephen in his book and Videcette were accurate in that they suggest Suzy may never have gone to Shorrolds Road for a viewing at all. Her car was parked in Whittingstall Road, by the office, that much is certain.

As Stephen says 'Did she drive away..did she really go to Shorrold's Road? Was Riglin's recollection accurate?' Riglin later said he thought that maybe he had been mistaken and it was a neighbouring property where he'd noticed people. He was never really sure about anything it seems. Other 'Shorrolds' witnesses came forward after a TV reconstruction etc.

The woman who saw the parked fiesta there at Stevenage Rd at 12:45, Wendy Jones, had her house on the market via Sturgis .Was Suzy's presence there something to do with that? (Stephen ponders) Wendy Jones had checked a clock previous to seeing the car so her timeline might be pretty accurate. As Stephen says 'If Wendy Jones's evidence was accurate then Suzy's car was parked in that position from almost the moment she left the Sturgis Office in Fulham Road'

1. The theft or loss of Suzy's cheque book pocket diary and postcard. IMO this is KEY to her disappearance or fairly important.

Suzy arrived at the office about 8:45am and then was, according to Stephen, 'preoccupied with her missing cheque book, diary and postcard, first stopping the cheques with her bank and then when she realised her things had been found arranging to pick them up from the pub later.

As Stephen says 'the publican contacted her bank on Monday morning, who duly rang her at Sturgis. She then spoke to the Landlord's wife at around 12:40 that lunchtime - in other words immediately before she left the office - and arranged to pick them up at 6pm on Monday evening. But she never turned up' (NB she had an appointment in her office diary for 6pm??).

Suzy had apparently dropped her things after having dinner with boyfriend Adam at Mossop's in the Upper Richmond Rd.

Later on the publican was interviewed again, he said he had found Suzy's missing items on the front steps of his pub late Friday evening. (According to Stephen's book). He is described as being 'patently honest and straightforward'.

'That afternoon he now told police, someone who said her name was Sarah had phoned him and left a message for Susannah (apparently for when she turned up at the pub) to ring her at a number he wrote down. Some time later a man also spoke to him on the phone who said he was a policeman'.

Stephen says the detectives were 'aghast' as they realised no policeman could have phoned the publican on the afternoon Suzy went missing as this was before the disappearance was reported to the police.

The publican insisted he had given the scrap of paper with this information on it to the police. The squad said he must be mistaken.

Stephen asks in his book if this call might have been made by Suzy herself as a plea for help (?) Was this policeman who called in the abductor? Seems unlikely but maybe there was more to it?

I don't think everyone in the office necessarily 'knew' what Kipper meant but I wonder if they suspected she was involved in some sort of property business or deal and might be popping out on that account?

Andrew Stephen's book on this is interesting and suggests Suzy had been offered money for a property and also that she mentioned she was due a large amount of commission shortly. John C seems to have allegedly been involved with a gang that had something to do with mortgage fraud which may or may not tie up.

I think the problem with it all is that it's difficult to tell how accurate the source material is. Stephen's book seems sound in its recount.

@MarathonMo

Damn, I typed out a lengthy response and lost it!

Firstly, I don't recall Adam at all, but he's clearly not a suspect so maybe that's why police kept him relatively low profile. I'm confused with all these rumours that Suzy was supposedly seeing a man with Bristol connections: why did he never come forward? Even her uncle said Suzy had told him she was seeing a man who she didn't trust & she suspected he may have been married.

I also read that when Steven delved into her life for his book, there were revelations that upset her family. Apparently, they were the type of revelations worthy of the News Of The World. We don't know what those are, but in a way, by NOT revealing them people can conjure up all sorts of things that are probably untrue. I suspect these revelations are nothing more than what many young, pretty women in their 20s sometimes do. She may have had more than one boyfriend on the go (we don't know how serious she was about Adam), she may have gone to parties that got wild with lots of drink, maybe recreational drugs, sexual flings...all pretty harmless stuff that young people often do at that age.

Onto her car, it was definitely parked, partially blocking a private garage in Stevenage Road around 12:45 and didn't move from that spot until the police found it at 10pm. Several witnesses saw it parked there at different times of the day, including the owner of the garage who returned at 5pm.

The lady who lived opposite gave such an accurate description and even described Suzy's hat. She also described a couple of Suzy's description and JC's too. If you watch the video you can see by her body language and speech that she's telling the truth. She even stops herself when she goes to say the man was "very" good looking. She realises it isn't appropriate to describe a possible murderer as very good-looking, so changes it to just good-looking. She even puts her hands down her face as she recounts his looks. Although she said she first spotted the car at 12:45 she may not be accurate on that. We can all be out on a specific time by 10 minutes or so. She said she'd looked at her clock when she was leaving, but her clock could have been slow/fast: it's possible.

As for Shorrolds Road, there too were witnesses who described Suzy stood outside with her car double parked. Either she couldn't find a parking space (but would an estate agent leave their car double parked to do a viewing?), or she intended to pick Mr Kipper up outside and then drive to Stevenage Road or back to Sturgis. Did she have the keys to Stevenage Road? Maybe Sturgis never had keys for that property if the sellers lived there and were at home for viewings. If it's true she didn't take the keys to Shorrolds, and we only have this new revelation from DV, did she just forget them? And if she was skiving off on the pretence of doing a viewing she'd hardly leave the keys behind and trip herself up. Nor would her manager and colleague go to Shorrolds mid afternoon looking through the window to try and find Suzy if the keys were in the office - they'd have checked for the keys in the office. On Crimewatch they said the keys to Shorrolds were still missing, so how has DV, 30 years later discovered they weren't missing, especially when Sturgis are no longer in existence. And whoever he spoke to from the estate agency, their memories must be hazy to say the least. Whoever gave him that information, how does he know they're not wrong?

Two separate witnesses also described a man of Canaan's appearance at Shorrolds. One, a taxi driver, said he collected him from Stevenage Road and took him to Shorrolds Road. He said he was carrying Champagne that had a celebratory ribbon around its neck. Another witness, a builder, also said the exact same thing: he passed a couple outside Shorrolds and the man, again fitting JC's description was holding the same Champagne with the ribbon.

The distance between Stevenage Road and Shorrolds is just over one mile, which takes just minutes to get to. Suzy was also spotted driving fast by a van driver who had to swerve out the way. I suspect Suzy did go to Shorrolds and why she didn't enter the property could be that she HAD forgotten the keys, and when Mr K turned up he asked her to drive him to Stevenage Road where his BMW was parked.

As for Suzy's friend saying she saw her driving at 2:30pm, I'm not sure she was convinced herself that it was Suzy. She admitted that there were lots of white Ford Fiestas around, and also said that Suzy had her head turned towards her male passenger (who she couldn't describe). I find it odd that while she was cycling along, she took one arm off the handlebars (on a busy street at that) and waved at Suzy who had her head turned in the opposite direction. Why would anyone wave at a friend who couldn't possibly see you? I don't know how close a friend she was of Suzy's, but just because she was a friend doesn't mean she was correct, nor does it mean she didn't want a bit of attention. I'm sure that isn't the case, but you do get people coming forward with information simply because they want to be seen as helping or suchlike...

Going back to the appointment at Shorrolds for a moment, if JC set a ruse to get Suzy to Shorrolds, how did he know she'd do the viewing and not someone else? Its possible he struck lucky and spoke to her on the phone (and if she had been dating him maybe he got a fellow con to make the phone call) and she said she'd do the viewing. It's also odd that Suzy hadn't put a full name in her diary, such as she did for her 6pm viewing. All estate agents ask your full name, not just to make sure you're genuine, but they like to call you by your first name for marketing reasons. It can't be ruled out that Suzy knew she was meeting JC - or even someone else. Nor can it be ruled out that she was lured there

I totally agree with you about the missing cheque book etc: that's definitely strange - in every single way. I don't think it's odd that Suzy told the publican she'd collect them at 6pm: she probably intended quickly stopping off en route to her 6 o'clock viewing to pick them up.

Going away from that for a moment...it has been implied that maybe Suzy intended to use an empty property for a romantic encounter, but she lived only 10 minutes away from Sturgis, so she'd have gone there, surely? And she'd certainly have taken her bag. If you're intending on having a tryst you want to brush your hair, reapply lipstick, maybe spray perfume...so I don't think Suzy had any intention of such an encounter.

I absolutely agree with you about the missing cheque book, diary & postcard: that's terribly sinister. Someone in that pub or restaurant on the Friday rifled through her bag. They didn't take her purse, possibly so she wouldn't call the police; they wanted to snoop in her diary, and took the postcard for her address. The police have been terribly lax here. They even lost the scrap of paper the publican had given them with the phone number of the woman who rang him. I think "Mr Kipper" knew Suzy couldn't report her cheque book stolen over the weekend (banks weren't open at weekends and there was no 24 hour phone numbers like we have now). A favourite trick of thieves/burglars back in the day, was to remove a few cheques from the BACK of a cheque book, so when people found their cheque book and looked, they'd not notice cheques from the back had been stolen and so didn't report its loss to the bank. The thieves would then use those cheques and chances were they'd clear. John Cannan was also a thief, remember. And he also frequented that same pub. He also seemed to have a type: three of his victims bear similarities. What doesn't tie up, though, is that if Suzy had been in a relationship with JC, she'd have seen him in the pub when she was with Adam. It's possible she DID see him & just felt awkward, especially if she'd already dumped him, but it's equally possible she didn't know JC at all and he just stalked her. He tried to date the florist or some other shopkeeper just doors away from Sturgis, so it's highly unlikely he didn't spot Suzy too...

I do think everything points to JC being Suzy's murderer. The only deviation from his MO was that his attacks were usually random and not well planned, but how do we know he didn't plan attacks and has got away with those ones too? And although his attacks were mainly random, some weren't. He raped his ex-girlfriend and buggered her. The young girl found murdered in Bournemouth...another random. JC was in Bournemouth that very day and also went to the same nightclub she went to. His red car was found in a scrapyard many years later and two hairs found in the footwell and on the passenger headrest gave a 40,000 to 1 DNA reading that it was Sandra's, but the police said it wasn't high enough for a conviction. It's still a huge odds though...so although JC's attacks (those we know were committed by him) were random, not all of them were. There could even be women who were raped by him after having just a few drinks with him who never cane forward. Not all women do. He was also extremely confident, so much so, he joined a video dating site in Bristol. It's possible he wanted a career minded woman so he could use her money, it's unlikely he'd join so he could rape one immediately. He was possibly planning on a list of women who he could rape/kill many months after one date with her and discovering where she lived etc...he's a cunning psychopath.

If as DV claims JC isn't Suzy's killer, why has this man remained at large for over 30 years, never killed since, is now maybe in his 60s, maybe unfit, and DV is worried that he may suddenly kill again soon after three decades? That's sounds far fetched to me.

@Ihaveseenalot, in haste, and will come back in more detail when I have more time.

Keys to Shorrolds - DV has done a lot of research around these and I think feels pretty convinced that they never left the office. Will be really interested to hear what he's discovered. I think she took keys for another property/properties. I am not convinced she ever entered the property, maybe she picked someone up in Shorrolds?

Double parking, everyone did it back then for quick viewings. NB: the Manager, Gurdon's, red fiesta double parked when they did the reconstruction.

Her friend Barbara's sighting, I have seen interview clips of her twice. I think she was confident it was Suzy but not that it was necessarily her car, others had the white fiestas and they borrowed each others cars. Suzy's car had been borrowed only that morning by the office junior.

There were fewer cars and agents about back in 1986 and offices worked a very local 'patch'.

Barbara worked with retained clients, she had seen Suzy on almost a daily basis for over a year. She did not seem the fanciful type and says she was sure. You'd be very careful about misleading the police I think, especially if you knew Suzy.

Chequebook and theft of her things

There are discrepancies here, Adam says or suggests they were lost in the restaurant and yet the publican says he found her things on the steps of the pub the next morning.

You think the police lost the piece of paper with this mystery woman's number on it?? What if they were never given it in the first place despite the claims?

The policeman who came on the line just who wasn't really a policeman. What did he say to the publican? How did he tie up with mystery Sarah?

Surely this was HUGE. Who was he?

Suzy's very last actions and thoughts before she walked out of the Sturgis office that afternoon were about her chequebook and things, she was quite anxious about them. Would she have waited until the end of the day to collect items, so close by, if so? She was on the phone about them seconds before she left the office.

She was thinking of going into business with someone, apparently, did this tie in? Re: transactions?

If JC was really a regular at the Prince of Wales pub in Putney ( I am not sure I was sold on the evidence given by the barmaid/woman that worked there on this, the one that spoke about his movie star looks) then the evidence that JC was involved, given the theft of her things a couple of days before her abduction, becomes even more compelling. I think the idea re: stalker fits and I hadn't thought about addresses etc.

NB: I thought Stephen's comments on Suzy's life were not hugely critical, I think that if published a decade or so later no one would have thought they were. Stephen states that his discoveries about her private life on board ship etc did not fit the narrative her parents knew and that was, unfortunately, an issue. I thought she sounded like a normal 20, vibrant 20 something.

If you watch the video you can see by her body language and speech that she's telling the truth.

Don't even need that. Just ask a psychic ....

@MarathonMo

I don't know what to make of DV's claims. I'm not casting assertions and it seems he was an extremely good detective, but since leaving the police force he says he's spent three years investigating Suzy's disappearance, travelling as far as the US and NZ. That all costs money and he had no guarantee of discovering anything before making those trips so you need to ask if now that he's an author he's hoping to make money on a book deal. Now he's a civilian he doesn't have access to all the police files so he can only work with what's in the public domain and by using his detective skills. Of course he wants to crack the case and he obviously wants to nail "Mr Kipper" and have Suzy's body laid to rest, but so far the police haven't seem to have taken his new findings seriously - and had he discovered a major breakthrough why wouldn't they?

He's the only person who's claimed the keys never left the office and I find it hard to believe it's taken 30 years to discover that. And he hasn't said HOW he's discovered that. The only way he could know is if one of the staff at Sturgis suddenly blurted, 30 years on, that the keys weren't taken, which I find hard to believe.

In the Crimewatch documentary done 12 weeks after Suzy vanished they said the keys had never been found.

Like you, I think Suzy planned on meeting someone outside Shorrolds but possibly wasn't intending viewing inside. That would account for why witnesses saw her at both Shorrolds and Stevenage Road around the same time. Another possibility that Suzy fell into a trap, was when the man, Mr Kipper rang and booked the viewing. IF Suzy had of had a brief fling with JC he'd have got a fellow con to phone her, and when she asked his name maybe the friend stumbled for a second and unwittingly said Mr Kipper as that was JC's nickname in prison. And if that's the case, whoever that man was would never come forward and say he was a conspirator, even if he didn't know JC planned to rape/kill her.

Suzy's car was definitely parked in a slightly unusual position partially blocking the garage in Stevenage Road and from all the various witnesses it appears the car was parked there, in the exact same position, until it was found at 10pm.

I know Suzy's friend, Barbara seemed unaffected, but she did say that Suzy had her head turned towards the man next to her, so I still think it odd that she'd have waved at Suzy couldn't have seen her. She may well have thought it was Suzy, but she couldn't have seen her partly hidden face for long as "Suzy" drove past, and it's possible it was another woman who resembled her. IF it was indeed Suzy, why did she move her car from Stevenage Road, go off somewhere for about an hour, then drop it back and park it exactly the same way in the same spot? It doesn't make sense.

I also believe the publican when he said he gave the scrap of paper to the police. If HE was in any way involved in Suzy's abduction, he wouldn't draw attention to himself. He'd have said nothing at all.

The fact Suzy's cheque book etc was left on the pub steps was probably two things. One to lull Suzie into a false sense of security and make her think she'd somehow dropped her belongings and they were found and handed in and that would possibly stop her reporting her lost cheque book to the bank so they could use the stolen cheques torn from the back (if that's what happened...did the police check?)

The other reason was that whoever left them on the steps couldn't risk being seen and later identified.

There's also the possibility that they knew Suzy would have to visit the pub some time that day or night if for some reason she didn't turn up at Shorrolds.

The two separate phone calls to the pub are extremely worrying and it beggars belief the police didn't pursue that. The fake policeman must have been Mr Kipper, but that just adds more confusion. Why would he do that if he already had abducted Suzy? Was it to throw police off the scent? Was it for a weird psychotic thrill? Was it to find out if the publican had spoken to Suzie? And the woman...who was she and how did SHE know Suzy was due to go to the pub and collect her belongings?

It's like so many red herrings have deliberately been thrown into the pool in order to confuse.

Unless DV comes out with some concrete evidence which he hasn't done since first mentioning it over six weeks or so ago, I'm still of the mind that JC was Suzy's killer. He has told fellow inmates he was and even a policeman, which he later retracted, and told his girlfriend (the ice skater) that Suzy was gorgeous and he showed a huge interest in the case. But just because he's implied to inmates he killed Suzy doesn't mean he has. He might just enjoy people thinking he's connected to her (sick as it is) and enjoy giving the police false clues and the runaround. He's a serial rapist/murderer/psychopath so you can't believe one word he says. But all the circumstantial evidence points to him...

@DGRossetti Sorry, I don't get what you mean...

I must be having a slow brain day 😌

@BurningTheToast Talking of fingerprints, were there any prints/DNA of JC in Suzy's car, I wonder?

@TartanTexan

"Videcette hasn’t expanded on it yet, AFAIK, but has said others in the office knew what the Kipper entry meant"

If the other staff in the office knew what the Kipper entry meant, why would the manager go round to Shorrolds looking for Suzie? Why when it became obvious Suzie had been abducted didn't the staff tell police that all used the term "Kipper" if they wanted to run a quick errand/pop to a shop? It's hardly a sackable offence, and under the circumstances they'd have definitely told police that in fact, Suzie had gone on an errand.

I find this new "evidence" odd...

@Ihaveseenalot The manager of the shop, Gurdon, says that SL took both the keys and the property details for Shorrolds (or I imagine he presumed Shorrolds) so there's that too.

DV will hopefully expand on the keys and evidence, he claimed there was a known system in the office whereby any spares were on the same ring, always. He's done much more investigation then he can currently reveal, I believe. I am very interested to see what comes out next.

I find it hard to believe that none of the Sturgis staff, there were about 6 in that office, didn't watch the Crimewatch programme and it didn't occur to them that the police searching for the keys with the 'distinctive yellow tag' were all barking up the wrong tree...(If what DV has said is correct). They would all have known, surely by now on the key board that a set for Shorrolds were hanging there. How did the police miss this and the staff? We shall see what happens next.

Stephen said 'the manager remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys, which were attached to the large and distinctive Sturgis yellow key fob'. That's quite specific.

We agree the pub, stolen possessions and call are very important. If the landlord knew Suzy (?) why did he call the bank first who then called Suzy? I don't think he did but she did live around the corner and was a regular (?).

The phone call is very important, as we've said. Could the publican be giving himself an alibi in that he was there at lunchtime to receive a call? Probably not as others will have known where he was etc.

Shirley Banks made a phone call, or JC did it would seem to a mini cab company to pick her up from his flat? One turned up but John said there had been a mistake. Was the call to the pub something similar? He allowed SL to call the pub, where she was expected later, only to intercept? Something went awry with that?

Shirley Banks also called in sick to work the morning after her abduction, presumably so she wasn't missed for a while.

Suzy spoke to the landlord's wife at 12:40 that lunchtime. After the bank had called her. At 12:40 her car was seen opposite 123 Stevenage Road. DV claims the police made errors re: SL's time line before and after her abduction?

NB: I think she'd have gone to get her things much before 6pm if she could, she was anxious and worried about them and the pub was close. Was the pub somehow important in all this?

The lady, Wendy Jones, who lived at 123 Stevenage Rd wondered whether Leo, the man who owned the garage, would have a problem getting his car into the garage later that day, so it must have been overlapping quite a bit.

Wendy Jones, could be quite specific on the time as drove to the bank by Fulham Cross, she was changing lots of coins from the pay phone in her house, and felt she was holding others up in the queue. The bank clock said 12:49. The police checked the clock, it was working fine.

No one saw Suzy get into her car as the office junior had left it in Whittingstall Road, was she abducted before she even got into her car, or the victim of some ruse?

The car was hastily and badly parked and her purse was in the side pocket but no keys were there. Was she bundled into another car immediately?

Re: JC, a small detail but SL apparently had a boyfriend, Dave Hodgkinson 'with whom she had never entirely broken up' with according to Stephen in his book.

In the Shirley Banks interview with police JC claims that Shirley's mini, in his garage, he had bought from a man who was now 'in a lot of trouble'. His name? Hodgkinson...or something like that JC says. Coincidence? Or did JC know enough about SL from her diary etc to know he was someone of importance to her? Or even a long standing and loved boyfriend...

Also re: Shirley Banks, they found JC had 4 keys in her possession that they never found which buildings etc they unlocked....

I also come back to the Prince of Wales pub, if JC really was a regular the evidence is really, really compelling, IMO, given everything else. Also, was JC's nickname really Kipper in prison? How much evidence for this was there?

@BurningTheToast and @Ihaveseenalot re: finger prints in the car.

The car was 'subjected to the most stringent forensic tests available, using laser technology' (1986). Fingerprints were taken but no one could distinguish between which were Adam's and SL's and any other legitimate user of the car. (Stephen's book explains).

They did manage to get a partial palm smudge on car's rear view mirror and a fingerprint on the windscreen , then came 'sweepings' from the inside of the car and 'tapings' where they try to pick up microscopic debris. All were put in plastic bags. Did they ever compare to JC?

@Ihaveseenalot re: the important note, Stephen says that the men who the publican had allegedly passed the note to were 'two men who were valued and trusted members of the investigative team'.

I can't believe for a moment that they could have lost such a 'clue'? The publican told them a policeman had called the pub in the afternoon (which they knew was bogus) and given these detectives a piece of paper with the number of someone called 'Sarah' who wanted Susannah to call her later?

That's the kind of lead that solves a case, so what happened there?

Also if the bogus policeman rang some time after this 'Sarah' what on earth did he want or say? Surely the investigative team would have been all over this?

@MarathonMo

Reading through your account, and you've obviously gone through it all thoroughly, I'm convinced Suzy took the keys for Shorrolds. As you say, her manager was too specific for her not to have. Couple that with the fact the keys were missing - the police said that on Crimewatch 12 weeks later, I find it hard to believe that 30 years later DV says he has proof Suzy didn't take the keys. And like you say, the case was huge news, so if there was a set of keys to Shorrolds in the office, someone out of all the staff would have immediately told the police. I also find it strange why an estate agency would keep the spare keys on the same fob? I don't think anyone keeps their spare house/car keys on the same fob: that's defeating the purpose. Also, I myself have given estate agents my house keys when selling, but I've only given them one set - and they've never asked for spare keys too. Until DV discloses proof that Sturgis had two sets of keys, or just one set which never left the office, I find it hard to believe...but let's see what he comes up with. I believe DV said he gave the police a formal statement including "items of interest", but doesn't say what...

I don't think the pub landlord was involved in Suzy's disappearance. Besides which, he must have had many witnesses as to his whereabouts on that Monday, including his wife. He may have known Suzy by sight, but possibly didn't even know her name...she was just one of many regulars to his pub. He obviously phoned the bank when discovering the cheque book, which he wouldn't have done had he been involved in any way - and then the bank phoned Suzy at work.

I hadn't read the bank called her at 12:40...but if they did could it be that Suzy hastily jotted in Mr Kipper and went the pub to pick them up? I'd say that's unlikely for several reasons. One being, she'd worked at Sturgis for a year, was popular and well-liked, and I can't see why she wouldn't have asked her manager if she could quickly pop out to collect her cheque book? It was almost lunchtime, after all. I can see where you're coming from that Suzie was anxious to retrieve her items, but as she'd cancelled her cheque book and she knew her items were safe in the pub, I can't see her going to elaborate lengths to collect them immediately.

You've raised a really interesting point regarding the strange phone calls to the pub, and the one made to the cab company by Shirley Banks.

As we know, JC is a psychopath and sadist. He kept Shirley hostage for over or around - 18 hours? We don't know what he told Shirley while he kept her prisoner, but he probably promised her he'd eventually let her go. He did leave his flat while Shirley was still alive, but she was obviously tied up and restrained/gagged. It's likely that he got pleasure by pretending that he was going to let her leave his flat at some point, and told her to speak on the phone to the cab company and call herself a cab. She certainly wasn't alone when she made the call otherwise she'd have called the police. He'd have gained immense pleasure seeing her relief as she asked for a cab on the phone, knowing he was then going to crush her relief and terrify her all over again. The elderly woman who passed by where he was killing Shirley later, said that she heard him shout "I TOLD YOU WHAT I'D DO!" So he obviously tortured her both physically and mentally.

Now you've raised this excellent point, it sounds to me even more that JC did abduct Suzy and to torment her he pretended he was going to release her, and he forced her to phone the pub and leave a message for "Suzy to call her". In her terrified state, she'd have done anything he told her to, and he possibly said it was some kind of "proof" he intended to set her free. That in itself would have excited him as he knew he intended to murder Suzy, so watching her fear turn to relief, then relief turn back to fear would have given him extra sadistic pleasure.

There's DEFINITELY a huge link between the theft of Suzy's items, phone calls to the pub, and her abductor. And just like Sandra, he used the same sadistic tactic.

Regarding the car and timings, and given Wendy Jones very specific account of the precise time, Suzy's car must have arrived at Stevenage Road at 12:45. So that rules out Suzy driving to the pub to collect her items, but it also rules out all those other witnesses accounts who saw Suzie outside Shorrolds. Either the witnesses were wrong, or was it possible that Suzy drove to Shorrolds first, double parked, stood outside for just a few minutes and then went to Stevenage Road? The driving time distance between is just a couple of minutes, so it is possible...

We know Suzie got to her car at Whittingstall Road and unlocked it - her purse was in the car door pocket. Even the side roads off Fulham Road are fairly busy at that time of day, and there were no reports of anyone seeing Suzy being bungled into a car, so it sounds like she did drive off.

Another interesting point you made was when JC told the police that the man he'd bought the car from, a Mr Hodgkinson was 'in a lot of trouble'. It's obviously one of his lies, but again, he would have got a sadistic kick out of naming one of Suzy's exes. JC read through Suzy's diary, I guarantee it.

It's been well noted that JC got nicknamed Kipper in prison, but I've read different accounts as to why. Some convicts said it was because he was always kipping, while a couple said he enjoyed kippers for breakfast. I'd guess it was because he liked to "kip"...psychopaths seldom worry about anything as they're devoid of emotions, so he'd easily doze off without a care in the world...

One thing I did read was that the only time JC became paranoid and anxious was when the police told him his ex married lover (the solicitor) had spoken to them. She apparently gave them a damning account off the record, but then retracted it and refused to comment ever again. That sounds to me as though she was ashamed to admit that she had some kind of evidence or confession from JC that he'd murdered Suzy, and didn't want the publicity to destroy her career and marriage. She possibly reasoned that JC was locked up for life anyway, and revealing what she knew wouldn't bring Suzy back. She sounds ruthless and I'm surprised she wasn't struck off.

@MarathonMo : the important note, Stephen says that the men who the publican had allegedly passed the note to were 'two men who were valued and trusted members of the investigative team'.

I can't believe for a moment that they could have lost such a 'clue'? The publican told them a policeman had called the pub in the afternoon (which they knew was bogus) and given these detectives a piece of paper with the number of someone called 'Sarah' who wanted Susannah to call her later?

That's the kind of lead that solves a case, so what happened there?

Also if the bogus policeman rang some time after this 'Sarah' what on earth did he want or say? Surely the investigative team would have been all over this?"

I missed this...

That's proof in itself that the publican handed the two police officers that scrap of paper: he couldn't have known they were trusted & valued members of the investigation team, but Stephen would have known. So he definitely handed that paper over to the officers.

Why they didn't pursue that line further is anyone's guess, but however trusted and valued those police officers were, no-one is infallible, and there is the possibility the scrap of paper got mislaid amongst the thousands of other paperwork and even the possibility that the police officers didn't attach too much importance to it. It beggars belief, but police do sometimes make mistakes, or are sloppy. As DV himself states.

Out of all this it certainly seems that the police were lax in their investigation and it seems strange that they didn't immediately check for local sex offenders living in the area: which JC was.

Perhaps this is one of the points that alerted DV to the poor way the police carried out their investigation. It's unbelievable that the police didn't connect Suzy's stolen items (they'd left her purse in her bag yet taken her diary ), and how they suddenly appeared on the steps of the pub, and then the two bogus phone calls to the pub. If that wasn't a huge red flag to the police, then I totally agree with DV that the police investigation was sorely lacking. However, all the evidence, albeit circumstantial, points only to JC.

DV claims it isn't JC, and goes so far as to say 'the clock is ticking'. What does he mean by that? It's 33 years since Suzy vanished, and from what we know her murderer hasn't been on a killing spree since then (except JC) so what makes him think he's at large and could attack at any time? He makes it sound urgent...

This is a long shot, but I wonder if DV is playing a clever game. Maybe he knows JC killed Suzy, and now JC has had a stroke and is in frail health there's the possibility he could die soon...could DV be trying to get a confession from JC by pretending the killer is someone else in the hope JC will finally own up and "brag" it was him, and prove it by saying where she's buried?

I may be totally wrong, of course, but it's a possibility...

@ihaveseenalot very interesting points...

Videcette has said the answer to all this was/is staring everyone in the face...so what has everyone missed?

We need more information but I suspect the narrative around the keys, which has been discussed, and which DV is adamant is incorrect, must be very important here. Everyone in the office had a clear alibi so what are people missing?

Estate Agents do, as illogical as it might sound, keep duplicate sets of keys on one ring. If you've ever tried to unlock a property with an E Agent set of keys this can be very puzzling and annoying. Thinking particularly re: rental properties.

He, DV, also says there were anomalies in the timeline that weren't fully investigated both before and after SL's disappearance.

I am ignoring the Shorrolds Rd sightings, which everyone got so caught up in and may be what DV is driving at being red herrings, for now as these are inconsistent, generally were reported much later and it seems that Riglin, the key witness re: Shorrolds sightings, thought that he might have seen the woman/people outside at a neighbouring property, he was never clear who he saw:

Timeline

Taking Stephen's book (1988) as the source..

12:40 - Stephen says that she, SL, 'spoke to the Landlord's wife at 12:40 that lunchtime - in other words immediately before she left the office'. I think she wanted that diary back asap, forget chequebook as that could be cancelled as you and others have said. See on...

12:40 - Mrs Wendy Jones saw what was thought to be SL's white fiesta overlapping the garage opposite her house at Stevenage Rd. She was taking her dog for a brief walk before going out to the bank.

12:49 - Mrs Wendy Jones notes time on the bank clock, as she was holding everyone up changing cash into notes. Mrs Jones drove to nearby bank from her house.

10:30pm - Mrs Jones notes car again, still blocking garage.

Stephen states 'could it have been her (Suzy) whom Riglin saw outside 37 Shorrolds Rd around 1pm if her car had already been in Stevenage Rd for 15 minutes and had not been moved since? Or had the car been moved between Wendy Jones's sightings of it at 12:45 and 10:30pm and then returned to the identical place? It seemed highly unlikely but not impossible. Had someone given her a lift to Shorrolds Road?'

Were two white fiestas somehow involved? Seems unlikely but a colleague or another Estate Agent with a similar company car might have played a part? I feel like another white fiesta might have featured but can't see how at the moment.

I think even if busy it might be possible for someone to abduct SL from Whittingstall Rd (was a quiet road)? Sometimes things can happen in plain sight and a smartly dressed man won't arouse much suspicion. I think that as others have said this seems very precision planned....

Something that is interesting, if correct, is that a man a taxi driver picked up said he'd noticed a couple having a big argument in the street just off Shorrolds Rd (or that's where he was picked up).

Did someone hold SL captive in a house off Shorrolds or in this vicinity? If it was SL and JC - or her abductor - that called the pub, and as you say this was his MO and similar had happened before - he needed a place with a landline.

Re: diary, I think that SL would have wanted it back asap. If it was more than an appointment diary there were likely deeply personal things in it, her QE2 diary had a lot that was very private and she wouldn't have wanted to be made public. So, she had form for writing personal things in her private diary. If she had she likely wouldn't want it in the hands of the pub for longer than needed.

Publican

Back to Stephen's account of 'Sarah's message':

It was 'baffling as the two detective constables who had first interviewed the landlord (soon after Susannah went missing) strongly insisted they were not given any such piece of paper, they were valued and trusted members of the investigative team'.

'The senior detectives concluded that, again as in the case of so many others, the publican's memory was playing tricks, but it left an uneasy feeling'.

I don't think this was necessarily a police cock up. Do others? Who lost the piece of paper and did it exist in the first place?

Kipper

I am not sure we have clear evidence that JC was known generally or to lots of people as 'Kipper'. Or do we?

Steve Wright, the 'Suffolk Strangler', who had been on board the QE2 with SL used to use Kipper and some thought that he was responsible because of that. He'd say 'what's up with your Kipper' and used it as slang all the time. (DV has said the person responsible for SL abduction is 'at large' so if he's right that rules out other known criminals and Steve Wright).

The problem is that so many make claims after at tragic event and say they have evidence etc, of nicknames etc, but do they? Where is the proof? Would inmates at prison every day use Kipper re: JC? If so, that's pretty clear it was his nickname, otherwise? Not so much...

Re: Married lover and retracted statement, I thought the married lover that he had told things too was Daphne Sargent not A. Rose? Not that it makes too many odds. Gilly Paige also retracted her statement re: JC ad SL.

I think it's possible this was quite a sophisticated and planned abduction that might have required more than one person. It's usually the obvious things that people overlook so I think it's possible SL was held very close to Shorrolds and Stevenage, possibly for some time as unlikely as that may seem.

I hope you are wrong re: calls and psychology, you're right, in that it did seem to be JC's modus operandi, how utterly chilling if right...

Interesting theory on DV, time will tell..

@MarathonMo

I'm strapped for time so shall add more later, but regarding the chilling phone calls made by women - one we know was Shirley Banks - JC obviously forced Shirley to call into work that morning to say she was sick, knowing full well he intended to kill her. He lulled her into a false sense of relief by pretending he'd let her go, yet obviously tied her up and restrained her when he left her alone in the flat, petrified. This "cat & mouse" kill technique excites psychopaths. He no doubt told her how he'd kill her if she didn't meet his demands; hence him shouting in the woods "I TOLD YOU WHAT I'D DO!" He was going to kill her anyway, but he enjoyed watching her fear turn to relief, then back again...

When Shirley rang the cab company, again he was getting pleasure from seeing her relief knowing he was going to dash it again and watch as she crumpled in fear. She wouldn't have even known the address of where he'd taken her: he gave it to her, then tied her up and gagged her, so she could hear the cab driver at the door - so near, so close to freedom...and then watched her face as he walked back in after sending the cab driver away. Like I said, had she been alone when she'd made that second call she'd have phoned the police - not forgetting she wouldn't have known the address she was being held in, so couldn't have called a cab anyway.

These strange phone calls (two in each case) was one of his kicks.

I agree that he had access to a flat/house in or around the Fulham area, and must have been renting locally as he'd left the prison hostel. He forced Susie to phone the pub, I guarantee it. He couldn't have known she'd had her cheque book & diary stolen & that it had been found at the pub (she'd hardly give that a thought when being kidnapped), unless he was the one who'd stolen them and planted them back at the pub. He was torturing Suzy mentally too; pretending he'd release her eventually, then watching her fear return when she realised he wasn't going to. It gave him power.

I shall find the links to all the references why he was nicknamed "Kipper" by other inmates. It's well referenced.

Regarding the scrap of paper: why would the landlord say he gave the two officers it if he didn't? He'd arouse suspicion by lying like that. I suspect the officers probably mislaid it and panicked, and simply said they didn't remember him giving them the scrap of paper. Their jobs could have been on the line, so they had more to lose by admitting to that. The landlord had nothing to gain by saying he DID give them the scrap of paper. And it's harder to lie about something when you claim there were TWO officers there rather than just one. There'd be absolutely no need for the landlord to make that up. In the event, whatever number was given would have been a false number anyway...and as Suzy never went back to the pub - and this woman who was supposedly so eager to speak to her and strangely knew Suzy was going there when no-one else knew - never called back again - it could have only been Suzy who made that call.

I can't remember what the man who claimed to be a policeman said to the LL when he called afterwards??

That would be very telling.

There's a definite link between those missing items and Suzy's disappearance. Definitely.

I shall find the links later...

Has DV updated anything yet? In the newspaper it seemed urgent, but it's all gone quiet...