Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Suzy Lamplugh - 33 years since she went missing

291 replies

MarathonMo · 30/07/2019 14:14

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?

OP posts:
MarathonMo · 20/08/2019 14:02

How would JC have known SL was due back at the pub or that putting in a call would be significant or relevant there? I agree that in calling there it wouldn't really alert anyone at that time (a good thing form abductor's perspective) but might give her a false hope her was going to release her later if that was his modus operandi. Deeply sinister if so...

Re: piece of paper. My feeling is it is more likely the publican forgot to hand over the note to the police or genuinely believed he had or was confused.

I really think that any policeman would have absolutely pounced on that clue, given their investigation at that time. Hardly a dull irrelevance. Someone had called the pub asking for Suzy (!) the very person they were enquiring about...Unless this wasn't made clear to them at the time. One of them might have thought significant at least.

There is no record of what the bogus policeman who called the pub had to say later on that afternoon. Not one that I can find or that Stephen has detailed in 1988 anyway. Only that the policeman called after 'Sarah' had left the message for Suzy. Incidentally they followed up all the Sarahs SL knew in her circle of friends but as you might expect, no luck.

Re: the diary, I do think that If SL had recorded personal things in it she might have picked it up urgently or got someone from the pub to drop it back to her. The things she had recorded in the QE2 diary really were very personal indeed, so if this was similar, she'd want it back earlier rather than later. I wouldn't want the pub reading it in her position and someone might. Of course it might have been a bland appointment diary.

If she was doing a private deal, as some think, there may also have been something on the postcard or in diary or paperwork that might have been very important indeed to her.

Even more significantly, she was on the phone to the landlord's wife about it at 12:40.

My point is she might have asked someone to give it to her before her 12:45 meeting, possibly someone who had business at Stevenage Rd and agreed to meet her there? Lots of holes here, not least someone else from pub knowing and reporting to police, but worth considering.

DV said he was giving police time to follow up and act. Maybe they are hence his silence since? What is it that is blindingly obvious about all this that DV thinks everyone ignored?

OP posts:
Ihaveseenalot · 20/08/2019 21:50

@MarathonMo

If JC had been stalking her, whether as a stranger or an ex, he would have delved & probed into every minutia of her movements/life.

If it was JC who stole her cheque book/diary etc, it was also him who placed it on the pub steps after going through everything - knowing 99% the pub LL would contact Suzy to say he'd found them, and she'd arrange to collect them on the Monday.

After abducting Suzy he would have told her he knew she'd lost them, and if there was anything sensitive in her diary, he'd have used that information to humiliate/intimidate her. It's possible that Suzy pleaded with him and even told him she needed to be at the pub at 6pm to collect them, and to give himself added power he told her if she could prove that to him he'd drive her there himself. Of course, he had no intention of doing that, but all the cat/mouse game playing would've excited him. Suzy would have clutched at any straw to escape, and if he did come up with such a ludicrous promise, she'd have agreed in her desperation even if she wasn't sure he would. She'd have done absolutely anything to get away; hence her phoning the pub leaving a message for herself. He possibly swung from aggressive to charming, as he did with his ex-girlfriend who he'd raped, and in Suzy's fear she'd have been completely confused and agreed to anything

Also, at that time no-one except Suzy & the pub LL & wife knew she was going back to the pub. So that call had to of been Suzy herself. The following call from the bogus policeman would have been Mr Kipper (JC, IMO), and he probably rang to see if the police had yet been alerted. Maybe he was considering driving Suzy's car somewhere (with or without her) but decided against it despite Suzy not seeming to have been reported missing.The clock was ticking and it was risky.

Re: the scrap of paper - the pub LL was absolutely adamant he'd given it to the officers. The officers insisted he didn't. I can't see why the LL would lie about that, he wasn't a suspect, and as he'd brought himself to the attention of the police they would have been bound to have checked him, and his story out. It's possible that none of the three were lying and they were all genuinely mistaken, but it is strange...I suppose there is the possibility despite all the compelling circumstantial evidence pointing to JC, that the LL could be Mr Kipper. But his pub was a good 10 minutes away (and that's without traffic)....Suzy's car was at Stevenage Road at 12:45...so she couldn't have driven to the pub and back within five minutes. And I can't imagine the LL agreeing/arranging to drive through heavy traffic (it's always heavy round there) when Suzy had told his wife she'd collect her diary etc later. And if the LL did have some kind of fixation with Suzy he'd have had plenty of better timings in which to abduct her, especially as she lived round the corner to his pub

As for DV saying everyone's missed what's blindingly obvious, if it's that obvious why did he spend three years investigating everything? He'd have cracked it overnight, and surely one of the investigating team who had access to every file on Suzy's case would have spotted the "blindingly obvious" over 30 years ago? It could be that after DV's three year investigation all the pieces of the puzzle clicked into place and it suddenly became obvious to him, but I can't see how he can categorically say he knows who the murderer is when all his investigating has been through interviews and going over old statements etc. He hasn't got any DNA evidence proving who the murderer is - he doesn't even know where Suzy's body is - so how could he know for sure who killed her?

Someone, somewhere knows what happened to Suzy, and my bet is that it's JC. He lived in the vicinity, he was a thief, abductor, rapist and murderer. Almost every witness who saw Mr Kipper described him as how JC looked and dressed - even down to his build, colouring, eyes, demeanour...witnesses mentioned a BMW which JC had access to...Kipper was his nickname in prison...he was attracted to career type women who looked like Suzy...he would have had an interest in an estate agent to help him on the property ladder...he flared up & angered easily when rejected...he used his looks and educated voice to charm...

And to add to the mix, he was allegedly involved with seedy characters on the fringes of mortgage fraud, so Suzy, I suspect in a slightly naive way could have possibly been taken in very easily by him - at first. That's supposing they had once dated briefly...no-one really seems to know.

TartanTexan · 26/08/2019 11:33

Any update from Videcette? Saw he said she wasn’t abducted from office.

DGRossetti · 26/08/2019 12:04

Any update from Videcette?

When his book needs a boost, maybe Hmm

Saw he said she wasn’t abducted from office.

Abducted is a loaded word, and implies force, and so far, from all the eyewitness testimony (if they are indeed describing SL) there is no hint of that. No struggle. No shouts. No suggestion that SL was incapacitated (e.g. knocked out) and dragged into a vehicle.

It's the lack of all this which suggests planning. Which doesn't automatically make it a targetted crime. SL could simply have been wrong place, wrong time.

My curiosity is only piqued by the possibility it wasn't JC. If it was then while there are a lot of mysteries about the case, the bottom line is the culprits is safely behind bars, and that's one less psycho to worry about today.

dottiedodah · 26/08/2019 12:21

I remember this case well as I was about the same age as Suzy then .Read about notorious "Mr Kipper" and always found it a bit odd ,Read an article saying she may have been involved with a married man ,and was going to tell him she was calling it off.She comes across as a warm intelligent girl with a loving family .Seemed they had made a breakthrough a few months ago searching the garden but nothing came to light sadly .

TartanTexan · 26/08/2019 12:26

Mine too, the odds must be very low it wasn’t JC, but it’s true a lot seemed to come out later re: witnesses etc which might have made people jump to some conclusions.

Pencilplantironingboard · 30/01/2020 22:56

Nothing in the press lately but I wondered if anything Is happening?

Hebburn · 31/01/2020 12:28

@Pencilplantironingboard I think the ex Scotland Yard Detective, who claims he knows who the murderer is, has said things are moving, although slowly. Lots of progress since October, he says.

I believe I know who he thinks it is, from the detail he's shared online and how that connects with a book & source material published at the time she went missing written by a well regarded journalist. Saw others talking about it on here and elsewhere.

Whether he's going to be able to prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, is a different story. I would imagine he'd need cast iron evidence and that might be difficult after 34 years. Of course, that's assuming he's right in the first place.

Pencilplantironingboard · 01/02/2020 07:37

@Hebburn Thanks for the update. At least the police are taking him seriously so something might happen.

Ihaveseenalot · 10/03/2020 00:15

I find it very odd that David Videcetti came out with such tantalising talk, leading people to believe — he out of all the police officers over the last 34 years — has finally cracked it even though he's no longer in the police, and never even worked in homicide when he was. I believe in his 20 years of service he only got to a D.C., so his detective skills can't be as great as he makes out.

It's almost embarrassing that he said back in July 2019 that he'd be revealing much more imminently if the police didn't get a crack on with his new evidence he gave them — and now we're in March 2020...

It's patently obvious the police aren't doing anything with whatever information he's given them, so I expect it's just supposition on his part.

He did say time was of the essence, implying the police must act fast, so why aren't they doing anything?

I'm sure he's picked up on something, but whatever it is can't be enough to make an arrest. So that must mean he's got no concrete evidence at all. I'm disappointed that it's looking like he's come out with this revelation in order to raise his profile on Twitter and try to achieve glory as though he's some kind of Sherlock Holmes. I can't help noticing how he ignores questions put to him — which smacks of rudeness and arrogance.

Any time anyone mentions the book written by Andrew Stephen, which was excellent, so well-researched, and pointed out anomalies in the case, David Videcetti never once credits him: yet it's obvious he's read that book...

I do suspect he does have a very good idea who Suzy's abductor & murderer is, but with just a few clicks on the computer and looking again at Suzy's diary, it's obvious to me who he thinks the suspect is. I myself am astonished that the police never interviewed this suspect, especially as he obviously tripped himself up when giving a time, and also made claims about something which two police officers refuted.

Maybe it's time for David Videcetti to do as he originally said and made public much more information, otherwise he's going to look a total plank.

everydayinMK · 01/08/2021 00:19

There seems to be some new news on the Suzy Lamplugh case?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/31/not-shred-evidence-against-suzy-lamplugh-prime-suspect/

NotCrimeThrillerGirl · 11/08/2021 00:38

I read that news report @everydayinMK and I bought the Finding Suzy book. I thought it was going to be awful coz these true crime things usually are a real let down. But it actually has a properly new investigation in it, with real people doing the hunting for her. I was surprised by some of the stuff in it.

KeflavikAirport · 11/08/2021 08:24

I have to say, the notion that someone managed to commit a perfect murder on their first go, and then happily went around their business free as a bird for the next 33 years is probably the least likely scenario of all

It happens - recent cases solved by genetic genealogy feature killers who killed once and went on to lead outwrdly blameless lives. The reason it's not a thing in true crime is because cases like that are very difficult to solve. Everything we know about crime patterns come from criminals who are caught.

Galassia · 11/08/2021 08:48

Websleuths is good for reading up on the latest theories

www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/uk-suzy-lamplugh-25-fulham-28-july-1986.572402/

KeflavikAirport · 11/08/2021 08:57

Fucksake zombie thread, I even posted on it in 2019. Ah well, at least I'm consistent Grin

Letsallscreamatthesistene · 11/08/2021 09:00

@KeflavikAirport

Fucksake zombie thread, I even posted on it in 2019. Ah well, at least I'm consistent Grin
😂😂😂 best post of MN today!
New posts on this thread. Refresh page