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?

@MarathonMo

No one suspected the Golden State Killer, he was a policeman.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying SLs killer was a policeman - and certainly not DV. But by being vaguely vague, DV isn't doing himself any favours.

I admit that on casual inspection, Canaan seems to be guilty - which makes DVs intervention all the more intriguing/frustrating/wrong. If it was Canaan, then his detection and incarceration for Shirley Banks murder explains the fact there are no subsequent cases like SLs. However the missing body is a fly in the ointment - did he get lucky with SL and unlucky with SB ? If SL had remained hidden by whatever method he used, then why not repeat it with SB ?

@BurrningTheToast as did I.

Just trying to see if it might not be JC as you can see from my post and all that's been reported, the evidence seems incredibly compelling to me.

He told a former girlfriend that SL was stunning and that he was responsible for her death.

Another girlfriend said she knew it was JC as soon as she heard about the beribboned champagne etc. There's so much more too.

I read that as Canaan saying that he wasn't going to confess to SL's murder because there were other remains with hers and he didn't want to find himself facing other charges

That cuts two ways, since it suggests he had killed more than once - and remained undetected. So why change a winning formula for SB ?

Also, people like JC are the embodiment of NPD and aren't shy about lying to try and keep people on the hook. (See also: Ian Brady )

@DGRosettti - yes, I can see that. Agree. I think DV has said he is going to go public with what he knows if the police don't act.

Good point re: SB and the clumsy (?) and sinister location.

Was Norton Barracks developed by then? Part of it (?) became a housing estate I think and impossible to use or excavate re: hunting for SL.

Re: SB, the Dead Woman's Ditch part of it might have been his motivation there, not so much a desire to hide the body (as previously) but now an over confident 'calling card' and laugh at police's expense at the 'clever' and relevant name?

He told a former girlfriend that SL was stunning and that he was responsible for her death.

I'm flying without Google right now but he wouldn't be the first person to pretend to take credit for another killers work. Since police incompetence was mentioned, remember how they tried to trip Colin Stagg over the Rachel Nickell murder ?

Speaking of Rachel Nickel, it's worth remembering that the police had convinced themselves (possibly a Dunning-Kruger manifestation) that they were right over Stagg - so much so they refused to investigate after his acquittal. Presumably there were fulsome apologies printed in all the major papers when Robert Napper was convicted ? So just because the police seem to be fixated on JC, doesn't mean too much, I'm afraid.

This case always resonates with me - at the time I lived about 2 miles away, still pass by Shorrolds Road occasionally.

As for the set of keys with the estate agents: when we sold our house using a west London EA I found out by accident that they had made an additional set of keys, without our knowledge or permission.

This could be standard practise for some agents, to make their life easier, particularly in the heady property days of the 80s.

Back in the mid-80s, Norton Barracks was still an old barracks. Disused as far as I can remember (I'm from Worcester) and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if a body had been buried there. I think development started around 1990.

By 1986, it must have had planning applications and so on, even been up for sale, so possibly not so attractive as a burial site given the imminent arrival of JCBs. I can think of a few places nearby that have similar fast access to motorways and where it would be less likely that a body would be discovered.

Again, @DGR, you are right.

Yes indeed, DV brings up the Nickell case re: reasons you give.

Stagg hardly had the form JC had, though.

There is so much that points to JC not least it being feasible that SL could have dated him in the first place (check out the dating agency video of him), got scared by later sinister/threatening behaviour and rejected him causing him to retaliate in the increasingly violent way we know he retaliated. She'd even told her mother about someone who fitted his description re: wanting to finish but something being 'off' etc.

One other thing, SL was at a party on the Saturday night before she was abducted, there's a photo on one of the newspaper reports of the event, could she have not met someone there? Did they ever follow that up I wonder?

Stagg hardly had the form JC had, though.

Which made not one jot of difference to the police verdict that he was guilty ....

I think DV has said he is going to go public with what he knows if the police don't act.

That would be rash. Or rather, that would be libellous, if this suspect is indeed still alive. Although, if i recall correctly, the onus would be on the litigant to prove that he didn't do what Videcette said, rather than the other way round. Could be wrong there and don't have a means of checking right now.

That would be rash. Or rather, that would be libellous, if this suspect is indeed still alive.

Depends on how much money and reputation the person named has. Libel is a rich persons game - unless you can get a no-win no-fee outfit capable of working at that level in the legal system onside.

Although, if i recall correctly, the onus would be on the litigant to prove that he didn't do what Videcette said, rather than the other way round. Could be wrong there and don't have a means of checking right now.

I think you are wrong. It would be up to the accuser to prove their accusation. However there is a wrinkle in that the bar is the lower "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The Daily Mail headline "Murderers" over the Stephen Lawrence murder is your paradigm here.

That said, personally I don't that approach. Nor do the courts, I believe. It's a bit of an end-run around the justice system such as it is and taints us all.

Looking at the dates again, I remember I had been seconded to a different location for a week around then in Fulham (the British Gas LRS). The case was quite the talking point sadly

It does concern me though that there seems to be a bit of a pattern when a dead end is reached and certain quarters start casting shade on the victim..................see Claudia Lawrence.

Re: DV going public with what he knows, potentially, that might not necessarily mean he accuses anyone/names any names.

Ooh, I'd love to know what Videcette's new theory is. I wonder where she was going? In the Telegraph piece it says Suzy was on a personal errand in her lunch hour. Which sounds to me quite a legitimate reason for popping out of the office. I wonder where she was popping out to in her lunch break? And how have the police missed this?

That cuts two ways, since it suggests he had killed more than once - and remained undetected. So why change a winning formula for SB ?

Sometimes they just can't help themselves. If Peter Tobin hadn't murdered Angelika Kluk in a church and stuck to his previously successful methods then he likely wouldn't have been caught for murdering Vicky Hamilton and Dinah McNicol.

@CrimeThrillerGirl - lots of thoughts on this thread.

One theory is that she had a private lunch date to end a relationship with John Canaan or she had already ended their relationship and he met with her a final time to attempt to win her back.

He had form for being charming until he was rejected.

SL had told her mother about an exciting new man but mentioned his behaviour had worried her and she wanted to end things. She said he came from the West Country/Bristol area, or had ties there, which was a fit for John C. Lots more besides.

She had been at a party on the Saturday before, could she have met someone there? Did the police check that out?

Interesting re: Peter Tobin, Lyralalala

"No one suspected the Golden State Killer, he was a policeman."

"we know about arsonists that turn up at the fires they start"

"Isn't there a saying about "doth protest too much" ?"

So, from the comments above - Videcette knows who the killer is because he is the one shouting about it and (as some of the posters suggest) he is involved in Suzy's disappearance and murder - that would be the answer to how/why he knows? He did it?

By my reckoning he's about late forties from the pics in the paper. So that would mean Videcette was aged 12 to 16-ish when he killed Suzy?

The Telegraph says she was going out on a personal errand in her lunchtime. Maybe she was going to earn some money as Videcette's sitter or tutor or teaching him to drive? It was in school holidays that she went missing so Videcette couldn't have been in school.

To be clear, personally, I don't think Videcette had anything to do with the SL murder.

The point being some think the police have been so fixated on JC they bungled the earlier SL investigations and the real killer is still at large.

Hopefully Videcette's new theory will be made public soon.

The evidence is pretty compelling re: JC's culpability IMO. There's a lot of it, not least form for very similar crimes (abduction and rape) that seemingly stopped after he was convicted.

So, from the comments above - Videcette knows who the killer is because he is the one shouting about it and (as some of the posters suggest) he is involved in Suzy's disappearance and murder - that would be the answer to how/why he knows? He did it?

I wasn't actually putting it forward as a working theory. Merely noting that throwing all the facts up in the air another time can result in a completely different picture.

Nothing is impossible, but a serial killer disguising themselves in a policemans cloak doesn't really fit what we understand about their psychology as it has been so far observed.

Drifting OT, but anyone recally McNultys "serial killer" in "The Wire" ?

I think there's more evidence for Michael Sams. He abducted that other estate agent, Stephanie Slater.

All we have with Cannan is some artist's impression of a man that looks vaguely like him appearing in a place Suzy never went to because she didn't even have the keys?

The Telegraph article says the witness never identified Suzy as being at that address. The police just assumed she must have been there. Sloppy police work right from the start if you ask me.

So if Mr Kipper and Suzy weren't in the same place at the same time - she's gone somewhere else on her personal lunch hour to do a legit errand?

@MarathonMo He is a man who almost certainly has more victims.

Vicky went missing in Feb 1991, Dinah in August 1991.

He was in prison from 1994 to 2004 for attacking two other girls. Then he murdered Angelika in 2006.

He would never have been caught (imo) because of the time, and also Vicky’s case the distance between where she went missing and where her body was found.

Has anyone seen the Crimewatch video?

Suzy's boss looks soooooo much like that police picture of the Mr Kipper suspect!!!

@CrimeThrillerGirl, read the thread, there's a huge amount that points to JC, way, way beyond an isolated artist's impression.

You're right though in that one eye witness may have been wrong and also media bias after the story was covered on CrimeWatch and similar could have misled people but SL's own close friend saw her in her car in the right time frame in the area of Shorrolds/Fulham etc. She was certain it was her and that she had man with her (but of course that man may not have been JC).

Also there were multiple sightings on the day far from just the one. A left hand drive BMW was seen with a couple arguing inside it by a jogger in the vicinity on the day. JC had one/used one allegedly, again this witness could have been unreliable etc.

JC's girlfriend said 'she knew it was JC' when the story came to press - again not exactly solid evidence but someone answering JC's description in Fulham allegedly bought an expensive bottle of champagne that day and she said it was his modus operandi and things all seemed v familiar. Later a man answering JC's description was allegedly seen in the vicinity with a beribboned champagne bottle.

Daphne Sargent (girlfriend) said 'as soon as I heard about Suzy, I knew it was John. It had all the hallmarks right down to the champagne'.

JC also confessed to another girlfriend, ice skater Gilly Paige, she later retracted her statement though. Why I wonder?

SL spoke of this new romance/man/relationship with a man with links to Bristol, allegedly he'd taken her motor racing and she was scared by some of his behaviour . JC liked motor racing and had links to Bristol, again this could be coincidence.

The Sandra Banks murder had some of the same hallmarks. If you read about the other abductions etc you'll see what I mean, he liked young, professional women, he had a type.

He nearly got away with the Sandra Banks murder, he claimed he'd bought her car at an auction, many would assume he wasn't responsible if her body hadn't been found which then meant they could finger print her and check his flat.

JC was very attractive and charming, he even seduced his solicitor and had a relationship, despite being a convicted rapist.

It is conceivable JC and SL may have dated, her mother said she'd met someone new that answered his description. They were each others types, on the surface of it it seems. Also he didn't take being rejected well.

Kipper was allegedly the nickname JC had in prison - coincidence?

JC used to leave dates early - he had a curfew at time. He was living relatively close by and frequented the same bars and pubs SL did in Fulham. He was on day release the day she went missing. He denied all knowledge of the Fulham area to the police which was proven to be a lie. SL allegedly thought he was married due to the short dates.

I think she might have met with JC but used the appointment at the property to cover up the fact she thought she'd be taking a longer lunch break, or similar, that day, with 'Mr Kipper' to break things off but who knows?

Apparently the phone records for the Sturgis offices were lost, if these could be recovered seeing if there were any calls from JC's hostel to the Sturgis offices may have helped build a better picture.

I am with you, it's not quite compelling enough and it's easy to be biased, which is partly Videcette's point I think, but if you read up and watch the reports on it, CrimeWatch etc it is hard not to think JC wasn't responsible IMO.