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?

@lyralalala I'd be interested in the thread you're referring to, if you'd be so kind.

I'm also curious to know more, and who else is a suspect.

So far, the only suspect has always been Cannan, but until there's concrete proof no-one will know

What we do know, though, is that whoever met Suzy looked amazingly like Cannan...

@bottleofbeer I agree, it's most unlikely Suzy turned up having forgotten to pick up the keys - but it isn't impossible. Remember, she was due to show Mr Kipper TWO properties; Shorrolds Road and Stevenage Road. She did leave her bag behind too, purposely, which also suggests she was anticipating two quick viewings - and however professional one is no one is infallible: she may have forgotten to pick both sets up. But is she did take the keys, then it means the estate agents had a second set...

But is she did take the keys, then it means the estate agents had a second set...

Or someone put them back at some point

@Ihaveseenalot I PM’d you about the other thread (it’s completely blitzed but I sent you the gist)

Most of you may have seen this programme about Suzy Lamplugh and Cannan, but for those who haven't they may find it extremely interesting. It certainly gives a lot of insight into the whole case, and speaks both to the fanboy, witnesses and the police

@Ihaveseenalot

As my kids are taught at school - don't believe everything you read on the internet. I'm not going to go into every error on that page, but here's a couple to start you off with:

To begin with, the photo they've used on that web page you cite is not even of John Cannan...

It’s of Anthony Hardy, the Camden ripper.

Also:
"In August 2010, a criminologist who had corresponded with Cannan said that DNA evidence linked Lamplugh to a Ford Sierra, once used by Cannan, that was recovered during 2000. It had the false number plate SLP 386."

Whoever wrote that has mixed up a lot of stuff. The vehicle with the fake SLP registration plate was not a Ford Sierra, it was a Mini Clubman and it belonged to Shirley Banks. Not to Suzy. (And it was never proven to have been used by Cannan, just found in his possession.)

It was bright orange, painted blue. Not yellow like the picture they've used.

Also, the "criminologist" they cite there is a well-known convicted fraudster called Christopher Berry-Dee who wrote a book about Cannan murdering Suzy back in the early nineties and then changed his mind and rewrote the book saying Michael Sams did it - much to Diana Lamplugh's utter disgust. I would take anything he says with a complete pinch of salt. I know the police do.

@lyralalala I received your PM but it appears to be blank?

Maybe I'm doing something wrong...

Could you kindly send it to me again please?

@lyralalala can you pm me please about the other thread. Thanks

Oh Lyralalala PM me please!

@Ihaveseenalot

"What we do know, though, is that whoever met Suzy looked amazingly like Cannan..."

I believe that this whole post began by showing how police never ID'ed Suzy at Shorrolds Road, and how Suzy didn't have the keys to Shorrolds Road. Which means there is zero proof that Suzy was ever at the house viewing - so any photofit or artist's impression from that scene has absolutely zero merit.

See:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/23/suzy-lamplugh-may-have-used-mr-kipper-cover-story/

"One of the main reasons police were convinced Miss Lamplugh had met with Mr Kipper at the Shorrolds Road address was that a witness living in a neighbouring property claimed to have seen a man and woman standing outside around the time of the appointment.

Harry Riglin, who has since passed away, gave detectives a detailed description of the man which led to a photofit being produced and circulated.

But Mr Videcette has tracked down Mr Riglin’s nephew who said while his uncle had taken notice of the man, he had never really been clear that the woman was Miss Lamplugh.

Other witnesses who put the estate agent and the mystery man at the scene only came forward after a television reconstruction was broadcast the week after the disappearance, and Mr Videcette believes their testimony is not reliable."

Ah, I didn't realise she was doing two viewings. But doesn't that make the theory that she actually had other plans look a bit shaky? Or, she never intended to do the Kipper viewing but was going to do the second presuming she had those keys?

Eye witness testimony is actually rubbish. Our memories are crap to be blunt. Lotus and Palmer did studies on it. Ten people can watch the same event unfold and give wildly different accounts but as far as they're concerned they have simply recounted what they saw.

Eyewitness testimony is known to be massively fallible. I'm almost a criminologist btw.

Make that Loftus.

This case always makes my blood run cold.
I’ve worked in property since I graduated and for a time worked in Fulham and had houses on Shorrolds road.
I really hope at some point her family get some closure.

Eye witnesses can be absolutely rubbish. I was a terrible witness when the shop I was worked in as a teen was held up. The only bit of information I could remember was that one guy’s jacket was navy, but the cuffs were a darker shade of navy. The procurator fiscal told me that day eye witnesses are generally either excellent at detail or absolutely unreliable, I was the latter!

There is a video on YouTube by L+F where there is an altercation in a pub (it was a set up) there were probably, if memory serves (no pun intended) 20 plus witnesses. Some were certain the ringleader wore red (for instance) and others swore up and down it was an entirely different colour, like black.

None were lying, they just remembered it differently. Iconic memories last about half a second unless you're specifically trying to recall something future reference which people generally aren't doing when they witness an event they're later asked to recount. Iconic memory is your visual memory, they decay really quickly or else we'd be processing too much info all the time.

I believe that this whole post began by showing how police never ID'ed Suzy at Shorrolds Road, and how Suzy didn't have the keys to Shorrolds Road. Which means there is zero proof that Suzy was ever at the house viewing - so any photofit or artist's impression from that scene has absolutely zero merit.

That could be why the photofit looks quite like her boss. If he was seen at the property anytime then people can be remembering wrong dates etc

PM’s sent - I have no idea where the person got their hunch/info from btw, just what they said. It could be bollocks!

@CrimeThrillerGirl Nor do I take everything I read ANYWHERE as gospel, especially on the Internet. And I do notice discrepancies. I also know the fake number plate was on the orange mini which JC had hand-painted blue: that car was found by the police in 1987, I believe.

The red Ford Sierra which he owned in 1986 was found in a secondhand car dealers in 2000 and had been languishing there for years. The police did forensics on that car, and reportedly discovered trace evidence of Suzy having been in the car. It's been reported in several articles.

So everything points to JC being Suzy's abductor, although there's no concrete evidence. So it may NOT be him. But he's the only suspect...

@bottleofbeer made a good point as to why, if Suzy had been dating JC why none of her friends saw him and his name wasn't mentioned. It is odd. Then again, why would her own family say she was being wooed by him and almost stalked? She obviously found him attractive if she did date him, but clearly detected he had a dark side.

He was also leaving dates early and could hardly tell her he had to go back to the prison hostel as he had a curfew. And he may have only met her a handful of times in all and took her for drinks away from the Fulham area. Her flatmate said she used to receive huge bouquets of flowers and never seemed pleased to get them, so if it was JC he was trying desperately hard to woo her, and that's exactly what he did with every woman he was attracted to. He also detested being rejected, so if she did reject him he would have decided to rape and kill her by lulling her into a meeting...

It can't be ruled out.

But then as no-one definitely knows, maybe it was someone else who abducted her...

...and when people witness an event like seeing her in the car, arguing, they realise they might have seen something significant, naturally want to help and the brain fills in the blanks, usually with false information. It's not a deliberate thing, it's just how memory works. Decay and interference at work. Things we've seen since, interfere with the memory. Cue dependent forgetting, without the appropriate cues the brain won't retrieve the info correctly. Like in an exam you might try to make yourself recall something you've revised with a cue. At the time of what you witnessed you had no reason to create that cue.

Anyone got a link or decent citation to anything that shows Suzy Lamplugh was doing two house viewings that lunchtime?

I thought Suzy's diary only specified one appointment at lunchtime?

See diary image: image.assets.pressassociation.io/v2/image/production/3a0d24a15a91e72c56351d6334ede05fY29udGVudHNlYXJjaCwxNTQwOTg5MDUx/2.1250001.jpg?w=640

He'd taken her car racing in Bristol? So clearly she had spoken about him for anyone to know about that particular date. Did he give her a false name because of previous convictions for deviant behaviour? It's was 1986, it's. It's not like he was googleable at the time.

So family and friends and colleagues were aware of her seeing someone. She must have mentioned a name.

I'm seeing someone and we did XYZ...but sorry, I won't tell you his name. Nope, not having it. JC didnt become a suspect until the following year so presumably the boyfriend checked out and was ruled out.

@Ihaveseenalot

"The police did forensics on that car, and reportedly discovered trace evidence of Suzy having been in the car. It's been reported in several articles."

If you track down the sources of those "several articles", if you analyse every article that this urban myth has been reported in, every single one of them traces back to nonsense spouted by convicted fraudster Christopher Berry-Dee.

There is NO vehicle containing both Cannan and Suzy's forensics in. It doesn't exist and was not part of the police case put to the CPS. It is a complete fantasy.

Or maybe she did say he was called John, which put another tick in his box later on.

Wasn't Suzy's steady boyfriend at the time called Adam?

@CrimeThrillerGirl So if you think Suzy never went to Shorrolds Road, even though she had the appointment in her diary for the house they had on the market, who do you think the woman was who was seen stood outside the house waiting for Mr Kipper?

And who do you think the woman was who was seen and heard arguing with the man outside 37 who bore an astonishing likeness to JC?

The man at 35 actually came out his door when he heard the commotion, and clearly had a real good study of the man's face. The neighbour had never in his life heard of John Cannan, yet somehow managed to describe to detectives build, height, clothing, hair, colouring, facial features that was almost like an artist's drawing of JC? Even down to the large eyes, same shape, eyebrows, nose...

Suzy probably had her back to the neighbour, which is why he couldn't identify her.

So who do you think this OTHER woman was who turned up at EXACTLY the same time as Suzy was due there?

And how about the other witnesses who saw them? Are you saying that when they came forward just one week later their memories were so poor there testimony couldn't be relied upon?

If witnesses can't be relied upon police shouldn't call for them in that case...