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:
Ihaveseenalot · 01/08/2019 23:54

@bottleofbeer I haven't seen anything about this man Suzy was dating taking her to Bristol?

Suzy's mother said he'd taken her motor racing, but that could have been anywhere...

From reading the full story it sounds like Suzy only saw him for a short time, and he may well have taken her places alone. He was a loner, for one thing, so it's unlikely he'd have wanted to meet her friends if she suggested it

As for why the name never came up, who's to know it didn't? Maybe Suzy's family and friends were warned by the police not to publicise his name for fear of jeopardising any future case.

I doubt whoever this man is was ever eliminated as Suzy's family still talked about him 16 years later, saying they suspected he was her abductor

CrimeThrillerGirl · 02/08/2019 00:06

@Ihaveseenalot

"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."

Please can you source a link/support for this information?

If anyone has watched the 1986 Crimewatch reconstruction, they will see exactly just how little the neighbour saw.

Alislia17 · 02/08/2019 03:53

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheTitOfTheIceberg · 02/08/2019 06:28

‘‘This evidence has never been put before a jury because the Crown Prosecution Service will not proceed without a confession.“

This is absolute bollocks. The CPS don’t say things like “we need a confession”. They say “there’s insufficient evidence”. They don’t care what form any additional evidence takes, they just need more of it which consistently points to the suspect’s guilt. They don’t send the police away to come back with confessions, specifically.

(I used to work for them, I know this stuff.)

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 06:43

Or, the other reason people sometimes don't mention the name of the person they are seeing, is if they are having an affair.

As a PP said, the keys could have been put back by force of habit, if they had been taken by someone that SL was working with. Or, there could have been two sets of keys, but someone she worked with has a vested interest in saying there was only one set.

If SL went to meet Mr Kipper at 12.45, then found a colleague already there when she arrived, who had perhaps duped her into the viewing as a means to getting her alone, that could certainly cause an argument. London was awash with Champagne at that point - it wouldn't be too much of a coincidence for a suitor she worked with to have tried to meet her at the property, hoping for a liaison with Champagne.

As I am totally flying by the seat of my pants with this, I have no idea where the cars fit in, except that lots of people at that time had black BMWs if they were high earners.

It seems clear to me that sightings of SL driving erratically, if accurate, were POSSIBLY a way of attracting attention to herself in the eyes of the public. Particularly if she was staring at passing motorists, willing them to know she was in trouble. However, this makes me think that whomever she was with was not threatening her with a weapon - who would risk being attacked whilst driving by purposefully driving erratically?

There is another reason that any similar incidents may have stopped when Canaan was jailed: whoever had carried out similar crimes would have known that they had a golden opportunity to pin them on someone else.

The motor racing and champagne are, I feel, red herrings, as is the date always leaving early. Lots of people enjoy motor racing but, like buying champagne, it costs to do so. Was JC in a position to be able to pay for this stuff? His wages as a porter would have been low, and can one be approved for credit when the address given is a bail hostel?

The leaving early also could point to an affair - SL reportedly made comments that she suspected the man she was seeing was married. Well, that is an awful lot more probable than someone being on a bail curfew. And was perhaps a way of 'admitting yet not' that she was having a relationship with a married man.

Also, if the man kept leaving mid date, why would she have kept meeting with him unless he had been able to sweet talk her between dates? Which would fit perfectly with someone she worked with giving her a cock and bull story the next day to keep her sweet. It isn't as if one could send a lengthy text or email in 1986. It would have had to be by phone. Phone calls from a bail hostel would have been from a public-type pay phone. As would calling from a payphone. I doubt JC would have had a landline in a bail hostel. So if he always used payphone, which she will have known from the "clunk" when the money went in when she answered and the "pips" at the end of the call, then JC is unlikely to have had the chance for lengthy cock and bull stories explaining to SL why he left. Wealthy businessmen from the West Country wouldn't have wanted to be seen dead using a call box. So how could JC have talked her round between meetings without blowing his own self image of his persona by using a call box? I know that's tenuous but it doesn't make sense to me.

Also, why did SL's employer start calling people concerned as to her whereabouts, when there was a later appointment in her diary. Surely it is more logical to assume that she had been delayed between appointments, but had forgotten to take the keys for the second viewing with her, or that she would pop back for them? Especially with her bag being left in the office? It would be more logical to assume that she would be coming back. One would surely wait until after that appointment time before phoning parents etc to check up on SL. Unless someone she worked with knew she wouldn't be coming back and wanted to cover their tracks rapidly.

Whilst there is most likelihood of JC having been involved, I do think that discrepancies and other possibilities have been overlooked. Interesting that I think I read that her boss was out of the office at the time.

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 07:06

Oh, and the other type of rape/murder that can be a one off: a crime of passion by someone fixated with the victim.

If SL had been having an affair (she is far more likely to allude to this to friends and family if she is a "naice gal", rather than stating it directly), or was being pursued for one, then ending it or rejecting it could lead to violence from the wrong man. Many abusive men ramp it up when they are spurned. There is no way that JC was the only violent arsehole in London at that time.

Arguably, someone who was married and had been spurned would have had a lot to lose - the person telling their family, employer or co-workers. Losing family or their livelihood/job, could cause someone who was rejected to panic and kill someone in the heat of the moment. Or even have an argument that turned physical and kill by accident. Panic then could cause a person to conceal the body and never say a word. But also never reoffend, at least to the point of killing someone. They may just carry on being a domestic abuser like so many total bastards who never see the inside of prison.

All this stuff about the man having champagne etc seems so tenuous. In the 80s, lots of people in the City were making silly money, particularly ACTUAL businessmen and estate agents! Some of whom even came from the West Country.

Anyway, all this is probably a load of crap and I may have well misread lots of stuff in the course of my Miss Marpling. But JC seems to have been pretty damn shoddy at not leaving forensic evidence - keeping a tax disc and not burning documents that a victim has touched? So surely there would have been something forensic on SL too?

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 07:57

I went down a bit of a rabbit hole yesterday and it was definitely mentioned that the motor racing date was in Bristol. Can't recall where I saw itnto check the veracity of the source though so obviously it could be wrong.

And yes re: an affair. I just didn't want to actually say it. I can't find anything about an Adam either.

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:00

Also yes wrt the CPS needing a confession. If they needed one to proceeed to trial, there wouldn't really be any trials - just sentencing.

They just need enough so there is a a realistic chance of a guilty verdict. If there isn't that, any half arsed barrister would just tear every prosecutor to shreds.

BurningTheToast · 02/08/2019 08:12

Just watched the Crimewatch video and wondered if any traces of Suzy were found inside the Shorrolds Road property? I can't remember or find a reference to that at the moment. Anyone know?

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 08:20

@ just didn't want to actually say it

Oops! Blush Subtle as a brick, I am! Grin

I would have hesitated to say but both her parents have passed away now. Though in fairness to them, apparently a man wrote a book assisted by The Met, which said that the family had had to find out faaaaaaar more about her private life than any parents should ever have to have known. Poor things.

I feel so sorry for Claudia Lawrence's parents for what they had to find out, too. Not that either woman was doing anything wrong, but no parent wants to know about their child's sex life.

TartanTexan · 02/08/2019 08:32

Someone posted something feasible upthread about what might have happened re: cars on day/where parked etc & car timeline & what that might have indicated.

I thought it was odd Suzy’s driving seat in her white fiesta was adjusted for someone else? Is that correct? What might that have added to the picture we have?

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:33

Criminal profiling was really being used in a big way by about 1986 and to find a killer the profiler she always want to know as much as possible about the victim first so they speak to parents usually for that info. Although I'd argue your parents probably know the least about your private life.

Along those lines if the boyfriend was known, they'd have probably used him in an appeal if they could, just to get their forensic psychs to watch him. So he either wasn't known about (who he was) or there was a reason he couldn't be wheeled out for the cameras. Married? Appeals aren't just for trying to get infinite from the public. It's about watching the behaviours of those making the appeal due to the fact most killers are known to the victim blah blah.

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:34

Tartan, that somebody bigger than Suzy last drove the car.

TartanTexan · 02/08/2019 08:39

lol - of course - but how might that fit with what was posted up thread on the cars on the day? Did John use the car to abduct her somewhere locally?

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:45

Logically it doesn't actually fit. It'd make sense if her car was just found and unadjusted but why bother driving her car at all (him) if he had his own?

Hang on, her car wasn't parked on the same road as the viewing? Had someone moved it just to create a bit of a false trail? If so, where was she at that point?

Oh god, it's only 8:45 😂

BlamesFartsOnTheNeighbour · 02/08/2019 08:47

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

Pretty sure it happens a lot.

TartanTexan · 02/08/2019 08:54

They left white car In hurry, unlocked & badly parked.

Another thought is Suzy must have planned only a briefish trip out or she’d have taken her bag - also wouldn’t you take lippy etc if you has a secret date planned as some have suggested (?).

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:54

Yeah it happens a lot. If you've got no previous form and nothing links you to a crime you're far more likely to get away with it.

Serial killers get away with it until they slip up. It's not always top notch detective work. They need something to go on in the first place. Paul Britton totally jeffed up the 'science' of offender profiling to the point its value was questioned. And it does have some value (and a lot of confirmation bias truth be told).

Killers don't appear out of thin air, something makes them that way. Organic or circumstance.

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 08:56

Ah Texan! Yes, makes more sense if you consider she probably wasn't driving it.

Was her car ever spotted in the road of the viewing?

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 08:57

Oh, I have just seen that SL's employers contacted others at 6.45. Even so, with a last appointment due just after 6, why would colleagues immediately think someone was missing? It wasn't as if there were such things as Lone Worker policies in widespread use at the time.

I just don't see how someone would be concerned enough to phone parents, less than an hour after their last scheduled meeting. Contact other colleagues etc yes. But parents? Thats a bit odd.

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 09:00

If her car was parked badly, is it beyond the bounds of possibility that some idiots in the police moved it slightly to prevent obstruction? Doubt they would broadcast such a colossal fuck up if so.

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 09:01

It also surprises me how quickly the police acted and escalated it. Ok so it was 1986 but surely even then they didn't take a grown woman being missing for a few hours so seriously that they launch a full on hunt? She was 25 not 5.

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 09:07

@bottleofbeer I agree. Unless someone had already spent ages prematurely ringing round SL's work contacts, friends etc so that when they we're contacted, the Lamplugh's had already been told that all possible leads as to SL's whereabouts led nowhere.

Which again begs the question of why would a colleague do that so early on?

JoannaCuppa · 02/08/2019 09:08

*were not we're, bloody autocorrect!

bottleofbeer · 02/08/2019 09:21

I know the 24 hour thing is a myth, people seem to think an adult must be missing that long before the police will act but even so, they usually only act that fast with something concrete to say something has happened or gone wrong.

An intelligent, capable 25 year old wouldn't exactly fit the description of a vulnerable adult would it? Out of character or not, she lived alone and could have had 100 plans for the day/evening. Not returning to work was odd, but full on hunt odd?

Swipe left for the next trending thread