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?

Her car was found with purse inside - Enough to escalate.

I agree with whoever it was that said the car registration matching another victim's initials and date of abduction is the sort of tenuous shite that is how miscarriages of justice happen.

Her car was found with her purse inside - by the Police at 10pm the night she went missing. The fact they were actively searching at that time blows my mind.

Must have been a VERY slow day for London policing.

There was already a search going on when they found the car and purse.

It wasn't like somebody stumbled across both, realised the possible significance so the police took it more seriously. They already were.

Basically, they pulled out all the stops in the same way they would for a missing child. For a grown woman. Who is unlikely to have been considered particularly vulnerable.

A colleague (who lived alone) didn’t turn up for work and was not contactable one morning, which was out of character. Their emergency contact (a family member living in another city) couldn’t make contact either and reported this to the police. The police visited the colleague’s home really quickly. They had sadly had a stroke.

I don’t think it’s odd that the police responded quickly in the circumstances.

Criminal profiling was really being used in a big way by about 1986

Not always correctly. The Yorkshire forces made a right old horlicks of it with their search for "Wearside Jack" (as Robert Ressler recounts in "Whoever fights monsters").

If SL and JC had been on a few dates - in particular to somewhere with a lot of people like a motor racing event, has anyone come forward that saw them ?

Mulling this over, it seems that once you leave the "totally random killer" premise, and begin down the "JC fits" path, there are still a few questions unanswered (of lost in the volume of reporting). Chiefly, if SL didn't invent the "Mr. Kipper" viewing diary entry (as DV claims) then how did it get there ? Did JC call up (or in ????) and arrange it through a colleague ? Or was it arranged directly with SL ? And if the latter then how was it done in such a way that she was unaware it was JC ? Given she would surely recognise his voice ? Could there be an accomplice. Maybe unwitting, but someone JC duped into making that appointment ?

No, it wasn't always used correctly. But we always pick out the ones where they effed up, the wearside Jack thing was actually a detective who was sure it was the right man. Not heard of any profiler being involved in that case. The FBI were using it late seventies/early 80s but it took off here more towards the mid 80s.

And the Lizzie James honey trap of course. Although tbf it was the police absolutely certain it was Stagg that caused them to pursue him so much, they didn't even open up the investigation again when the trial was thrown out. Paul Britton wasn't stuck off after that but that's because so much time had elapsed. In psychology circles, Britton is another Freud, basically discredited.

It's Prof David Canter who is the daddy of it in this country. Even though Cracker was apparently based in Britton. PB did get a lot right but again profiling is right with hindsight a lot of the time and a fair bit of confirmation bias.

Canter refuses to call it forensic psychology in favour of criminal psychology. He uses geographical profiling which is a lot more accurate, statistically. In 1986 it would have been a very fashionable method for the police to use after a few recent high profile crimes where profilers helped.

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.

Well if it did, it would be hard to prove. By definition all we know about criminals is actually a subset of "criminals that got caught". Which has to encompass the distinctions of "caught". There's "caught" as in arrested, tried, found guilty and banged up (and even then, we can't be 100% sure ). And there's "caught" as in the police have correctly identified the perpetrator, but for whatever reason are unable to act.

It's entirely possible to kill once and never kill again. Soldiers do, for example. As do "terrorists" (there was a fascinating programme a while back about real hard IRA men who simply went back to their day jobs when the peace process started working). However that wouldn't fit what we know about people who kill pretty young girls. Unless it's a sort of psychopathology the [Dutch] film "The Vanishing" explored.

But we always pick out the ones where they effed up, the wearside Jack thing was actually a detective who was sure it was the right man. Not heard of any profiler being involved in that case

Read the book I cited. RR was the FBIs expert in the 1970s and was invited to speak (from memory) at Hendon. He did and was approached by some officers on the Ripper case (which he was aware of). They played him the (at the time unreleased) tape, and Ressler immediately told them it was a hoax. It contradicted all the key hallmarks how Sutcliffe operated. Against advice they released it as being the Ripper and put the enquiry back months if not years.

Anyone who likes armchair crime should have this book on their shelves

www.amazon.co.uk/Whoever-Fights-Monsters-Tracking-Killers/dp/0312304684?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

A lot is put down to psychopathology but often it's just inadequate men who can't get women using conventional methods, they kill to shut the victim up. This kind are usually of quite low intelligence and they're caught fairly quickly. Not forensically aware etc...

Although I'd lean towards Canaan being psycho, or malignant narc.

Bramshill, not Hendon ...

Although tbf it was the police absolutely certain it was Stagg that caused them to pursue him so much, they didn't even open up the investigation again when the trial was thrown out.

It's like they never learn, isn't it ? Which would be all very Keystone Cops, until they let real killers off the hook to kill again.

It was almost entirely police "thinking" which exonerated John Christie and left him free to carry on killing - his wife and 2 others ? If Christie hadn't been so mentally agitated, he could have gone on for ages, with Evans hanged.

Yeah, the force effed up the wearside Jack thing, the profiler was right in that case. It was the SIO who ran with it being the actual killer.

And it was an American who told them so, like I said, the FBI were using it way before we were. I'm not armchair 😉

By 1986, it was a fairly big thing here as I said, due to recent successes with the methods used by profilers. By pure chance a girl was founded murdered in the grounds of a medium security facility, where a certain Paul Britton happened to work. A detective idly wondered if a psychologist could shed some light on the kind of person who had done it, PB was remarkably close to the person who was eventually caught and so it was 'born' here. 1983/84.

Problem is Stagg was an almost perfect fit for the profile. They relied far too much on said profile instead of using it as an additional investigative tool, they basically put all their eggs in that basket.

They ruled out Napper early on because the MO to another crime was different. Pure tunnel vision on poor Colin's Stagg, who STILL wouldn't lie to 'Lizzie James' even if it meant he got his much wanted leg over.

Which to me, paints him in quite a positive light tbh!

However that wouldn't fit what we know about people who kill pretty young girls

Well, you're presuming it's a serial killer. PLenty of abusive partners only kill one pretty young woman. I haven't looked into this case particularly but it's not much of a stretch to imagine she was having an affair and someone killed her in a panic when she threatened to expose him.

Bramshill/Henson...meh, my head wanted to say frigging Quantico 😁

Also, "young girl" FFS, she was a 25 year old woman.

Well, you're presuming it's a serial killer. PLenty of abusive partners only kill one pretty young woman. I haven't looked into this case particularly but it's not much of a stretch to imagine she was having an affair and someone killed her in a panic when she threatened to expose him.

OK - in which case, it's not JC ....

Also, "young girl" FFS, she was a 25 year old woman

I was referring to 1986, not todays paradigm of equality.

Meant to add re: Stagg, when LJ said she could only be satisfied by sleeping with Nickell's killer, he replied "I'm so sorry but I can't pretend I did it" knowing that he may well lose his chance at finally losing his virginity to this beautiful woman.

Any psychologist worth their salt would have seen integrity in that statement alone, Rachel's killer absolutely would not have integrity and there will be bloody loads of men who'd admit it to get their end away even if they were in Australia at the time of the murder.

Quite why they pursued him after that is anyone's guess. He as good as ruled himself out in that one simple sentence.

The thing about serial killers is that they do learn from their mistakes.And usually there is an escalation of crimes.

Somebody killing for the first time and getting away with it,would be incredibly rare.

You can never be sure with criminal statistics. The dark figure of crime for instance.

We just don't know how many do get away with it. Every single unsolved murder means somebody did, or has until now.

Quite why they pursued him after that is anyone's guess. He as good as ruled himself out in that one simple sentence.

Ah, the the real killer would say that, wouldn't they. Remember the police turned the telescope around. Stagg was guilty so everything he did was proof of his guilt. I've never been the most uncritical police commentator, but the whole case left a nasty taste - especially when Stagg got less compensation than LJ. (Although at least he got more than Barry George).

My faith in the police might have been restored had the government not decided the bst way to deal with miscarriages of justice was not to improve the justice system but to remove compensation for the wrongly convicted. But that's a 21st century problem, and not necessarily related to their competence in 1986.

We just don't know how many do get away with it. Every single unsolved murder means somebody did, or has until now.

Not necessarily ... they could be imprisoned for a completely different crime.

With all the fetish about "big data", I wonder if anyone has tried looking at some sort of trawl of people jailed shortly after SLs disappearance that either died in prison, or are still serving a sentence for a completely different crime ?