Talk:Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh

Monday needs to be given in the full date 28 July 1986

The 28th July 1986 was a Monday. The time and date of her vanishing should be given in full therefore with Monday added, both for the sake of being complete and also to underline the unusual nature of it which was quickly spotted at the time (e.g. a disappearance on a Friday afternoon would've been initially less suspicious given that a weekend immediately followed and many people finish work early on a Friday with that in mind).

Police found nothing in the November 2018 search

Just in (November 12th 2018) but needs updating.

Mr. Kipper

It has been suggested that, even if Suzy's spelling was very bad, "Kipper" was too silly for her to have taken seriously. This suggests that she left voluntarily. A man called "Kuiper" was found in Holland. He was never charged with anything. He caused puzzlement by failing to claim an expensive car. He was also called "Kiper" and "Rosengarten". He produced proof that he was in Holland at the time.

This is stupid. 'Kipper' might be slightly funny as a name, but there are real people with that as a surname as can easily be found out by Google for example, and a professional like an estate agent would have met people with strange names before. 85.157.155.247 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Phoney link

I have eliminated a phoney external link.

Suspect

The man Suzy left with had reasonable looks, was fairly young and was well dressed. All this suggests that she left voluntarily.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.58.251 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

John Cannan

If there's been an investigation, no charges have been brought and he denies involvement, I can't see the purpose of this section being in here. I move to delete this as it contains nothing factual, just mere speculation (and possibly libellous speculation, whatever Mr Cannan's other crimes and convictions might be).

• It isn't libellous. First, the police have said it, so it's something a reasonable person might think. Second, a convicted double rapist and murderer has no good name to lose, so to suggest that he might have raped and murdered someone else carries no sting. Tirailleur (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Steve Wright

The connection between Steve Wright and Suzy seems to have reared its head again and the press were this morning discussing him being a possible suspect for that. Probably a bit to soon to be adding it in at the moment, but is it worth noting at some point? Spookydel (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2008

RIP

Rip Suzy! should be deleted. It is in bad taste. In its' present form it could be seen as a reference to the Yorkshire Ripper. If the contributor is genuine in their concern, then at least put the RIP in capitals and delete the exclamation mark. Garstonboy (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Eyewitness evidence

An eyewitness remembered seeing a "shabby" man in a black BMW at the time, as he was holding champagne and champagne cups. Is this worthy of inclusion within the article, given this coincided with lamplugh being snatched? Furthermore, John Cannan was on release from prison at this time, and may have had access to a similar black BMW. Finally Suzy Lamplugh would have known Cannan, and some professional sources argue an affair. Would it be consider libel to put Cannan's possible affair with Ms. Lamplugh into the article, or accurate?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Article title

Why has this been moved back from Disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh? This is a case like that of the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence; the disappearance is notable, the person is not. Jim Michael (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

1994 deaths

Why has this category appeared on the article again? It implies she actually died in 1994, which one way or another (either she died in 1986, or she's not dead at all) is highly unlikely to be true. Katharineamy (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit, Katharineamy - missed that one myself. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jim Michael (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Some inaccuracies here

...notably in the article's account of SL's disappearance.

It more or less states that SL kept an appointment at Shorrolds Road. As there was only one set of keys, and they never left the office, it is clear that if she went there at all, she never went inside.

It's also incorrect to state that "witnesses" identified her with a man. There was one witness, who identified a man, but did not identify SL as the woman he was with.

This stuff is all public domain. Tirailleur (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you need to quote reliable secondary source(s). David J Johnson (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi David. My source here is the press coverage of the recent reinvestigation by David Videcette: The police narrative that Suzy met a client, the infamous 'Mr Kipper', at a house viewing and was abducted by him is completely wrong. My investigation shows Suzy didn’t have the keys to conduct this viewing in the first place, and could not have entered the premises.

My investigation has found that the police’s star witness, from whom the now infamous 'Mr Kipper' artist’s impression came, never identified Suzy as being with this man at all. It was police assumption alone. This means the infamous artist’s impression is utterly worthless.

which is at https://davidvidecette.com/suzy-lamplugh.

It has also had press coverage: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/27/suzy-lamplugh-police-accused-ignoring-new-evidence-might-finally/ and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/23/suzy-lamplugh-may-have-used-mr-kipper-cover-story/.

The matters he raises appear to be factual and not disputed. I haven't edited the article but as it stands it repeats an account that has been cogently challenged, so could perhaps be more equivocal.Tirailleur (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, but I have family health problems at home. I have read the website of David Videcette and can see no reliable sources quoted at the present time. Unless the author can supply reliable, secondary, sources to back-up the so-far unpublished theories - then it falls into WP:OR and cannot be used. With thanks and regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, he's now published his book which confirms that there was only set of keys based on the police record of the time - the police just never noticed. Hence she cannot have gone to conduct a viewing because she could not have got in. He goes on to debunk pretty much the whole of the Mr Kipper narrative - the description given was of a man, but the woman with him was not described, and SJL never went to the house anyway. The Cannan line of argument is also debunked - supposedly SJL had been having trouble with a man from Bristol, but Cannan did not yet live in Bristol; a bloke was seen outside with a BMW, but Cannan did not yet have a BMW nor was the model described what he later acquired; the supposed sightings of Cannan were often literally (as in, 15) years later and only cam to light after he had been named i.e. the idea put into people's heads.

Even if Videcette's own hypothesis is wrong, this does look like a pretty poor job by the police. Tirailleur (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay(s) in replying to you, but I've had extended stays in hospital. I have a copy of David Videcette's book and agree that the police did a pretty poor job. I find that DV's final theory is still to be proved and is a long shot - anyway we await further developments. Look forward to working with you again. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Suzy's abandoned car

...the car key was missing

Well, it would be. Notable only if the key was still in the ignition. Valetude (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It's notable that the key was missing because the handbrake was off so the car had clearly not been parked up properly. So it's probably worth mentioning that the key wasn't there. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally the source states that the car was unlocked. As per Rodney Baggins' rationale, this suggests that the car was intended to be unattended for a short period of time, and certainly wasn't "parked" in the recognised sense of the word. Agree with inclusion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Or left hastily by whoever was driving it (not SJL as the seat was too far back). Tirailleur (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the position of the driver's seat? Seems most significant. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"By the time the CID arrived at the vehicle, it was agreed that it was unlocked and the driver’s seat – pushed right back as far as it would go – was much further back than five-foot-six Suzy would have needed it. Although it was unclear who had actually pushed the seat back, this suggested to investigators that her company car had been driven and abandoned there by her abductor, and not parked there by Suzy herself." Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 257). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

The point is quite well documented. The Videcette take on this is that SJL drove somewhere and was met and killed there. The location of her car would thus point to where she had gone. So her killer removed it from the scene, in a more or less random direction, and dumped it.

The interesting thing about DV's account is that none of the stuff he relies on to build his hypothesis is contentious or new - it's all been in the records and in plain sight for 30+ years, it's just that nobody was paying attention. Tirailleur (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I'm guessing the car was examined for fingerprints/ evidence/ DNA. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

It was certainly examined for prints and evidence, and the outcome was that nothing unexpected was found in it. There would have been workmates' prints in there, for example, because they borrowed one another's cars; her then boyfriend's; and so on. In about 2000 a Ford was found in a scrapyard that had belonged to the chef at the hostel Cannan was at in July 1986. This was DNA tested too and amazingly after 14 years traces of him were found, but nothing of SJL. Some DNA was found with a 60% match to her, which AIUI means nothing, and in any case it doesn't say when these traces were deposited.

The problem her car presents is that it is unclear when it was abandoned. Two BT workers were in the road all day until 4pm and didn't see it; an acquaintance of SJL believes she saw her nearby at about 3pm driving away from the area; and a local witness thinks it was there from 1pm. These accounts can't be reconciled, but DV has reinterviewed the latter and found her to have a poor memory for car makes and colours. If, as seems likely, she's mistaken, the first two accounts make sense and don't conflict.

The pub she lost her diary in, that she may have driven to that Monday to retrieve, backs onto a railway cutting that's fenced off. If she went to that pub and was killed there, there is an obvious place for her killer to have disposed of her body that has never been searched and probably hasn't been disturbed either. DV suggests another place too. As a mere onlooker I find it quite odd that the police are so disinclined to spend the very small effort involved to look at both. Tirailleur (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

She drove to a pub? She lost her diary there? She may have been murdered there? I couldn't see these things in the article. Are they relevant? Should more be added about the car? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

According to an interview her boyfriend gave at the time, she and he went to that pub on the Friday night and her diary, a chequebook and a postcard went missing from her purse. She didn't mention this to anyone else before Monday. She found out where these items were on Monday, but it's unclear how. The pub said they found them and rang her bank, but it's not obvious the bank would have had her work phone number to tell her. Nonetheless, the pub staff reckon she called them at lunchtime on the Monday, to say she'd be over to collect them. In the 80s losing your diary would be like losing your phone - all your phone numbers etc would be in there.

They also say they had two further calls about these items: one from a policeman and another from a "Sarah" saying when SJL turned up, to keep her there. SJL never did retrieve her stuff from the pub (the police have these items), nor have either of the callers ever been identified. The police had not been alerted that afternoon, so no policeman should have called, and no Sarah that SJL knew made any such call (this was checked).

On the day she disappeared, SJL had two appointments in her work diary - the 'Kipper' viewing at 12.45, and another at 6pm. After the latter she was supposed to be playing tennis. It was when she failed to show up for the 6pm that the police were alerted. The DV hypothesis is that she left the office to retrieve those items, putting a made-up viewing into her diary as the cover story for doing so (it left only one other staffer in the office). She didn't go to the 12.45 because she didn't take the keys; the police had them and used them to search the property next day. So if she didn't go there this is the only place that made sense for her to be going. She appears never to have arrived. DV's view is that she was intercepted, either en route or once there. It's hard to fathom what then happened but if she were intercepted by someone she knew the sighting of her in her car at 3pm becomes plausible, especially as it was someone who knew her. Tirailleur (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info. So there were at least two diaries - a personal one that she mislaid in the pub, and an office one with the "Mr Kipper" entry? So maybe she went to the pub at 6pm but she was intercepted in the car park there, before she got inside, and was murdered? The other phone calls to the pub seem very odd/ suspicious. So this is all David Videcette's narrative/ theorising. Is it notable enough to be added to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There were indeed two diaries. It is not clear when the personal one was lost; her boyfriend said at the time they had been to the pub on Friday, but he now says they never went there at all. Her movements on the Sunday are not properly accounted for, so it's possible she met someone else there on Sunday and lost them then. The fact that the pub had them was known about at the time because the landlord contacted the police with the info and says he gave them the phone numbers of the people who had contacted them. There is now no trace of this information.

At a high level the DV view is that there never was a house viewing and that she instead went to retrieve these items. She disguised this errand as a business appointment to excuse leaving the office at lunchtime. She cannot have meant to go there any later in the day because she had a viewing at 6pm, followed by tennis at 7 for which she had to retrieve her tennis gear which she'd left at home. She can't have waited till 6pm because she did not come back to the office after 12.40pm. The only time to run her errand was at lunchtime; so she went out to collect the diary and the tennis gear. No viewing, no Mr Kipper. Her work diary has another entry in for that day, relating to Wardo Road. She knew socially a couple of brothers called Herring; one lived in Wardo Road and the other in Shorrolds. So when she needed a phoney diary entry, that's where she got Mr Kipper and Shorrolds Road.

The mysterious calls thus make it all a bit sinister, because it sounds like several other people knew she would be heading there and maybe intercepted her, but nobody knows who they were. The suspicion arises that someone pilfered the articles and used them to lure her to that pub. But it's not obvious why an abductor would pilfer her stuff and say it's at a pub to collect. You'd think they'd claim to have found them elsewhere and lured to her to some nice quiet spot.

Anyway - the police have always known about the diary and cheque book and about the mysterious callers, but they never noticed the significance.

The wild card in all this appears to have been Diana Lamplugh, actually - she was the one who released out of date photos of SJL to the press depicting her as a brunette, she was the one who went door to door where the car was found and produced an influential but very unreliable witness, and she was the one who was adamant that it was John Cannan who did it, even though he had an alibi from three people. Between the police assumption that there really was a viewing and hence really was a Mr Kipper, and DL's insistence that Cannan was Kipper, this is why they have never looked into any other plausible leads; the police have been 100% focused on proving it was Cannan. They have made this mistake many times before, of course.Tirailleur (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think David Videcette's 2021 book Finding Suzy: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper should be added, together with a summary of his theories. Perhaps a section should be dedicated to those? [1], [2], [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there's also an argument for saying more about how John Cannan came to be included. Essentially, he was named because Diana Lamplugh thought he did it, which she concluded based on press speculation following Cannan's conviction for an abduction and murder. There is, however, no evidence linking him to the case, and the supposed circumstantial evidence is also worthless. Eg, she was supposed to be having trouble with a man from Bristol, but that was in 1984 when Cannan was in jail, this was 1986, and Cannan didn't move to Bristol until 1987. A BMW like Cannan's was supposedly seen outside the property, but Cannan didn't have a BMW in 1986. He supposedly looked liked the Mr Kipper picture, but nobody mentioned this until years later after he'd been named. And so on. Probably the man seen outside the house was SJL's boss, who went round there with the blonde office junior to look for her about 4.30; he also looks like the artist's Mr Kipper picture, and the junior was a blonde. So the simplest explanation of the main sighting is that the witness had the time wrong and provided a description of her colleagues. The CPS decided there was no basis to charge Cannan for a reason: zero evidence. Tirailleur (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The entire John Cannan section needs a rewrite

There are many, many problems with this section.

Re-investigations of the case in the 2000s established that John Cannan was the prime suspect

This is backwards. In 2000 Diana Lamplugh told the police she thought Cannan did it. The investigation was reopened to try to pin it on Cannan. It did not look at anyone else (it did not, for example, look at what other sex offenders had just been released from prison in July 1986).

although the media had already speculated that Cannan was responsible for Lamplugh's abduction and death at the time of her disappearance.

Completely wrong. Cannan was not mentioned before 1989, after he was convicted of murdering Shirley Banks, and he was mentioned by newspapers. Nobody had heard of him in 1986.

Cannan bears a striking resemblance to the photofits of the man seen with Lamplugh on the day she vanished.

There was one photofit and one artist's sketch, which look different to each other. Which of these does Cannan resemble, and in whose opinion? After the reconstruction was broadcast in October 1986, the police received a number of calls from the public pointing out that Suzy's boss at the estate agency, who appeared in the reconstruction and who went to the house to look for her, looks remarkably similar to the pencil sketch. A writer has suggested the same sketch looks like Fred West. It also looks a bit like the drummer out of Ultravox. Cannan was never placed on an identity parade so there is no witness corroboration of this supposed resemblance. Some months later, a BMW belonging to a Mr Kiper from Antwerp was found abandoned in London. This Mr Kiper was traced. The only witness who supposedly saw "Mr Kipper", and described him as of medium height and aged between 25 and 30, later declared that the short, podgy 44-year-old Antwerp man was a dead ringer for "Mr Kipper".

Cannan's nickname in prison was also "Mr Kipper" due to his preference for wearing kipper-style broad ties.

This trope has never been substantiated, and is clearly not true. First, it emerged only in 2000, 14 years later, after the police indicated they were trying to fit this to Cannan, and after witty lags started calling him this as a joke. Second, the source was one other criminal; there is no evidence that Cannan was generally so known. Third, kipper ties went out in the 1970s. Fourth, in prison he'd have worn whatever he was told. Fifth, other origins for this supposed name have been mooted, including that he liked kippers, and kipped (napped) a lot; which is true? Sixth, why would a sex criminal use an alias that led back to himself? Seventh, what did the police do to rule out the possibility of an ex-prisoner informing on Cannan to exercise a grudge?

Banks' car was discovered hidden and repainted in his garage with a false number plate affixed reading "SLP 386". Police believe this number plate could refer to Suzy Lamplugh (SLP) and 1986, the year of her murder.

'Speculated' would be more accurate. They had no evidence for this.

Alternatively, police believed it could also be coordinates on a map

Which they searched and found nothing.

He claimed that he had bought the car off a "Bristol businessman" who was responsible for "the murders of Shirley Banks, Suzy Lamplugh and another girl", and that this man was in a lot of trouble.

The context for this was that he tried to explain away the car to the police by saying he'd bought it in an auction in Bristol. He was trying to suggest that whoever sold it to him was their man. When pressed, he could not describe the layout of the car auction site, and it was clear he had never been there. He was not confessing to any of these crimes; he was ineptly trying to say that a big boy did it and ran away.

Cannan himself was known for masquerading as a Bristol businessman.

He was from the Midlands. He did not move to Bristol until 1987. Cannan was not "known for masquerading as a Bristol businessman" in 1986.

the prison he was released from was three miles from the estate agent office Lamplugh worked in.

It is 4.5 miles away, not three.

In the time leading up to disappearance, it was later disclosed

By whom?

that Lamplugh had a new boyfriend from the Bristol area, to which Cannan later moved

I.e. he wasn't from Bristol in 1986. Suzy's supposed liaison with a man from Bristol happened two years before, at a time when Cannan was in jail.

and from where his family were from

His family were not from Bristol. They were from Sutton Coldfield, a hundred miles away north-east of Birmingham.

he was known to have had work experience in the area at the time while on day release from the open prison.

His work experience was in Acton, which is actually further away from Fulham than Du Cane Road, where the Wormwood Scrubs hostel was.

Witnesses came forward to tell police that they had seen a man and a woman resembling Lamplugh and Cannan having an argument in a car on the day of the disappearance

They came forward fourteen years later. Apparently, despite having forgotten this incident for that long, they remembered every detail including the day, date and time - after the police named Cannan.

and that the car was a dark-coloured left-hand BMW.

Cannan did not own a BMW in 1986 and the one he later acquired was RHD

This was significant as Cannan owned a dark-coloured left-hand drive BMW, which he used to commit crimes with a fellow inmate.

Cannan did not own a BMW in 1986 and the one he later acquired was RHD. In July 1986 he co-owned a red Sierra with an inmate. The police had already said it was Cannan, Cannan later had a BMW, so the "witnesses" described the car they thought Cannan had. Unfortunately, he didn't own it until 1987.

Cannan had also shown up uninvited to a house that was for sale in Fulham days before Lamplugh was last seen believing that the young female occupant was alone in the house, and started acting strangely until the woman's husband appeared, causing Cannan to quickly leave.

A claim first made, with total recall of day, date and time, fourteen years later.

Witnesses also placed Cannan looking into Lamplugh's estate agent's window the day before she went missing.

A claim first made, with total recall of day, date and time, fourteen years later. It's 2021: who do we remember looking in a shop window in 2007? How do we know this wasn't Suzy's boss?

Cannan did not have an alibi for the days after leaving prison and conveniently does not recall where he was, despite having an impeccable memory of other events at the time.

Cannan did have an alibi and knows where he was. He went back to Sutton Coldfield and gave his mother, sister and brother-in-law as persons able to verify this. The police did not check in 1990 and all three were dead by 2000. They decided this meant he had no alibi. In fact, he had provided one at the time. He had nowhere else to go and had no money.

The Crown Prosecution Service agreed that the police reinvestigation in the early 2000s had been excellent and thorough, but ultimately decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge Cannan with the murder of Lamplugh.

The police so strongly felt Cannan was responsible, however, that they announced in a press conference in November 2002, in an extremely rare move, that they believed Cannan was responsible.

This was the family's influence. The investigation surfaced no evidence, which is why the CPS threw it out.

While in prison, Cannan told a psychiatrist that he might well "reveal all" about Lamplugh when his mother died.

Which she has and yet he hasn't. He's a psychopath; psychopaths say things like this to get attention.

He will be eligible for parole in 2022.

And the Parole Board can decide to keep him in jail for killing Suzy, even though he's never been charged, and the CPS have seen no evidence on which to do so.

The problem with this section is that it repeats gossip, hearsay, conjecture and inaccuracies as facts even though they have all been debunked in the public domain, and even though the CPS thinks they amount to exactly nothing.

All it needs to say is that the actual "case" against Cannan originated with Diana Lamplugh. It amounts to his being about 5 miles away from Fulham until the week before Suzy's disappearance, and an offender. Everything else that purports to be "evidence" surfaced only after he was named and after the press decided that he looked like "Mr Kipper". It all came from people who noticed nothing at the time, but who, 14 years later, remembered exactly what they seen and when and where. The CPS were not persuaded and declined to act.

It's not for the article, but it is reminiscent of the Rachel Nickell case, when the judge instructed the jury to throw out the charges against Colin Stagg, and the police irritably announced that they weren't looking for anyone else. Some years later, someone else was convicted. Tirailleur (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Blimey. Any chance you could add a bit of indenting and/or colour to aid readability? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)