All language subtitles for In.The.Footsteps.Of.Killers.S01E02.WEBRip.x264-ION10[eztv.re]

It's incredibly claustrophobic, isn't it?

You think someone would
have seen something,

wouldn't you?

39, blue door, 37.

There it is.

Can you remember when the appointment was?

12:45 with Mr. Kipper.

And then she just disappears.

And we have no idea what happened to her.

Suzy Lamplugh was only 25 years
old when she went missing.

She's described as bright
and bubbly, funny, ambitious

popular, and hugely adept at her job.

She was in an estate agent.

She was doing well.

She's a professional young woman.

She's living in her own flat.

She's got her own money,

and here suddenly she goes
missing off the streets of Fulham

and no one can work out what
on earth has happened to her.

And if she could go
missing in broad daylight

never to be seen again,

well, what about all the other women?

Are they in danger too?

And then she was declared dead in 1993,

but no one has ever been prosecuted.

And yet it was one of the
largest police investigations

of its day.

And it's not for the want
of trying by her parents,

Diana and Paul Lamplugh.

Who you had a personal connection to?

Yeah, I shared many a platform with Diana

throughout the '80s and the '90s,

and I remember one particular occasion.

She got all the women
in the hall to stand up

and then she made them scream.

And she said, if my Suzy had screamed

maybe she'd be alive today.

Okay, well let's look at
the witness statements

that we've got,

and try and piece together

the facts that we know about what happened

on the day Suzy disappeared.

There are literally scores
of witness statements

on the day.

Noel Devier, an unemployed barman who says

he sees Suzy outside 37
Shorells Road about 12:50.

We know that she goes into
her estate agent's store

just on the Fulham Road

and that she tries to deal
with a flurry of offers

that came in for houses over the weekend.

And they managed to trace
all the clients that Suzy had

except Mr. Kipper, who they
could find no details of.

We know her car,

this white Ford Fiesta,
is found a mile away

from Shorells Road, in Stevenage Road

outside this very garage.

Significantly the driver's
seat was pushed back

from its usual forward position.

So further back than
probably a woman would have

it to drive.

The car was parked askew from the pavement

and about 18 inches across this garage.

And the handbrake wasn't engaged.

The door to the driver's side was open.

The passenger door was locked.

The hypothesis must be

that the man who abducts her

drives her car to this spot

so that he can transfer her

from this car into a car
that he's already got parked

somewhere up the street.

How did he do that?

By using violence or
the threat of violence,

or perhaps even charm?

There are witness reports

that someone fitting Suzy's description

was seen possibly arguing
with a smartly dressed man

in a black BMW or Mercedes
racing off in this area.

We should speak to someone
who worked on the case

the day Suzy went missing.

I'm running a bit late.

I'm going to speak to a detective

who was on the case from day one.

Okay.

Speak to you later.

Brings back a lot of emotion, really.

It's a mystery, absolute mystery.

I went to Suzy's flat.

Paul Lamplugh, Suzy's father,

was already at Fulham police station.

So I took him with me.

-Emotions were high.
Yeah.

Because I didn't know what I
was going to find in there.

Mr. Lamplugh had to be
restrained by my colleague

not to follow me in.

And nothing untoward was found in there.

There was no disturbance.

There was no sign of Suzy.

And there was nothing that
would give you any information

about what had happened in
any way, any connection?

Nothing at all, absolutely nothing.

It's like a parent's worst nightmare.

Exactly, exactly that.

-We didn't have CCTV.
Yeah.

We didn't have mobile phone intelligence.

Yeah.

We didn't have DNA.

Would we have found Suzy alive immediately

because of technology
that we've got today?

I think we would have done.

Every single detective on that team,

they had one aim and
that was to find Suzy.

Yeah.

It became sort of, it
ran our lives really.

That was your main objective in life.

And even today, there's that feeling

we failed them.

We failed the family.

What would you like to see happen now?

My hope would be purely
to find where Suzy lays.

Unfortunately, Mr. and Mrs.
Lamplugh are now deceased.

Yeah.

But it still leaves siblings.

They need to put Suzy to rest

in the place where they want to rest her.

As a case that remains with
him all these years later,

he said that there was a sense of failure

that they didn't find Suzy.

He wanted Suzy's body to
be found for the family.

And of course to find out who did it.

Okay, I'm on my way to
see Richard Lamplugh,

Suzy's brother.

What are you gonna ask him?

I don't want our investigation to be seen

as intrusive in any way.

And so I'd like to find out from him

what he'd like us to discover.

I hope it goes okay.

She looks very
pretty there, doesn't she?

She's beautiful.

That's how I really remember her.

She enjoyed the good times, you know.

And in that time when she,
before she disappeared

things were all going well and
things seem to be looking up.

And can you remember that
time when you suddenly

realized she'd gone missing?

What was that day like?

You don't want to believe that she's,

something's happened to her really bad.

But eventually you sort of think, hmm.

She must, something's
really gone wrong here.

Your hopes then die a bit.

But you've still got to
try and keep positive.

Were you surprised by the press interest

in Suzy's disappearance?

I was totally surprised.

You know, the amount of press you think,

oh they're bound to...
someone's bound to tell you

that they saw her get into a car

or something like this.

And of course, nothing sort of appeared.

So it just goes on and on.

When someone disappears

you don't have a sort of

anywhere to remember as at.

You know, she's somewhere out there

and we don't have
anywhere to remember her.

We don't have a grave or
didn't have anything like that.

It would be great to have a place

for where we could bury
her as such, you know.

I would want her somewhere
that we could put her.

So, that's how I feel.

How was Richard?

Well, I'm glad I came to see Richard

because for one thing

it reminds me about why we're doing this.

Of course.

They would like to find Suzy's body

so that they have some
place that they controlled

where they could remember their sister.

Of course.

So where did we go from here?

Let's take a look at all the suspects

in Suzy Lamplugh's abduction and murder.

Michael Sams, who is
serving a life sentence

for the murder of teenager
Julie Dart in 1991.

And the kidnap of Birmingham
estate agent Stephanie Slater

in 1992.

Yeah, so obviously it's the
mention of Stephanie Slater.

As soon as you say estate agent you get--

Red flags.

That rings alarm bells for people.

Crucially in the 1970's

Sam's had his right leg
amputated because he had cancer.

Remember we've got all
this witness testimony

that describes Mr. Kipper.

Nobody has ever said that Mr. Kipper

was walking with a limp.

So I think we can rule him out.

Okay.

Steve Wright.

He is serving a life sentence

for the murder of five women in Suffolk.

And he worked on the QE2
with Suzy in the 1980s.

Yeah, you're quite right.

He knew Susie Lamplugh,

who was also working on
the ship at the same time.

And indeed even more significantly

at one stage Wright's ex wife claimed

that he was on shore leave

on the day that Suzy went missing.

Now I know that immediately
brings him into the frame

but when the police looked
at Quenard's records

they were able to establish that in fact

he was working, he was on
board ship on that day.

And therefore, I don't think
he's a legitimate suspect.

Okay.

There is one other unnamed
guy who briefly dated Suzy

after meeting her in a wine bar.

And apparently he lived on Shorells Road.

And so again, we've got a few red flags.

A few alarm bells.

Shorrels Road and he had
previously dated Suzy.

But again, when the police looked

at his movements on the
day that she disappears

he has an alibi that's water tight.

And so all of that brings
us back to the prime suspect

that the met police themselves name,

which is John Cannan.

Let's look at what we know about him.

He's currently in prison

for the abduction and
murder of Shirley Banks

who he abducted and
killed in October, 1987,

which is how many months
after Suzy disappeared?

15 months.

15 months, now

her body isn't found until April 1988

You know what really strikes me

is how similar Suzy and Shirley looked.

Don't you think?

It's like he had a type.

We also know that he was convicted

of robbery and rape in 1981.

He went into a knitwear shop,
robbed it at knife point,

and he raped the 37 year
old pregnant shop owner

in front of her mother
and 17 month old son.

This is a particularly
nasty offense, isn't it?

Truly awful.

And he was given an eight year sentence.

He served five,

and then for the last six months

he was sent to a prison release hostel

at Wormword Scrubs,

which is 4.3 miles from where Suzy worked,

and which gave him ample opportunity

to go to wine bars, to chat up women,

which he actually boasted
about to his workmates.

And allegedly one of them
was called Crocodile Tears

which was opposite Sturges
estate agents where Susie worked.

And there are other pieces
of circumstantial evidence

that linked Cannan to
Suzy's disappearance.

Look at the photo fit of Mr. Kipper.

How that resembles this
photograph of John Cannan.

Yeah, they're
so similar, aren't they?

The other thing to remember

that connects Cannan
to Suzy's disappearance

is that when he is actually
arrested for the murder

of Shirley Banks,

he was driving a black BMW,

which of course crops up in several

of the witness testimonies

about the day that Suzy disappeared.

No, I'm listening.

Hang on, hang on.

Yeah, we're on our way.

One of my contacts has got us all

of the original police
tapes when John Cannan

was interviewed while in prison.

That could give us an insight

into Cannan's character.

Well his character perhaps

but not necessarily the murder.

We are in the east

at Hammersmith Police Station.

I am interviewing people
who are suspected of murder.

Yes, sir.

It's John David Guys Cannan.

Thank you.

Welcome to my world.

This is what it's like interviewing people

who are suspected of murder

and in his case, already
been convicted of murder.

So do you think he's decided

about how he's going to
present himself straight away?

Totally, the glasses on his head,

the color turned up,

the John David Guys Cannan, certainly.

You know, he's clearly thought

about who he's going to be
in this particular interview.

Does that fit with a man who can take

on the character of Mr. Kipper?

-Totally.

I don't really see, as
he's currently saying,

what else there is to be said.

Mrs. Lamplugh thinks I've done it.

She's accused me of doing it.

I've answered every
question you've put to me.

I've invited Mrs. Lamplugh
herself up to the prison

to have a quiet word to me.

And I've said I'll go on
the lie detector test.

The truth drug or anything
you wanna put me on.

What did you pick up?

He has no empathy for her.

He blames her.

Think about it as well as
performing a distancing effect.

So he uses her title, Mrs. Lamplugh.

Keeps her one stage removed from him.

And then this whole thing about

he's trying to be helpful

I'll take the truth drug.

I'll go in the lie detector test.

But why does he do that?

Well because it has no evidentiary value.

He knows that kind of evidence

from either the truth drug
or the lie detector tests

can't be admissible in an English court.

So it's all just smoke and mirrors?

Smoke and mirrors.

It's obfuscation.

Might've done many
things wrong in my life.

Things that, believe me,
I'm genuinely sorry for.

And one or two I haven't been caught for.

Can you play that again?

And one or two I haven't been caught for.

One or two things that he
hasn't been caught for?

Why does he do that?

Well, in my experience,

the truth often slips out.

Often they prove to be the authentic self

talking about crime.

What happens if he didn't do it?

And he is saying, I didn't do it.

I have no connection to this.

The role of the police in those situations

is to find pieces of evidence,

albeit circumstantial pieces,

that can be cross-referenced

against other verifiable sources.

That's how you progress
this kind of interview

into being able to make a charge.

What I don't get is

with everything we know

and everything that the police know

how come Cannan hasn't been
charged with the murder of Suzy?

I'm trying as I've always
tried for 12 years.

To try and help you.

To try and help persuade you

that it wasn't me.

And I've said I'll go on
the lie detector test,

the truth drug, anything
you would want it to be.

And then it's not evidentiary.

I've managed to get my hands

on an internal police report from 2000.

It's a damning review of
the original investigation.

And it says that Cannan wasn't
treated as the chief suspect

because the lead officer had
fallen out with Suzy's mum

believing she was behind
media leaks about the case.

I fixed a meeting with the
senior investigating officer

in the second investigation.

Speak to you in a bit, yeah.

Yeah, see you later, bye.

Why was Jim Cannan never
treated as a suspect

in the first investigation?

Good question.

I don't know the answer to that

because I never made that decision.

All I can say is certainly
when I re-investigated

the Lamplugh case

John Cannan became the only prime suspect.

Why he wasn't interviewed
in the first investigation

I don't know.

Why wasn't he put in an ID parade?

I don't know.

Why some of the key
witnesses weren't spoken to,

I don't know.

And why basically
opportunities were missed?

I don't know.

But I can't get my head around

the thought process behind it.

Certainly there was sufficient
evidence back in '86

for Cannan to be treated as a suspect.

Why has Cannan never been charged?

Very good question.

Myself and colleagues submitted a report

to the crown prosecution service in 2003,

but in order for a prosecution to proceed

we needed to convince a judge

that there had been no abuse
of process on two counts.

One, he felt that Cannan had been tried

and convicted by the media.

And you can't really argue with that

because there's been massive,

and continues to be massive
media coverage of this incident.

And the second was

that the police either
had ignored, mislaid,

or did not use clues that they had

in the original investigation in 1986.

In your opinion, did Joan Cannan abduct

and kill Suzy Lamplugh?

In my opinion John Cannan is the only

and he's the prime suspect

for the abduction and
murder of Suzy Lamplugh.

Jim said that Cannan
wasn't treated as a suspect

in the original investigation.

That the police didn't caution him

before they interviewed him in custody,

that he wasn't put in ID parades,

that they didn't follow
up on key witnesses,

and they didn't check his alibi.

Oh, this sounds really muddled
and confused, doesn't it?

The CPS said that they weren't
going to take him to trial

because of lack of evidence.

Proper process wasn't followed.

And they felt

that he did experience
trial by media already.

Trial by media.

That's what he's going to accuse
us of doing as well, I bet.

Exactly.

Can he ever be tried for it?

And another thing Jim suggested speaking

to a couple of people

who had come to him with
some new evidence recently.

But he was cautious and said

that they might not want to be identified

if we spoke to them.

Well I'm always interested
in new information.

He was suggesting
we write to John Cannan

and ask him for a meeting.

I am, that's exactly what I'm asking.

Why would we do that?

Well, by asking for a meeting,

we can put to him those pieces
of circumstantial evidence

that connect him to the
story of Suzy Lamplugh

and ask for an explanation.

But is that right to be giving him a voice

given what he's done?

Well, I suppose if I was the
family of a murder victim

I'd say it wasn't.

Right

But my life is about investigations.

And I know that the
only way that I can ever

progress an investigation is
by talking to that person.

So we could ask him what he remembers

about his experience of
life in London at the time,

the social scene and Fulham maybe,

where we know that he would hang out

Perhaps he encountered Suzy by accident.

Could get us closer to the truth.

Yeah, I'm after a favour,

about a Cat A.

Yep, okay.

C-A-N-N-A-N.

Okay, thanks.

We've had a response from John Cannan.

We can't see him, but he's written to us.

I'm on my way.

Thank you for your letter.

The problem as I see it is this.

I was not involved in any
way in the disappearance

of Miss Lamplugh.

So I really don't know
what I can tell you.

So we wanted to give him a voice.

We wanted to get him to address himself

to some of the circumstantial evidence,

but he says I never met Lamplugh

One of the things that we asked him about

was the Fulham social scene

where he might have
acidentally met Suzy Lamplugh.

Yeah he says, "Cannot tell
you what the social scene

in London was like, as I was
only there for six months

and was in a low paid job

earning around 300 pounds per week.

I lived in a hostel

and didn't enjoy a
large circle of friends.

What pubs or eating places
I occasionally frequented

were principally local."

That completely divorces him
from the Fulham social scene

of the 1980s, doesn't it?

I'm not a yuppie, is what
he's saying in this passage.

But look at one of these passages.

"I drove a smart, black BMW 316.

I had beautiful clothes and
in those days girls galore."

That is a completely
polar opposite description

to how he said that he was living

and what his life was like
in previous correspondence.

This description seems to connect him

and there a lot of similarities

between what's being described here

and the MO of Mr. Kipper.

But of course in this passage

he's also lying to us.

"I did not need to abduct
women," exclamation mark.

But he was convicted of
abducting and murdering

Shirley Banks, so

a complete lie.

We're trying to give him a voice,

and having done so I
think I would now like us

to move on back into the criminology.

I'd like us to think about

the abduction and murder of Shirley Banks

and how her body was disposed of by Cannan

after he had killed her to see if that

might be the key to
unlocking what happened

to Suzy Lamplugh in 1986.

It's eerie, isn't it?

Standing here where John Cannan disposed

of Shirley Banks's body.

She was lying face down in the ditch.

Her skull had been fractured.

She was naked and she
could only be identified

by the jewelry that she was wearing.

It just can't be a coincidence, can it,

that he disposed of her
and in a place called

Dead Woman's Ditch.

Well, as far as I'm concerned,

there's no coincidence

when we're dealing with murder.

He's chosen the site very deliberately.

He's playing a game.

And what does that tell us about him?

He likes to think of
himself as one step ahead.

Catch me if you can is
really what he's saying.

So he's playing games with the police?

Yeah, absolutely.

We've seen him interviewed by the police.

We saw what he was like

when he was in an interview situation.

Effectively he was like an
upstanding member of the public.

When we know he wasn't.

And he even said

that there were crimes that
he hadn't been caught for yet.

Which crimes was he alluding to?

I think there's quite a lot

we can tell about Cannan

from what he does to Shirley Banks.

We know that he abducted her
on the 7th of October 1987.

And we know that she called into work

on the 8th of October and
said that she was ill.

So he's kept her for a whole night alive.

Yeah, he likes to be with his victim.

And can you imagine what
it must have been like

for Shirley Banks that day?

That time that she's spending with Cannan,

because all that time she would be

hoping and praying that
she would be able to return

to her husband.

All the time Cannan
would have been enjoying

every single moment that
he had power and control

over her.

Criminologists would say that
he was processed focused,

not act focus.

And what does that mean?

That he's enjoying the
sense of being with a victim

he's then going to kill.

So he enjoys it?

He enjoys it.

If he was act focused and
he was simply interested

in the kill,

he'd kill and move on.

That's not what floats his
boat, criminologically.

He likes to be with his victim.

And you know, we're
not hypothesizing here.

This is definitive.

This is what we know John
Cannan is capable of doing.

And you know what?

Could he have been capable

of doing something similar
with Suzy Lamplugh?

Dead Woman's
Ditch has got me thinking.

We need to use geo profiling.

My friend works with the police,

and she uses locations of crimes

to predict where an offender might live

and helps the police narrow

down the pool of suspects.

But for us, maybe she
could use the science

of geo profiling

to help predict--

Where the murderer could
have disposed of Suzy's body.

That's what I'm hoping for.

So what does the sign say?

Geographic profiling
involves the reconstruction

and interpretation of an
offender's mental map.

There's two components to that process.

One is an objective analysis

that's based on a statistical
analysis of the point pattern

that an offender leaves.

And then the second part of that

is a more subjective analysis

looking at the underlying environment,

interpreting that as the way,

perhaps very much the
way an offender would

when he was trying to make decisions

about where to offend next

or where to dispose of the body.

In terms of Suzy, how have you gone about

trying to think about Cannan's mental map

and the spaces and areas
he's comfortable with?

What you'll see here
is this is the results

of the geographic profile
overlaid on the map.

To interpret this

we look at the colors.

This red area is the highest probability

that an offender has a base here, okay.

And then from there

these colors represent
decreasing, likelihoods.

So Sam, we've got a group of offenses

in the Birmingham area.

A group of offenses in the London area.

And again, offenses in the Bristol area.

Yeah, what I'm focusing on

are those locations that were relevant

at the time of Suzy's disappearance.

My starting point is Cannan's home base,

Sutton Coldfield.

We know he had been released

from his bail hostel a few days earlier

and may have actually
moved back to this address.

And that's where his mother lived.

-Is that right?
-That's where

his mother lived, exactly.

The London home base is
his pre-release hostel

when he was released from Wormwood Scrubs.

That places him in the vicinity
of where Suzy disappeared.

So I can already see

you've got the M4 really highlighted.

Why the M4?

We know that his mental map is biased

towards the west country.

The M4 leads to Bristol.

And also you can get onto the M40

from the M4 that leads up to Birmingham.

This is the ordinance
survey map of the area.

So you see, we've got
the M4 coming in here.

This will get him out of London.

And then he would start to be able to

identify suitable locations.

The area that you've highlighted

as I can see is the first
where we've got a green space

and some river canal network.

We know looking at his past behavior

that he savored water in
the locations that he used.

For me, it was about looking

along this route for the
first suitable location

that fell within our red
high probability area

that fit that suitability.

We can never put an X on a map

and say that's where you
need to start digging.

However, the area I think is
of interest is this area here.

See, it has the River
Brent running through it

as well as the M4 dissecting it.

It's very accessible.

So bringing a car in here

you can get really
quite close to the park.

It's fascinating.

It's like a geographical post-mortem.

Is there anything else we can find out?

So this is the area
we should concentrate in?

Absolutely.

That is where I suggest we
really focus our attention.

Sorry.
Okay.

Yes, the people you were
telling me about, yeah?

That was Jim Dickey,
the detective who said

that there might be some
people with new information

and he's just said that
they will talk to us,

and they want to meet in Brentford

which is actually within
the geo profiling hotspot.

The two people with new
information are willing to talk,

but they don't want to be identified.

Okay, Mills, I've got the
train and the cars on my right

I'm passing a storage
unit which I don't know

if that existed in 1986.

Am I in slightly the right area?

Where would you like me to go?

David, if you, the way you're
walking, keep going forward

and you'll see a big bridge.

Keep going.

Can I ask you while David
is walking the path,

would you mind telling me about
Dave and how you know Dave?

We used to child mind
together in the same area.

And we were all neighbors and
really all got on very well.

Will you tell us what Dave
saw that morning in 1986?

Yes, Dave was on his way to work

and he would leave very
early in the morning,

about five o'clock.

As he was walking down a tow path

he saw a man coming towards him

carrying quite a heavy load on wheels.

As he passed him, Dave heard a splash,

-he looked around

and saw the man running
with nothing in his hand.

So after his day's work, Dave
went to the police station

to report what he'd seen.

And they were quite dismissive?

Dismissive with him.

It wasn't until 1989,

it was going to be a trial
for the Shirley Banks murder,

that he saw a picture
in the Evening Standard

of the man that was gonna stand for trial

and said, "That looks like the man."

Because he wanted to be absolutely sure,

he said to his wife, " I'm
going down to the trial

and Exeter crown court."

He actually saw John
Cannan being sentenced

and taken down from the dock.

And he came back and
said, "That is definitely

the man that I saw on the
canal path that morning."

After he came back from Exeter,
he went to the police again

and told them this

and came back so frustrated,
because again he said,

"They're not listening to me.

I don't think they believe me."

That must've been devastating for him.

He had no reason to not tell the truth.

When we spoke to Sylvia,
his wife, she'd say,

"I'm fed up with him talking about it

because he's driving me mad with it.

That's all he's talking about."

It haunted him for the rest of his life.

I can see a bridge.

I can see a bridge through the trees.

Is this it?

Yes, that's the bridge.

That's the bridge, David,

it should be near a bend.

It's about where you are, David.

There's evidence of steps there

which would all be built up by now.

Yeah.

That's where we
think that he dropped the bag.

That's were Dave thought
he dropped the bag.

Were these women believable?

Totally credible.

As I believe was Dave, and
Jim Dickie thinks so too.

So if we accept the story that Dave tells

-as being accurate.
-Yeah.

He sees somebody who identifies

as John Cannan carrying a suitcase

that he deposits in the water.

Is that the story?

Yes, and they didn't do anything about it.

He went to the police about
three times apparently.

Well, I suppose all of
this proves something

I've always said about cold cases.

You make them hot again if you

shake the tree proverbially

and something falls from the branches.

New witnesses come forward,
new evidence emerges,

forensic techniques
develop that you can test

against old exhibits
that you've collected.

If Cannan was that person that Dave saw

that's credible and has
to be taken seriously.

It affected the whole of
Dave's life, apparently.

That's how much he believed
that the person that he saw

on that tow path was John Cannan.

The bit that's still confusing to me

is that the canal is only four foot deep.

I'm not so sure what we can interpret

about a suitcase and four feet of water.

Would it be found?

Wouldn't it be found?

Could it have sunk into the mud?

I don't know.

I mean I think we're going to have to ask

a forensic pathologist

and surely you know some
forensic pathologists

we could phone?

I've got a phone full of them.

Hang on.

Let me see.

Hi, it's Emelia.

I need your help.

Yes, potentially.

A body in water.

Pretty much for three decades.

In Brentford, London

by the Grand Union canal.

How usual is it

for someone to dispose of
a body in a river or canal?

It happens.

You don't have to dig a hole.

You don't have to spend hours, you know

digging a grave somewhere,
finding somewhere,

you know where the rivers are.

You just throw it into the river.

Water covers over it.

When you say water covers over it

does that mean that also

that a lot of the forensic evidence

that might be gathered gets destroyed?

If we're talking about sort of in there

it'll sink down to the bottom.

There's not much oxygen around.

You start to get what's
it, suppolification

or adepacy formation

where basically the body turns to soap.

Body fat becomes very hard.

So a body could stay in the
water for years, you know,

and if it's not dredged or anything,

eventually it will break down

and then you'll get just the bones.

The skull, pelvis, femurs,

the number of vertebra.

They, they tend to stay around.

Smaller bones get sort
of washed downstream.

If you've got muddy, salty water

not much oxygen,

you could have a few big bones there

lasting 30, 40 years.

I mean, we occasionally get bodies

coming out of the Thames from Tudor times.

Well, let's talk about that.

If there were human remains in the canal,

how will that help the police

identify who the victim has been?

If you've got the skull
and you've got the teeth

you can get DNA out of
the teeth, particularly.

And then you've got a
match against relatives.

You can identify someone

by scouring through all
the old dental records.

If you know who the person is,

relatives perhaps around
you can get their DNA

and match their DNA to that.

Yeah, you could identify a body.

Theoretically, could the body

of Suzy Lamplugh still be in
this stretch of the canal?

If you've got the silt there

and it hasn't been touched
over the last 13 years,

theoretically they could be, yeah, yeah.

So it could be worth?

Dredging the canal.

Would you say?

Not for me to say, but yeah.

There could be a sort
of quite a decent amount

of human remains still
in the, in the canal.

Gosh.

Millie, the body of Suzy Lamplugh

might be within this stretch of the canal.

We have made some significant discoveries,

haven't we?

The geo profiling,

the very first time that that
has been done on this case.

That geo profiling crosses

with new information that we've uncovered.

And so we're coming to this spot.

We've heard a forensic pathologist say

that well, it's worth dredging here.

And I'm glad that we're
ending by thinking about

Suzy Lamplugh.

Because for me that's quite personal.

I mean, I knew Diana her mother.

I shared a stage

with her talking to young
women about personal safety.

And I think if she were still alive

I could look Diana in the face and say

we've helped move this investigation on,

uncovered evidence

about the prime suspect,

and might even have an answer

to where Suzy's remains could be.