Who Killed Suzy Lamplugh (Part 2)

By April 1989, John Cannan had been convicted of kidnapping and murdering Bristol newlywed Shirley Banks, raping another woman, and attempting to abduct a third at gunpoint — crimes that led one psychiatrist to conclude he could “dispose of a human life with as much emotion as you and I throw away a toffee wrapper.” But was Cannan also responsible for the 1986 disappearance of estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, missing three years before his trial? In Part 2, forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes examines the number plate that almost gave Cannan away, revisits a 2000 police re-interview in which his meticulous alibi collapses hour by hour, and asks why — despite compelling circumstantial evidence — he was never charged before his death in prison in November 2024.

Key psychological themes

This episode explores: performative charm masking predatory violence • narcissistic slips of the tongue • fabricated alibis unravelling under interrogation • third-person distancing as a psychological defence • the limits of circumstantial evidence • grief, campaigning and unfinished justice

Contributors featured in this episode

Kerry Daynes — Forensic psychologist, presenter, and author of Dark Side of the Mind and What Lies Buried.

Rod Chaytor — Veteran crime correspondent (Daily Mirror) who covered the Cannan trial and the Lamplugh case.

Michael Barley — Former Detective Sergeant, Metropolitan Police; interviewed Cannan after his arrest and again during the 2000 review.

Jim Dickie — Former Detective Superintendent, Metropolitan Police; led the 2000 review into Suzy Lamplugh’s disappearance.

What you'll learn in this episode

How John Cannan’s 1989 trial for the murder of Shirley Banks and other offences ended in three life sentences, and what the judge’s sentencing remarks revealed about his psychology

Why the number plate on Shirley Banks’s car, found in Cannan’s garage — SLP 386 S — became one of the case’s most chilling details

What happened when Detective Sergeant Mike Barley asked Cannan, ‘Is that man you, John?’ — and why the answer still divides investigators