UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #2

[Pinkizzy]

She left Sturgis Estate Agents at 12.40 for an appointment with Mr Kipper

Suzy Lamplugh case 'still active' 35 years on

In the Footsteps of Killers release date: Emilia Fox to present Channel 4 documentary

Thread #1

 

[asyousay]

What’s the link for tonight’s chat?


I hope he answers some of the questions we have as if he takes the easy option it will make me doubt his take.


I want to know why he missed out parts that we know to be true.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

For me, the CV 'Sarah',/'Policeman' phone calls stood out the most as highly odd in the post-abduction part of the AS book - and that includes the Mr Kiper and the deserted BMW coincidence! I don't believe that two experienced officers would have mislaid the info on route back to the police station. And yet, the police must have investigated CV's movements on 28 July, 1986. Was he at the PoW?

DV didn't include these in this book but was very interested in the neighbour who called Susannah, 'Susan', trying to track down the original journalist who was unfortunately, deceased. Why is this 'Susan' far more significant and more interesting? I guess as CV said someone called for 'Susan' but this might have been an error after three decades?

As for K and the (stolen) BMW, it had been slowly decaying for many months in St John's Wood before it was linked to the SL abduction. Radio stolen and damaged over time. The man who spotted it wanted to purchase it and it was unlike the model seen in every way by the car enthusiast witness at Shorrolds road. It was seemingly in for repairs in Belgium at time of abduction and not in London or the UK but who knows. There was some proof, however. K was really called R although sometimes K, mother's maiden name from memory, so it was a bit of a (huge) leap to link him to all this, possibly? NB: AS book.

HR said that K was very like the man he saw, after he was flown to Belgium to identify him. Yet HR had also seen SL being bundled into a van until he retracted this statement...

 

[asyousay]

So just watching the chat and the diary was a proper diary. The police said it was quite salacious in its content. So not a pocket diary and it would of had a lot of content in that Suzy wrote about.

 

[Crusader21]

Yes and according to DV these items were left beside the public phone box outside the pub, on the Sunday night.

Q. Why didn't Suzy ring Adam from her home phone?
Q. Why did AL say items were stolen on the Friday night? 'A bad end to a good evening'?

 

[Crusader21]

Overall I thought the chat wasn't great.

Nothing really new and Banks99 getting a hard time for nothing from the mods was what I took from it! ....

 

[WiseOwl]

Yes and according to DV these items were left beside the public phone box outside the pub, on the Sunday night.

Q. Why didn't Suzy ring Adam from her home phone?
Q. Why did AL say items were stolen on the Friday night? 'A bad end to a good evening'?

The Sunday night phone call is another confusing point. In DV's book AL says he can't remember if he phoned Suzy or she phoned him.

I still think that AL was responsible for taking Suzy's items on the Friday night, and I don't think it was as good as night as he made out. Suzy's actions over the weekend speak volumes to me, she didn't want to spend any time with him at all.

 

[WiseOwl]

Overall I thought the chat wasn't great.

Nothing really new and Banks99 getting a hard time for nothing from the mods was what I took from it! ....

Yes they were a bit harsh on poor old Banksie I thought!

Interesting that the police didn't bother to check any phone records at Suzy's office, they believed that Mr K walked in off the street and booked an appointment.

I wonder what made them come to that conclusion?

 

[asyousay]

With the police having zero interest in the new evidence he has dug up and he implied he won’t dig and he has a specific reason for that it doesn’t seem like there will be a break anytime soon.

 

[Henry B]

The Sunday night phone call is another confusing point. In DV's book AL says he can't remember if he phoned Suzy or she phoned him.

I still think that AL was responsible for taking Suzy's items on the Friday night, and I don't think it was as good as night as he made out. Suzy's actions over the weekend speak volumes to me, she didn't want to spend any time with him at all.

But the AS book says that there was an arrangement for AL to join SJL at her flat if he was back from Worthing in time on the Sunday, but he was delayed. Also, they were going to a party on the Tuesday (?) night (Park Lane?).

 

[Fate--]

Try looking through her contacts? Where could have she have gone? Can anyone describe the man and the car??

 

[Terryb808]

With the police having zero interest in the new evidence he has dug up and he implied he won’t dig and he has a specific reason for that it doesn’t seem like there will be a break anytime soon.

Yes, he reluctantly agreed that if the police don’t look at the PoW he’d consider crowd funding, but his response was reluctant.

 

[Terryb808]

Overall I didn’t think the interview was that revealing, however, those who have studied the case will have had a lot of small questions answered.
I can now see why DV thinks SJL is in the immediate area of the PoW and why he can see a motive for her disappearance.
SJL’s personal diary is key to this, if anyone read it, it would paint an interesting picture and if you were one of the men featured, you may take a very dim view indeed.
It’s interesting that AL & SJL appear to have fallen out after the Friday meal and she gave him the cold shoulder that weekend.
As pointed out in this thread AL may have read the diary, but not necessarily taken it on Friday night.

 

[WiseOwl]

But the AS book says that there was an arrangement for AL to join SJL at her flat if he was back from Worthing in time on the Sunday, but he was delayed. Also, they were going to a party on the Tuesday (?) night (Park Lane?).

So if it was in AS's book then he would have got this information from the original police investigation, so therefore it's logical to assume that AL made this statement.

The thing is, how do we know he was telling the truth? We don't have Suzy's side of the story obviously.

Suzy went to a party on Saturday night without AL, and she made her way to and from Worthing on the Sunday without him as well.

Also in DV's book AL says the reason they didn't meet up on Sunday night was because Suzy went to visit her parents, nothing about him being delayed?

AL is also sketchy about the phone call on the Sunday night, saying he can't remember who phoned who. As DV suggests maybe Suzy met up with someone else that evening - maybe that's why he chooses not to remember?

Suzy did not appear to want to spend any time with AL that weekend, which is strange considering he'd been away on holiday and had only just returned. IMO things were not fine and dandy with them at all.

 

[WestLondoner]

I can now see why DV thinks SJL is in the immediate area of the PoW and why he can see a motive for her disappearance.

I wish I could! He mentioned that CV was behaving completely weirdly, and the fact that he had to change CV's name suggests that what DV would like to say would possibly be libellous. But I didn't detect any motive. As the police have also told him he needs to explain the motive, it doesn't sound like he's identified one, because if he had, he would have told them.

SJL’s personal diary is key to this, if anyone read it, it would paint an interesting picture and if you were one of the men featured, you may take a very dim view indeed.

Well yes, but DV said he has not seen the diary. In his book, the police said you would need to show there was something salacious in it, implying that there wasn't. In the chat, he said they had said there was.

So I'm confused. The diary is perhaps key but I still don't follow what needs to have happened for its contents to be read and to have prompted a murder. Someone, maybe AL on Friday or A N Other on Sunday, meets her, lifts it and then drops it outside the pub. It's likelier to have been Sunday because she was exercised about it on Monday but not on Saturday or Sunday, and the pub reckoned it was found outside on Sunday so it can't have been there for 48 hours.

If it was AL on Friday how did he get it back to the pub on Sunday, and why did he take the chequebook and postcard as well? If it was "lost" on Sunday and was AL or A N Other, what use could he have made of it in the brief time he had with it before dropping it somewhere it would be found? Why return it at all?

It’s interesting that AL & SJL appear to have fallen out after the Friday meal and she gave him the cold shoulder that weekend.

Suzy did not appear to want to spend any time with AL that weekend, which is strange considering he'd been away on holiday and had only just returned. IMO things were not fine and dandy with them at all.

I thought, but I don't recall the source, that SJL ended it with AL on the Friday? She then did something else without him on Saturday, he tagged along with a crowd on Sunday and she spoke to him on the phone on Sunday. Her lodger doesn't recall her being in that evening so the implication is she called him from elsewhere, presumably the pub. If she'd called him from home the lodger could have overheard which she perhaps wanted to avoid.

 

[WestLondoner]

There were some interesting clarifying things in the chat.

How does he explain all the spurious sightings at 37SR? Essentially, the police prompted them all. There was one sighting of "Mr Kipper" by HR, and this was the basis of the narrative presented the very next day. Already it was inaccurate, because HR did not identify SJL, but the police said he had. He spoke to MG first before the police and HR told MG what he expected to hear, then when it turned out there'd been an abduction and police wanted to hear about that, suddenly HR had now seen her abducted, too. This account set the entire tone and was disastrously influential. All the later sightings were of what the police wanted people to have seen, and this applies to those a week, or 12 and 14 years later. If you tell people what you want them to have witnessed, witnesses to it will come forward.

What about the couple SJL was friends with? He cut the question off to say he wouldn't talk about that. Interesting.

What about the BW sighting? She was probably mistaken as to the day.

What other hypotheses did the police examine? None, just Mr Kipper, and the focus was on naming and finding him. Later, the focus was on proving JC was him.

When was the car ditched? Not when WJ said, as she has proved unreliable.

What about JC's fake plate, S396 SLP? Seriously? Is that what the case against him relies on? There's no evidence but it looks a bit like SJL's name?

What about JC's "confessions" to cellmates or police interviewers? The former never happened and the latter was not thought a confession by the other officer present.

What about JC's nickname of Mr Kipper? If even true, it postdates the case; prisoners may have started calling him that because the press said he was Mr Kipper.

Has he thought about searching the site? It would cost a couple of hundred thousand - he could barge in and be proven right, but as nobody knows how she died, he could destroy forensic evidence doing so.

What about dogs or LIDAR? Dogs are inconclusive, as you don't know why they're alerting, and LIDAR wouldn't work on the location.

As I've said before, DV's book feels to me like he's given us parts 1, 2 and 4, but there's a missing part 3 without which part 4 makes no sense. Inferentially part 3 entails some connection between the couple he wouldn't discuss and either the PoW, or CV.

 

[Crusader21]

I wish I could!

Was DV implying that within this lost salacious diary (which he hasn't personally read), there are details of sexual affairs, that CV was attempting to blackmail SL with?

With SL telling CV where to go, then arguement, fight, murder?

DV did say the police went to men saying you are in the diary and recorded as having an affair with SL. Then the police asked themselves - was that Mr Kipper?

Have cops from the original team broadly told DV what the diary contains?

As someone else said, theres a very tight frame here time wise. The diary comes in to CVs possession late Sunday. Is DV suggesting CV reads, formulates a blackmail plan and puts it in to practise by the following lunchtime?

All in the background of his first proper day in charge of the pub, a full bar stock take handover / inspection in full swing with the proper landlord and brewery guy plus CV's wife floating around the place too! .....

 

[Crusader21]

There were some interesting clarifying things in the chat ....

Very good anlaysis WL, first class.

Pity no one asked about the Galway guy that was being talked about here the other day.

If Galway was CV abandoning the car, it would have fitted into DVs narrative of possible events quite well!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Se

There were some interesting clarifying things in the chat.

How does he explain all the spurious sightings at 37SR? Essentially, the police prompted them all. There was one sighting of "Mr Kipper" by HR, and this was the basis of the narrative presented the very next day. Already it was inaccurate, because HR did not identify SJL, but the police said he had. He spoke to MG first before the police and HR told MG what he expected to hear, then when it turned out there'd been an abduction and police wanted to hear about that, suddenly HR had now seen her abducted, too. This account set the entire tone and was disastrously influential. All the later sightings were of what the police wanted people to have seen, and this applies to those a week, or 12 and 14 years later. If you tell people what you want them to have witnessed, witnesses to it will come forward.

What about the couple SJL was friends with? He cut the question off to say he wouldn't talk about that. Interesting.

What about the BW sighting? She was probably mistaken as to the day.

What other hypotheses did the police examine? None, just Mr Kipper, and the focus was on naming and finding him. Later, the focus was on proving JC was him.

When was the car ditched? Not when WJ said, as she has proved unreliable.

What about JC's fake plate, S396 SLP? Seriously? Is that what the case against him relies on? There's no evidence but it looks a bit like SJL's name?

What about JC's "confessions" to cellmates or police interviewers? The former never happened and the latter was not thought a confession by the other officer present.

What about JC's nickname of Mr Kipper? If even true, it postdates the case; prisoners may have started calling him that because the press said he was Mr Kipper.

Has he thought about searching the site? It would cost a couple of hundred thousand - he could barge in and be proven right, but as nobody knows how she died, he could destroy forensic evidence doing so.

What about dogs or LIDAR? Dogs are inconclusive, as you don't know why they're alerting, and LIDAR wouldn't work on the location.

As I've said before, DV's book feels to me like he's given us parts 1, 2 and 4, but there's a missing part 3 without which part 4 makes no sense. Inferentially part 3 entails some connection between the couple he wouldn't discuss and either the PoW, or CV.

What about JC's fake plate, S396 SLP? Seriously? Is that what the case against him relies on? There's no evidence but it looks a bit like SJL's name?

Did he say anything more on the plate? Bristol area common prefix?

 

[Crusader21]

Did he say anything more on the plate? Bristol area common prefix?

You can re-watch the whole thing below - just click Watch on YouTube

Note the comments / questions appear 'live' as you make your way through the broadcast ...