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

[asyousay]

This case will never be solved too many arguments about what actually happened too many contradictions too many clues and nobody can agree about what happened.
The manager, the senior manager and the partner all said there was one set of keys so for me 90% of what people think must have happened cannot have happened.
If there was one set of keys and the police used them to get into 37 Shorrolds road SL never had them so could not have gone there to meet a client nobody can place her car there at any time.
Conclusion she never went to Shorrolds road

If we go on your theory nobody can place Suzy anywhere after she left the office but she went
Somewhere the question is where.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Well lets start with elimination, if she had no keys it wasn't shorrolds road and as she was anxious to get her personal diary back one can say POW was very likely?

 

[Terryb808]

If we go on your theory nobody can place Suzy anywhere after she left the office but she went
Somewhere the question is where.

Agree with DV on the keys, it’s almost certain Sturgis only had one set, and while it may have been possible to open 37 Shorrolds without the keys and without damaging the door this is not the Mets style.
So we can conclude that SJL never went to Shorrolds Road, again if you follow DV’s thinking on the timeline the next likely place she went was the PoW to get her things.
However, she can’t be placed there either, no one saw her or her car, but as the police didn’t ask if anyone had seen her in Putney they could have missed out on witnesses.
One other possibility is the £3k, no one accounts for this and whoever promised her this has to be a suspect.
IMO these are the two most likely places SJL may have gone.
One question, why did she not take her handbag to carry her things in?

 

[asyousay]

Well lets start with elimination, if she had no keys it wasn't shorrolds road and as she was anxious to get her personal diary back one can say POW was very likely?

Apart from the fact she had arranged to pick that up later. So why give CV a time to go that evening but then make up a fictional appointment to dash there?!

 

[Terryb808]

Apart from the fact she had arranged to pick that up later. So why give CV a time to go that evening but then make up a fictional appointment to dash there?!

Don’t we only have CV’s word on the 6.00pm appointment and she already had a client appointment at 6.00pm.

 

[WiseOwl]

What about the statement from KR about Suzy taking the keys, does no-one believe this? I agree that the statement attributed to MG could possibly be an assumption, but KR's statement is very detailed and this is where we get the information that Suzy left the office around 12.40 from.

KR's statement (from AS book pages 28 & 29):

KR went out to her bank at 12.30 but returned five minutes later, and remembered seeing Susannah on the phone and half-sitting on her desk as if she was about to leave. She went to pick up her keys to 37 Shorrolds Road from the key board behind MG's desk, and then took the house's details from a drawer. Everything seemed normal. She was carrying her purse too, and a ring holding the keys of her car, the office and her flat.

So if we don't believe this statement to be accurate then where does that leave the 12.40 time frame of Suzy leaving the office?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

You’re right. AS ‘scene sets’ a lot though. It can be confusing when mining his text for data.

By that I mean he says KR saw SL half sitting, half standing but not specifically that she saw her get the keys & details. Although, this is a reasonable assumption. For me, it’s as if he’s asked what the viewing protocol was and outlined & incorporated it here. It was what happened habitually around viewings I think no one focusing here at time as seen as factual, habitual & routine, retrospectively they perhaps should have.

Just my read of it and take, he seems to have other quirks, e.g. using ‘apparently’ possibly when he thinks something other than what he’s recounting but either can’t say or has no evidence.

NB: he does the same in other places, notably with BW & the fiesta sighting, to paraphrase, ‘there was her old friend in her white fiesta complete with sun hat on back shelf’ etc. He doesn’t say BW saw hat herself but many assume, you can see why.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

You might be right, he is more specific again on the ‘she was carrying’ part, but I have noticed this assumptive ‘general description’ in other places.

 

[WiseOwl]

You might be right, he is more specific again on the ‘she was carrying’ part, but I have noticed this assumptive ‘general description’ in other places.

Yes I see what you mean, there are some generalizations in parts. The KR statement though is more descriptive of what she saw that lunchtime.

Interestingly, DV seems to have used some of this statement from KR in his book on Page 7:

At 12.40 pm, Suzy left her office alone - her handbag remaining at her desk in the front window. Taking her purse and her car key with her, she walked out of the office - and vanished.

He mentions the taking of her purse and car key with her but doesn't say anything at all about going behind MG's desk for the keys to Shorrolds Road. So did DV deliberately leave out the part about the house keys while using part of KR's statement in his book?

 

[asyousay]

Don’t we only have CV’s word on the 6.00pm appointment and she already had a client appointment at 6.00pm.

why would CV lie when he is the one who admitted things that would only put him in the frame work?


Surely he would of just omitted he spoke to her if he is somehow involved?

 

[TimFisher1965]

I think LSW is right, the writing is worded in such a way that it can be misconstrued, there is a large element of parts of this case that can be misinterpreted. In AS book its taken as a given that AL and SL went to Mossop's restaurant and the POW on the Friday something he confirmed in a documentary on film. Presumably he gave this account to the police which is where AS got his account from or maybe from AL directly? but when DV pins him down he does a complete U turn and says it never happened. If DV is right and this is what happened then how much of the "assumed facts and statements" in AS book can be relied upon? If you read the account of BW it sounds like she saw the straw boater in the car but this is implied and not actually what BW said. If DV is right about there being only one set of keys and that SL did not have them then both JC (office junior) and KR were mistaken when they said that SL went behind and got the keys. I think MG says in the reconstruction that SL went behind his desk to get the keys but he did not say I was at the desk and she came behind me to get them merely about the desk something he repeated when he appeared in the reconstruction. If I'm right and he was not there then this account was relayed to him from JC and KR because that is what they "assume" she did. If I had been SL and I was heading to the POW to get my stuff and I needed a cover I personally would have taken the keys (or appear to take them) to make it match the diary entry so my cover story was plausible. One aspect I think DV should have asked was was MG in the office when SL left at 12.40pm? were there two sets of keys to the fiesta in the office? The car was used as DV says as a prop in the reconstruction so there must have been a second set for the car was this set on yellow sturgis key fob? was it hanging on the wall with the house keys to the vacant properties? was it this that KR and JC witnessed and she took one set of the car keys and not the house keys? If this is an explanation then KR and JC simply said what they assumed had taken place because she said she was going there and because her diary entry also backed this up.

I post on here because I want to find the truth, if someone could 100% prove it was JC I would be the first to post and say ok guys I got it wrong it was him after all well done the Met. I don't care whose pet theory is right and I take no personal delight in having a go at anyone but I strongly believe that we must only rely on what can be proved and not a witness statement, AL has contradicted himself and so have nearly ALL the witnesses. AS got much material from police files who ran with the HR sighting and said from day one SL was seen at Shorrolds, she was not! What is a 100% fact? she left the office at 12.40pm and her car was found in Stevenage road at 10.01pm these are facts I think the one set of keys is also a fact as 3 people in sturgis confirm this and the door was not broken down to gain access. What else can we go to the bank on? WJ? no HR? no BW? maybe, the family who wish to preserve her character? no AL? no we need facts not second or third hand dodgy accounts of what they thought they saw. Lots of assumptions and presumptions have been made and this has muddied the water.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Agree with DV on the keys, it’s almost certain Sturgis only had one set, and while it may have been possible to open 37 Shorrolds without the keys and without damaging the door this is not the Mets style.
So we can conclude that SJL never went to Shorrolds Road, again if you follow DV’s thinking on the timeline the next likely place she went was the PoW to get her things.
However, she can’t be placed there either, no one saw her or her car, but as the police didn’t ask if anyone had seen her in Putney they could have missed out on witnesses.
One other possibility is the £3k, no one accounts for this and whoever promised her this has to be a suspect.
IMO these are the two most likely places SJL may have gone.
One question, why did she not take her handbag to carry her things in?

I think she would have taken these things straight back to her flat for safe keeping

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AS doesn’t say AL & SL went to the POW. This fits with what AL later says to DV.

The only thing contradicting this narrative is the documentary circa 2000 which was all about proving it was JC & clearly would seem to have some erroneous material to that end. E.g JC frequenting POW on a regular basis & it being any kind of fashionable wine bar.

 

[TimFisher1965]

AS doesn’t say AL & SL went to the POW. This fits with what AL later says to DV.

The only thing contradicting this narrative is the documentary circa 2000 which was all about proving it was JC & clearly would seem to have some erroneous material to that end. E.g JC frequenting POW on a regular basis & it being any kind of fashionable wine bar.

Ok well AL said it on a doc meaning he was unreliable as witness there are hundred of "so called" facts to try and remember I don't think any of them were particularly good witnesses all they have done is confuse the timeline and make it impossible

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I think AL was helping out on JC being only suspect, all assumed it had to be him at time re: Doc. Possibly.

In AS he said same as he did to DV in cafe. Agree on complexity in all this.

 

[asyousay]

I think it needs to be reminded the police have a lot more material than DV. So the fact they won’t give him anything on his so called “new” evidence speaks volumes if he is so confident in his theory then why is he wasting time and not getting the family involved who also haven’t agreed to meet him even after his book came out?



I am not convinced its JC but tue fact as of 2019 the police were still doing digs means they obviously have more information to go on then us.


As has been pointed out he could easily get that pub looked at it but if it doesn’t plan out then his book is completely redundant and that won’t push book sales.


IMO

 

[Terryb808]

I think it needs to be reminded the police have a lot more material than DV. So the fact they won’t give him anything on his so called “new” evidence speaks volumes if he is so confident in his theory then why is he wasting time and not getting the family involved who also haven’t agreed to meet him even after his book came out?



I am not convinced its JC but tue fact as of 2019 the police were still doing digs means they obviously have more information to go on then us.


As has been pointed out he could easily get that pub looked at it but if it doesn’t plan out then his book is completely redundant and that won’t push book sales.


IMO

I think DV has two motives for holding back, one is Commercial and the other is evidential.
Assuming he is correct on the PoW and CV, the void and any area remotely attached is a crime scene. With advances in forensics it’s entirely possible that the perpetrator could be caught via forensic evidence.
That’s why it’s important to conserve the area, and some may not have been disturbed in the last 35 years.

 

[asyousay]

I think DV has two motives for holding back, one is Commercial and the other is evidential.
Assuming he is correct on the PoW and CV, the void and any area remotely attached is a crime scene. With advances in forensics it’s entirely possible that the perpetrator could be caught via forensic evidence.
That’s why it’s important to conserve the area, and some may not have been disturbed in the last 35 years.

CV has no motive and the fact people believe he invited her along to the pub to bump her off is strange. Especially when his wife was also there as well and they had done a stock take that morning so the pub wasn’t even empty unless we are now meant to believe he cleared out the pub even though she wasn’t even going there until 6pm that evening.


It seems a lot more likely she was meeting somebody she knew and things escalated and she ended up dead. If anybody is suspicious in DV book it’s the ex wife not CV who speaks to him.

 

[Konstantin]

CV and his ex could just as easily have sounded “odd” in Dvs book because DV plays them up that way to make them sound odd to push his narrative

they’ve probably had reporters trying to talk to them over the years and no one wants to end up as a subject of some stupid salacious tabloid story with no basis in reality.
CV is in the phone book under his real name he’s not that hard to find.
He was interviewed twice by police. I don’t think there’s a massive conspiracy surrounding him or that he bumped Suzy off after calling her bank and arranging for her to come get her stuff. For all he knew she could have told loads of people she was going there that evening or even at lunch if she did go there which I kind of doubt.
She had somewhere to go that’s for sure. More likely she met someone she knew and things escalated based on something she was involved in to do with property or something else she was making money from.

 

[asyousay]

CV and his ex could just as easily have sounded “odd” in Dvs book because DV plays them up that way to make them sound odd to push his narrative

they’ve probably had reporters trying to talk to them over the years and no one wants to end up as a subject of some stupid salacious tabloid story with no basis in reality.
CV is in the phone book under his real name he’s not that hard to find.
He was interviewed twice by police. I don’t think there’s a massive conspiracy surrounding him or that he bumped Suzy off after calling her bank and arranging for her to come get her stuff. For all he knew she could have told loads of people she was going there that evening or even at lunch if she did go there which I kind of doubt.
She had somewhere to go that’s for sure. More likely she met someone she knew and things escalated based on something she was involved in to do with property or something else she was making money from.

I agree with you - CV wouldn’t of done the things he did do if he was planning to kill Suzy that afternoon.