Just thinking about the CV situation, presumably DV has anonymised him because if DV's hunch is correct and SJL is under that pub floor, there is no way CV isn't implicated. From 12 noon he was in charge of the pub, and SJL was last seen alive and well after that, at 12.40. If she died and her body was concealed at that pub, there is absolutely no way you can do this without the landlord knowing. Even if someone else killed her, he's still aided and abetted some fairly serious crimes: failing to report / register a death, preventing lawful burial, disposal of a corpse to prevent a coroner's inquest, and so on.
DV suggests that maybe there was an accident. In that case, the obvious question is, on what planet is it a good idea to hide the body of someone who does in an accident? The only answer I can think of is, if the body shows signs that she died resisting an assault - defensive injuries, damage to her underwear etc. You could claim she accidentally fell down the cellar steps looking for her diary, but you can't very well say this was an accident if she was being assaulted at the time and you were obviously the person who was trying to assault her.
So let's say the pub is actually closed (was it definitely open?). His partner, KF, goes out for the day at say just after the stocktake at 12. She will not be back until evening opening at 6, so she does not know that SJL called at 12.40 and brought the appointment forward. Hypothetically, CV spontaneously decides to attack SJL when he gets a look at her. She dies of it at about 1pm, so he locates and moves her car, plants the 'right ruck' story with a cabbie, gets the Tube back then hides her body as DV describes. He then carries on as normal like the 15-year-old killer DV describes at the start of his book.
KF gets back at 6 and is not expecting SJL to have been yet, because she still thinks she's coming at or after 6. Next day the disappearance is all over the press and CV's partner realises the missing woman was supposed to be coming to the pub. As KF knows this, CV can't just conceal it, so he calls the police and says she never turned up. That's all he says.
What he does not yet know, because the press conference has not yet happened, is that the police have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Mr Kipper / Shorrolds misdirection. This is a huge stroke of luck, but when they come back and re-interview him a year later, he now realises he needs an alibi that shows he was nowhere near Shorrolds or Stevenage at the time. Ideally, he needs not to have only just come up with this alibi; he needs it to be of long standing. So he tells the police that there were two phone calls for her that afternoon, and he handed the numbers over a year before. These calls would have placed him at the pub at the dangerous time. It's a backdated alibi. The police have no recollection or record of any such bit of paper, but they decide to believe CV anyway over their own officers. After all, it was Mr Kipper who did it.
The calls he claims to have received are odd. They sound like two someones knew she was headed for the pub, but not when. Why would he say that? This sounds like several people thought she wasn't going to Shorrolds at all. Why plant that suspicion? Did he come up with it off the cuff under pressure? Perhaps CV figures the police will figure that he male caller was Mr Kipper, trying to find out when she's going to be missed. But the female caller? Who actually took that call? If it was CV it may not have happened, but was it CV or was it KF?
Meanwhile KF somehow gets an inkling of what happened. They split up. When DV turns up to interview her, it's bad news. He could be an associate of CV, who is homicidal. But if SJL is found, CV is her alibi that she wasn't involved, because he has said she was out all afternoon. So either way, she can't give him up.
This version relies on CV being a repeat offender. One of the Ripper murders was an off the cuff spontaneous murder; he was on his way home, saw a suitable victim, and murdered her. Could this be the same? Could CV be capable of essentially raping someone on sight, having done so before, then acting (by his standards) normally (JC certainly was, FWIW...)?
