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

[WestLondoner]

The AS book is a really helpful time capsule here, because it sets out the position as understood before the press started speculating that JC did it. I actually chucked my copy a few years after it came out because all the chatter about JC persuaded me that the book was out of date!

For me it is crystal clear that SJL never went to any viewing and instead went to the pub on that errand. It is less clear whether that was an innocent errand or whether she was set up to be ambushed there.

So someone nicks her stuff, but ensures it's found and knows she'll be in a paddy to get it back. They just don't know when.

So he calls the pub and asks when she's expected. Or she calls the pub and says, Keep her there. He could be a jealous ex or someone she wants to avoid. She could be the enraged wife of someone SJL had been sleeping with. Apparently there were indeed two such calls. She needed to be lured to that place for a confrontation she would otherwise have avoided.

 

[Henry B]

The AS book is a really helpful time capsule here, because it sets out the position as understood before the press started speculating that JC did it. I actually chucked my copy a few years after it came out because all the chatter about JC persuaded me that the book was out of date!

For me it is crystal clear that SJL never went to any viewing and instead went to the pub on that errand. It is less clear whether that was an innocent errand or whether she was set up to be ambushed there.

So someone nicks her stuff, but ensures it's found and knows she'll be in a paddy to get it back. They just don't know when.

So he calls the pub and asks when she's expected. Or she calls the pub and says, Keep her there. He could be a jealous ex or someone she wants to avoid. She could be the enraged wife of someone SJL had been sleeping with. Apparently there were indeed two such calls. She needed to be lured to that place for a confrontation she would otherwise have avoided.

I do like the AS book and find it fascinating - simply for the reason you state. I think there were maybe one or two human codge-ups in assembling all the small details of the information (MG's lunch break timing and whether he said he saw SJL take the keys or not, for instance) but I think it was written with the best of intentions and contains some great information.

 

[asyousay]

If Suzy went to the pub then she would not of left her belongings behind at sturgis. If anything her leaving her personal items behind points to her actually going to a viewing.


IMO

 

[WestLondoner]

If Suzy went to the pub then she would not of left her belongings behind at sturgis. If anything her leaving her personal items behind points to her actually going to a viewing.

I don't think that follows. She intended a flying visit that would take minutes at the pub, and would then return. She took her purse, probably in case she needed to feed a parking meter or something when she got there, but she didn't need anything else.

 

[asyousay]

I don't think that follows. She intended a flying visit that would take minutes at the pub, and would then return. She took her purse, probably in case she needed to feed a parking meter or something when she got there, but she didn't need anything else.

actually the working theory is she was going home to pick up her Tennis stuff so then she would of taken her hand bag and she would of stopped off at the pub as it was one street one.



Suzy leaving all personal items behind doesn’t point to a personal errand being run as she would need her bag IMO



whereas a a viewing she wouldn’t and that’s the issue all theory’s have holes in them IMO


There is no perfect theory!!

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Was it a ‘jacket on back of chair’ scenario?

If big boss lurking & I am popping out against rules & may need a bit longer, my handbag etc being there tells staff I am on company business.

 

[WestLondoner]

What's in her handbag that she can't do without?

I don't follow why she needs anything other than a purse and her keys for a 30-second errand in a pub or into her house to retrieve a tennis bag. The drive itself from her home to her office is a mile and a quarter; to the pub, only 200 yards further. This was going to be done in about 15, max 20 minutes.

Her purse was found in her car, and she clearly had her keys because she had driven it.

 

[asyousay]

What's in her handbag that she can't do without?

I don't follow why she needs anything other than a purse and her keys for a 30-second errand in a pub or into her house to retrieve a tennis bag.

Her purse was found in her car, and she clearly had her keys because she had driven it.

I apologize as I didn’t realize she had taken her keys and purse.

Ms Lamplugh took her keys and a purse containing £15 to the appointment, but left her handbag at her office when she left at 12:40 BST

I assumed she had left those items behind as most women take their handbags everywhere with their purse and keys in them.

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, it looks like she took just the essentials; probably for the reasons in post 46.

 

[WiseOwl]

The AS book is a really helpful time capsule here, because it sets out the position as understood before the press started speculating that JC did it. I actually chucked my copy a few years after it came out because all the chatter about JC persuaded me that the book was out of date!

For me it is crystal clear that SJL never went to any viewing and instead went to the pub on that errand. It is less clear whether that was an innocent errand or whether she was set up to be ambushed there.

So someone nicks her stuff, but ensures it's found and knows she'll be in a paddy to get it back. They just don't know when.

So he calls the pub and asks when she's expected. Or she calls the pub and says, Keep her there. He could be a jealous ex or someone she wants to avoid. She could be the enraged wife of someone SJL had been sleeping with. Apparently there were indeed two such calls. She needed to be lured to that place for a confrontation she would otherwise have avoided.

I have every respect for your view @WestLondoner, but I really cannot see how it's crystal clear she went to the PoW pub that lunchtime.

There is more evidence that she went to Shorrolds Road than she went to the PoW. Whether you believe them or not there are 4 witnesses who said they saw Suzy outside the property in Shorrolds Road, we have no witnesses at all for the PoW pub.

Her place of work was in Fulham, her car was found in Stevenage Road in Fulham and BW's sighting of Suzy driving her car that afternoon was in Fulham (along the Fulham Palace Road) - no reports of any sightings of her car in Putney at all that day.

Agree on the point of only taking her purse if she was going to the PoW, but equally she would only take her purse with her keys in to view 37 Shorrolds Road. Also what happened to the house particulars, they were never found either - why take them to the pub?

I also cannot see what motive CV would have for abducting and killing Suzy that afternoon, I know he comes across as odd and suspicious by his actions in DV's book but to be fair he's not the only one, is he?

IMO there is so much we don't know about in Suzy's personal life, and a lot of it would probably be in her diary. There is undoubtedly a lot of avenues the police could have gone down in trying to track Suzy's abductor but, for whatever reason, they chose not to.

Unless her diary is published or the police decide to take another look at the original investigation it is going to be extremely difficult to determine who might have been responsible for her disappearance.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I have every respect for your view @WestLondoner, but I really cannot see how it's crystal clear she went to the PoW pub that lunchtime.

There is more evidence that she went to Shorrolds Road than she went to the PoW. Whether you believe them or not there are 4 witnesses who said they saw Suzy outside the property in Shorrolds Road, we have no witnesses at all for the PoW pub.

Her place of work was in Fulham, her car was found in Stevenage Road in Fulham and BW's sighting of Suzy driving her car that afternoon was in Fulham (along the Fulham Palace Road) - no reports of any sightings of her car in Putney at all that day.

Agree on the point of only taking her purse if she was going to the PoW, but equally she would only take her purse with her keys in to view 37 Shorrolds Road. Also what happened to the house particulars, they were never found either - why take them to the pub?

I also cannot see what motive CV would have for abducting and killing Suzy that afternoon, I know he comes across as odd and suspicious by his actions in DV's book but to be fair he's not the only one, is he?

IMO there is so much we don't know about in Suzy's personal life, and a lot of it would probably be in her diary. There is undoubtedly a lot of avenues the police could have gone down in trying to track Suzy's abductor but, for whatever reason, they chose not to.

Unless her diary is published or the police decide to take another look at the original investigation it is going to be extremely difficult to determine who might have been responsible for her disappearance.

1. The reconstruction a week later ONLY focused on SL going to Shorrolds Road in Fulham as this was what 'was known'. Then after a week, witnesses came forward. (Except it is possible, even likely, she didn't go, recent documentary shows a member of early police team agreeing I believe, a likely ruse). So, the police buy DV's theory in this respect it would seem.

3. No one was asked to look at Putney so anyone seeing anything remotely suspicious involving a white fiesta etc, and a blonde young woman would assume it was totally irrelevant etc and police likely dismiss.

4. HR saw a couple outside Shorrolds Road and only got a good look a the man. None of the witnesses could identify SL specifically. NB: AS for ND and ND's description of the couple seen. Some interesting detail. They said they saw a woman with much lighter hair, ND I think, who smiled at him and was waiting outside. DL then said that SL had her hair lightened at a salon in Fulham, [did she badly want it to be SL subconsciously? I wonder] AS says on Friday. It cost 18.50 for highlights, cut and blow dry (presumably police looked at a chequebook stub). Interestingly she did this on Friday. When I wonder? On the Crimewatch reconstruction the last photo of SL taken on Sat night is shown, even to account for poor lighting she just doesn't look fair or blonde, a clear brunette most would say. Highlights possible, but very subtle if so. Actually it doesn't look newly done? Could she have just had a cut and blow dry for that money in 1986? You could fit in during the working day more easily if so. Highlights took time.

5. There is no evidence she ever took house particulars, it's in AS but IMO he does a lot of 'scene setting' and builds atmosphere although very strong on data like names, times and places. According to DV, MG wasn't there when she left I think (?) AS says, for example, 'who should BW see but her old friend, in her trusty fiesta, going alone, sun shining, parcel shelf with sunhat etc', IMO he doesn't mean BW actually saw the sunhat but this is how it is interpreted. [I am paraphrasing AS].

If it was JC, he might have car jacked SL in broad daylight in Whittingstall, assaulting her and making her drive off somewhere afterwards or similar. He had form for daylight carjacking. It might be feasible she intended to go to the pub but never arrived. As for calls to Clive, his recount was only a year later, not at time, allows for confusion and error and muddle to creep in.

 

[WestLondoner]

There is more evidence that she went to Shorrolds Road than she went to the PoW. Whether you believe them or not there are 4 witnesses who said they saw Suzy outside the property in Shorrolds Road, we have no witnesses at all for the PoW pub.

If you follow the chronology closely, there is actually no witness who said they saw her in Shorrolds unprompted. HR didn't identify her. He told MG he saw a couple, which was what MG expected to hear, and he later told the police what they expected to hear, then retracted it. Based on HR alone the police announced that SJL had been seen at Shorrolds even though he had not said this, and all the other "sightings" of her were after that public assertion.

Her place of work was in Fulham, her car was found in Stevenage Road in Fulham and BW's sighting of Suzy driving her car that afternoon was in Fulham (along the Fulham Palace Road) - no reports of any sightings of her car in Putney at all that day.

The trouble is that none were sought. One narrative was established immediately, and no sightings elsewhere were canvassed. If anyone saw her going into the PoW they'd have said nothing, because nobody was saying she might have gone there. As DV said in the podcast, the weird thing was that nobody he spoke to believed at the time that there had ever been a viewing. It is clear though from the calls between the bank and the pub that her stuff was there and that she intended to go there.

BW's sighting is a problem, I agree, but only if she was recollecting the right day.

Also what happened to the house particulars, they were never found either - why take them to the pub?

We don't know she took any house particulars with her. That she did is an assumption based on what she would have done had she really been going to a viewing. As far as I know nobody claims to have seen her taking the keys or any particulars, and the fact that the keys were still around the next day strongly suggests she took neither.

I also cannot see what motive CV would have for abducting and killing Suzy that afternoon, I know he comes across as odd and suspicious by his actions in DV's book but to be fair he's not the only one, is he?

Agree, it's not him. It's someone he knew well enough to cover up for; someone who wanted to engineer a meeting with SJL that she wouldn't agree too. Somebody she had chucked; somebody she owed money to, or who had spent money on her; someone who rang the PoW posing as a police officer to find out what time she'd be there; someone who CV helped lure her to the PoW where the confrontation went horribly wrong.

IMO there is so much we don't know about in Suzy's personal life, and a lot of it would probably be in her diary.

The fact that whoever did this knew where her diary was but didn't trouble to hang onto it suggests either that he knew he wasn't in there, or that her connection to him would be obvious anyway. So the police getting hold of her diary was not a problem, and in fact quite helpful because it contained lots of dead ends that would waste the police's time.

Unless her diary is published or the police decide to take another look at the original investigation it is going to be extremely difficult to determine who might have been responsible for her disappearance.

And we can be sure the police won't do so, because first they gave up, and then they put JC into the frame on no evidence.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Curiously, DV didn't dismiss the BW sighting out of hand, although he added it proved WJ was clearly wrong about seeing the car so early on.

Police at the time checked with BW's colleagues and all confirmed she made that journey on Mon 28th July at the time she gave (As SL' s head was turned and BW didn't see her face how could she be 100%?)

It felt like there was a sudden and unexpected escalation of events after SL left the office.

 

[WiseOwl]

If you follow the chronology closely, there is actually no witness who said they saw her in Shorrolds unprompted. HR didn't identify her. He told MG he saw a couple, which was what MG expected to hear, and he later told the police what they expected to hear, then retracted it. Based on HR alone the police announced that SJL had been seen at Shorrolds even though he had not said this, and all the other "sightings" of her were after that public assertion.



The trouble is that none were sought. One narrative was established immediately, and no sightings elsewhere were canvassed. If anyone saw her going into the PoW they'd have said nothing, because nobody was saying she might have gone there. As DV said in the podcast, the weird thing was that nobody he spoke to believed at the time that there had ever been a viewing. It is clear though from the calls between the bank and the pub that her stuff was there and that she intended to go there.

BW's sighting is a problem, I agree, but only if she was recollecting the right day.


We don't know she took any house particulars with her. That she did is an assumption based on what she would have done had she really been going to a viewing. As far as I know nobody claims to have seen her taking the keys or any particulars, and the fact that the keys were still around the next day strongly suggests she took neither.


Agree, it's not him. It's someone he knew well enough to cover up for; someone who wanted to engineer a meeting with SJL that she wouldn't agree too. Somebody she had chucked; somebody she owed money to, or who had spent money on her; someone who rang the PoW posing as a police officer to find out what time she'd be there; someone who CV helped lure her to the PoW where the confrontation went horribly wrong.


The fact that whoever did this knew where her diary was but didn't trouble to hang onto it suggests either that he knew he wasn't in there, or that her connection to him would be obvious anyway. So the police getting hold of her diary was not a problem, and in fact quite helpful because it contained lots of dead ends that would waste the police's time.


And we can be sure the police won't do so, because first they gave up, and then they put JC into the frame on no evidence.

On the issue of whether Suzy took the keys or not, there are contradictions between AS's book and DV's.

AS states that MG saw Suzy take the keys, and I believe it was said another member of staff did too.

In DV's book, MG's boss KP says that the two of them went to the Crocodile Tears at midday. As it's been fairly established Suzy left the office at around 12.40 then MG couldn't have been there.

However, at no point in DV's book does MG either mention that he saw Suzy take the keys, or does he say what time he went to lunch - it was his boss KP who stated it was around midday. MG does state he had a long lunch but doesn't give specific times. IMO DV missed out the vital question 'were you in the office when Suzy left for lunch?' in his book.

So which do we believe? The AS version, which presumably was taken from the police statements at the time (I don't think it's ever been confirmed as to whether AS actually spoke to MG himself). Or DV's book which, in all fairness, is asking people to remember events that took place over thirty years earlier.

Also on both reconstructions (the Thames TV one in August '86 and the Crimewatch one in October) MG is clearly seen in both of them sitting at his desk at the back of the office. If he wasn't in the office at the time Suzy left then why did he decide to take part in them?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

AS, 'scene sets' (as I described) and goes from police reports, yet you make a very valid and intelligent point on MG in the reconstructions.

I DO feel his (MG's) presence or absence was all seen as totally inconsequential, so if he was out, as the manager perhaps they felt he should be seen to be there? Was it just scene setting? He was Suzy's manager and there the morning of her disappearance.

It was TOTALLY accepted SL went to Shorrolds Road and was seen there and abducted either there or at Stevenage Road. All else then seen as irrelevant.

To give an example, if SL had got run over and killed by a passing BMW and all were trying to identify which make and model BMW and who was driving, whether MG was in the office earlier makes absolutely no odds at all and just sets out a typical morning in the office for all to understand a typical day prior to the accident.

I wanted DV to use AS's account, to try to further jog witnesses minds, after they'd objectively recounted from memory. There was detail there that really might have jogged minds further I feel, although probably long forgotten something may have sparked. Maybe he did? I hope so as the very last call from Clive's wife, seconds before SL left the office I do feel may have been significant. What was the source of this information? I do feel that any pub collection arrangement had been made earlier so this may have been a change of plan. Who was SL speaking to?

 

[WiseOwl]

AS, 'scene sets' (as I described) and goes from police reports, yet you make a very valid and intelligent point on MG in the reconstructions.

I DO feel his (MG's) presence or absence was all seen as totally inconsequential, so if he was out, as the manager perhaps they felt he should be seen to be there? Was it just scene setting? He was Suzy's manager and there the morning of her disappearance.

It was TOTALLY accepted SL went to Shorrolds Road and was seen there and abducted either there or at Stevenage Road. All else then seen as irrelevant.

To give an example, if SL had got run over and killed by a passing BMW and all were trying to identify which make and model BMW and who was driving, whether MG was in the office earlier makes absolutely no odds at all and just sets out a typical morning in the office for all to understand a typical day prior to the accident.

I wanted DV to use AS's account, to try to further jog witnesses minds, after they'd objectively recounted from memory. There was detail there that really might have jogged minds further I feel, although probably long forgotten something may have sparked. Maybe he did? I hope so as the very last call from Clive's wife, seconds before SL left the office I do feel may have been significant. What was the source of this information? I do feel that any pub collection arrangement had been made earlier so this may have been a change of plan. Who was SL speaking to?

Yes I take your point about MG being in the reconstructions was irrelevant, I suppose it didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that bothers me with MG is the whole key mystery, I'm pretty sure he would have been the one who discovered the keys were still in the office and I'm surprised he doesn't seem to recall this at all when interviewed by DV.

As you say there are some things in AS's book that you wish DV would have asked some of the people he interviewed. Again, MG with 'did you enter 37 Shorrolds Road that afternoon' would have been an important question to ask. In his second interview with MG I though DV skirted around the issue of the keys a bit while his companion Caroline went for the jugular!

One thing I don't know about AS's book is did he actually speak to anyone himself that was involved with Suzy or did he base all his information on the police files from the original investigation?

 

[Henry B]

Yes I take your point about MG being in the reconstructions was irrelevant, I suppose it didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that bothers me with MG is the whole key mystery, I'm pretty sure he would have been the one who discovered the keys were still in the office and I'm surprised he doesn't seem to recall this at all when interviewed by DV.

As you say there are some things in AS's book that you wish DV would have asked some of the people he interviewed. Again, MG with 'did you enter 37 Shorrolds Road that afternoon' would have been an important question to ask. In his second interview with MG I though DV skirted around the issue of the keys a bit while his companion Caroline went for the jugular!

One thing I don't know about AS's book is did he actually speak to anyone himself that was involved with Suzy or did he base all his information on the police files from the original investigation?

I know he had contact with the family. I think the rest was police reports and talking with police officers.

 

[asyousay]

AS book is always going to give a more true picture as he had access to the police reports.


DV doesn’t have the luxury of that and he has to deal with fading memories on top.



IMO

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Review of AS book, Observer, 1988:

'much of [AS's] information came from SL's family'.

'He had the benefit of thousands of pieces of information and was put in touch with the two main detectives on the case. He sought out other police officers at all levels of the MET as well and received considerable unofficial cooperation from them'. 'The detectives had not only talked to everyone connected to the tragedy but thousands of others too'.

A supportive writer reviewer noted the items were lost on Sunday too, it seems.

DV seems to have some of the same questions AS did.

What I thought was interesting re: AS, was how thorough his research seems to be. For example, he names a boyfriend (not AL) and gives details of his father and mother, mother's interests/work and interesting background detail. None of it relevant to the case or what's being discussed here but it shows AS was a very thorough researcher/journalist, all of it is correct. Meticulous work, no sloppiness or carelessness on AS's part. Ages, dates, names, no real errors here. These so often creep in when sources are later cited or narratives recounted.

As so few have read AS and the book was so controversial (for other reasons) it seems it is very easy to assume it is a very poor source.

 

[Henry B]

I think AS was working in extremely difficult conditions after DL (?) took against his work. It seems that PL was enthusiastic about the initial (unedited) chapters at first - perhaps accepting that, difficult though it would be for himself and his family, the full story must be told for the book to have maximum effect and perhaps nudge memories. It is not stated, but certainly perhaps inferred in the book, that it was DL (and others in the family?) who took against the publication. I think it's an excellent resource and the fact that the abduction took place in 1986 and the book was published in 1988 makes it hugely valuable for researchers. I do believe that AS worked with the greatest respect for SJL.