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

[Lady Stoddart-West]

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.

Yes, it seems, looking retrospectively, that an impartial account might not have been the best format for the book. Very unfortunate all round. AS had access to all SL's letters and family personal newsletters etc. He also spoke to SL's boyfriends and friends directly, apparently, or so articles at the time say. In reality there were very few edits to the book, from an article: Senior detectives read through the full manuscript and requested only one minor alteration that had nothing to do with this part of the investigation.

 

[Henry B]

AS, book, 1988: ''Both the publishers and I found ourselves the target of much ire. We then went painstakingly through the Ls' objections, and did so again when they subsequently gave us a similar list for the second half of the book too. In some cases we immediately agreed to what they said; in many more we did not agree but were willing to amend what was written slightly to accommodate their wishes; in the vast majority of cases we felt that in face of the evidence their requests to change or delete passages were simply not justified or reasonable. The publishers then sent them the revised manuscript that incorporated the changes. But by this time Mr and Mrs L were seeking to prevent publication of the whole book.'

Faber and Faber stated in 1988 that some incredibly difficult stuff was left out - stuff that was more suited to the 'News of the World'.

 

[Henry B]

AS book, 1988: 'Months later the publishers sent copies of the first six draft chapters to SJL's parents. The first reaction came from PL, who told WS [publishing company], how much he liked what he had read and then phoned my home with a similar message. But four days later, he suddenly asked for all the family research material - including DL's letters - to be returned immediately.'

Immediate reaction - favourable. Four days later...

[The book quote comes before the one quoted in my previous post]

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

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.

Yes, it seems, looking retrospectively, that an impartial account might not have been the best format for the book. Very unfortunate all round. AS had access to all SL's letters and family personal newsletters etc. He also spoke to SL's boyfriends and friends directly, apparently, or so articles at the time say. In reality there were very few edits to the book, from an article: Senior detectives read through the full manuscript and requested only one minor alteration that had nothing to do with this part of the investigation.

AS book, 1988: 'Months later the publishers sent copies of the first six draft chapters to SJL's parents. The first reaction came from PL, who told WS [publishing company], how much he liked what he had read and then phoned my home with a similar message. But four days later, he suddenly asked for all the family research material - including DL's letters - to be returned immediately.'

Immediate reaction - favourable. Four days later...

[The book quote comes before the one quoted in my previous post]

Something also came to light later that AS was hoping to hold back from the family. Given he was forthcoming on other matters one wonders about it, possibly totally irrelevant as regards her disappearance? Did it change the landscape a bit, more widely, and did this come to light post publication?

 

[Henry B]

AS book, 1988: 'This book started with smiles and ended in tears. The project began after DL met RM, a Director of the publishers, at a television studio. Soon afterwards she wrote to him to say that she had been besieged by publishers to tell the story of her daughter's disappearance, but wanted to offer it to him first. Following discussions the Ls decided not to write a book themselves, or to use a ghostwriter.; they opted to have an independent account, and acknowledged that they could find the result difficult.'

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Whilst on press articles, the open letter DL wrote to SL, what/who was the source here? Did SL tell DL this on Sunday evening and call DL on Monday morning? : ' I gather you went to see AL after you left us and went back to your flat where you spent a couple of hours chatting to your flatmate, N. It sounded a friendly, fun end to a super weekend and all was normal when you went back to work on Monday'.

DV, I think, from memory, touches on this and said DL later changed details as thought it sounded too potentially intimate as per flatmate, or something like that? Was Sunday night and what happened or didn't happen relevant?

Wasn't flatmate N out? Doesn't AS suggest this call to AL was made at home, from memory (?) and AL not sure whether he called SL or she called him?

Most would be exhausted after such a busy weekend, and after seeing parents and after leaving their home at 9pm, head home to bed. Instead it seems DV suggests (?) she used phone box at pub to call AL and possibly mislaid her belongings here at this stage (?)

Back in the day there was often a queue at phone boxes and plausible SL sat and waiting at the picnic table by box and mistakenly left her belongings in the table as she went to make a call? (If so) And they later fell to the ground, where Clive found them later that night (?)

 

[WiseOwl]

Whilst on press articles, the open letter DL wrote to SL, what/who was the source here? Did SL tell DL this on Sunday evening and call DL on Monday morning? : ' I gather you went to see AL after you left us and went back to your flat where you spent a couple of hours chatting to your flatmate, N. It sounded a friendly, fun end to a super weekend and all was normal when you went back to work on Monday'.

DV, I think, from memory, touches on this and said DL later changed details as thought it sounded too potentially intimate as per flatmate, or something like that? Was Sunday night and what happened or didn't happen relevant?

Wasn't flatmate N out? Doesn't AS suggest this call to AL was made at home, from memory (?) and AL not sure whether he called SL or she called him?

Most would be exhausted after such a busy weekend, and after seeing parents and after leaving their home at 9pm, head home to bed. Instead it seems DV suggests (?) she used phone box at pub to call AL and possibly mislaid her belongings here at this stage (?)

Back in the day there was often a queue at phone boxes and plausible SL sat and waiting at the picnic table by box and mistakenly left her belongings in the table as she went to make a call? (If so) And they later fell to the ground, where Clive found them later that night (?)

It's a good question you ask @Lady Stoddart-West , on what was the source of the information of the open letter. It would have to have come from either AL, NB, DL or Suzy herself.

I don't think it's been said anywhere that Suzy spoke to her mother again after seeing her on Sunday night, so that just leaves AL, NB or DL to have provided this information.

In DV's book, NB claimed he had no recollection of seeing Suzy at all that Sunday night. However, DV states that in an interview shortly after Suzy had gone missing NB had stayed up for a couple of hours chatting to Suzy about nothing in particular before going to bed, adding that she had been in good spirits.

This article had apparently caused a stir with DL because of the implication that Suzy and NB might have slept together that night. A couple of weeks later DL had penned the public, open letter to Suzy. In it DL suggested Suzy had gone to see her boyfriend AL that evening before finally spending some time just chatting platonically to NB, as any flatmate would do, on her arrival back at the flat.

DV knows about this, but decides not to question NB about it.

AL has said that he spoke to Suzy on the phone that night, but at no time does he mention ever meeting up with her.

So then the information in the open letter would seem to have come from two sources: Firstly NB's statement of what happened on the Sunday night when Suzy returned to the flat, then DL fudging the info a bit (adding that Suzy and AL had met up) to detract from the possibility that Suzy had gone to bed with her flatmate.

I think this is an example of how DL interfered with things at the time, wanting to present an image of Suzy to the public of a clean living, wholesome girl.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

It's a good question you ask @Lady Stoddart-West , on what was the source of the information of the open letter. It would have to have come from either AL, NB, DL or Suzy herself.

I don't think it's been said anywhere that Suzy spoke to her mother again after seeing her on Sunday night, so that just leaves AL, NB or DL to have provided this information.

In DV's book, NB claimed he had no recollection of seeing Suzy at all that Sunday night. However, DV states that in an interview shortly after Suzy had gone missing NB had stayed up for a couple of hours chatting to Suzy about nothing in particular before going to bed, adding that she had been in good spirits.

This article had apparently caused a stir with DL because of the implication that Suzy and NB might have slept together that night. A couple of weeks later DL had penned the public, open letter to Suzy. In it DL suggested Suzy had gone to see her boyfriend AL that evening before finally spending some time just chatting platonically to NB, as any flatmate would do, on her arrival back at the flat.

DV knows about this, but decides not to question NB about it.

AL has said that he spoke to Suzy on the phone that night, but at no time does he mention ever meeting up with her.

So then the information in the open letter would seem to have come from two sources: Firstly NB's statement of what happened on the Sunday night when Suzy returned to the flat, then DL fudging the info a bit (adding that Suzy and AL had met up) to detract from the possibility that Suzy had gone to bed with her flatmate.

I think this is an example of how DL interfered with things at the time, wanting to present an image of Suzy to the public of a clean living, wholesome girl.

Thank you, I wonder if there was sensitivity about Sunday night and this was the 'one small alteration' that was permitted and noted as being inconsequential at the time, irrelevant even. It could explain, possibly, why a reviewer at time said these items were lost the night before too. Of c

It's a good question you ask @Lady Stoddart-West , on what was the source of the information of the open letter. It would have to have come from either AL, NB, DL or Suzy herself.

I don't think it's been said anywhere that Suzy spoke to her mother again after seeing her on Sunday night, so that just leaves AL, NB or DL to have provided this information.

In DV's book, NB claimed he had no recollection of seeing Suzy at all that Sunday night. However, DV states that in an interview shortly after Suzy had gone missing NB had stayed up for a couple of hours chatting to Suzy about nothing in particular before going to bed, adding that she had been in good spirits.

This article had apparently caused a stir with DL because of the implication that Suzy and NB might have slept together that night. A couple of weeks later DL had penned the public, open letter to Suzy. In it DL suggested Suzy had gone to see her boyfriend AL that evening before finally spending some time just chatting platonically to NB, as any flatmate would do, on her arrival back at the flat.

DV knows about this, but decides not to question NB about it.

AL has said that he spoke to Suzy on the phone that night, but at no time does he mention ever meeting up with her.

So then the information in the open letter would seem to have come from two sources: Firstly NB's statement of what happened on the Sunday night when Suzy returned to the flat, then DL fudging the info a bit (adding that Suzy and AL had met up) to detract from the possibility that Suzy had gone to bed with her flatmate.

I think this is an example of how DL interfered with things at the time, wanting to present an image of Suzy to the public of a clean living, wholesome girl.

Thank you.

 

[WestLondoner]

DL and her agenda are IMO quite a big part of why SJL's life developed as it did and why the search for her failed. DL was out to protect SJL's posthumous reputation, and the misapprehension she held, carefully-curated by SJL, of how she had lived her life. Nothing else mattered more. DL was not about finding out what happened to SJL if this involved accepting even that she wasn't a 25-year-old virgin, never mind that she had slept with dozens of men. DL wanted an account of SJL's fate that showed her to be a blameless innocent - which by pretty well everyone's standards she was, but not by her mothers: those of 1950s East Sheen. DL wanted this more than she wanted SJL found; more than she wanted the truth.

The instant attempt to shut down an innocent conversation with the flat mate is evidence of this. She wouldn't tolerate even a hint that SJL might actually have been sleeping with a man. That would mean, in the parlance of the day, that far from having a lodger, SJL had "shacked up with" a bloke and was "living in sin". Yuck. Won't have that said.

DL had previously attempted to police her daughter's love life and deliberately interfered in it without hesitation. This attempt at control led SJL to seek work and any other opportunities that would allow to her to move out of home ASAP. She did and she heavily edited her accounts to DL of what was happening in her life.

This may have doomed her. Nobody but SJL seems to have known what went on between her and PSS, for example. If she had told her parents about things in her life that were worrying her, someone worldlier might have warned her. Her dad might have told whomever this bloke was that was "hassling" her to leave his daughter alone. But she did not have those conversations with her parents, and as the eldest sibling, nor had she any big brother or sister to confide in either.

So SJL's backstory is acutely relevant, but just not in the way usually assumed.

This is IMO why DL was so keen on JC as a patsy. His history of being a smooth and persuasive liar meant that a trusting innocent was duped. He was the perfect killer SJL could have done nothing to save herself from, and who stalked her after he looked at her in a shop window. She died because she was pretty, not because she was a hussy. For DL, that account is much preferable to any in which her associates and choice or number of bedmates is a factor. So that's the account that gets pushed, and as a result of this misconceived reputation management exercise, someone gets away with it.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Very good points. To be fair to DL she was very much of her time and background and was facing an unimaginably horrifying situation. I also think what she did as regards the Trust was incredible and has helped so many.

The language SL's maternal uncle uses in a doc is possibly telling 'someone was leaning on her' and she was 'almost angry'. To my mind this always felt, in the way he described it, more transactional than any particular romantic pressure. Interestingly AL too, said almost immediately after SL went missing, that he felt SL may have 'fallen foul' of some deal or other or associate. He added he felt it wouldn't be anything to do with their particular circle.

Incidentally, this is the Doc, (the title suggesting it as all about the man who killed her and made a couple of decades or so ago,), that has various people suggesting JC is responsible for her death. I think those interviewed were all hoping, as JC was the only suspect, that this would surely show his culpability. Going along with this narrative might have felt morally like the right thing to do, ultimately the police have said they are not looking for anyone else after all.

For example, It has a lady from the Prop Hire Co ( I think, from memory) suggesting that JC was a regular at the Prince of Wales and I think the theme was to show that clearly he was hiding here in the Prince of Wales and stole her belongings etc. This feels unlikely and there is evidence to suggest otherwise, as Clive's interview shows.

This woman adds or suggests that the POW was a wine bar and very popular at time in this capacity, not so. It was an adequate pub near the tube. People hear Fulham or Putney and possibly imagine glamour etc if unfamiliar with immediate neighbourhoods.

AL is right in the POW wouldn't have been a popular hang out for the 'Putney Set' it is not a 'destination pub', just as he said, and JC wouldn't have gone there at the time hoping to meet and chat up women. Or certainly, there would be many other pubs in the area that would be much higher up the list. It has no garden for one thing and there are fabulous pubs on the river in the area, it wasn't fashionable or popular at the time. I believe AL when he said they'd been at Mossops. This is exactly what AS says also. The theme of this Doc mentioned above was to show it was all JC and this possibly has been missed.

All that said, I still have questions on JC. He did have links and connections to Bristol via AR and they knew they had strong chemistry & all this prior to SL going missing (although the 1984 Bristol boyfriend re: SL is correct). He had form for daylight carjacking etc. If JC innocent why did he loop in SL when on the ropes about SB et and say a Bristol businessman was responsible for the deaths of three women, etc. One of the early police team, in with JC for hours and clearly a very intelligent and credible man, thinks JC confessed to the SL murder etc and is responsible.

 

[WestLondoner]

The stuff about JC is not evidence though. It just explains why he's a really solid patsy. At the time, nothing pointed to him. Nobody ever picked him out as Mr Kipper at an identity parade.

The police officer who thought he'd confessed is contradicted by the other one who was present, who thought otherwise. The context was JC saying whoever had stolen Shirley Banks' car had something to do with SJL. But at the time, the story he was trying to sell the police was that he had innocently bought that car at an auction in Bristol, you see, off this bloke. JC nick a car? Never, officer. The very thought. But this bloke who sold JC the car, well, he's in a lot of trouble because he had obviously nicked it, and had done something to Shirley Banks, and probably to SJL as well. So the bloke who nicked the car, that's your man for both. And that's man's not JC.

The police got him describe the layout of the car auction site in Bristol where he bought the car. Needless to say he couldn't. But that obviously mendacious account is the source of the claim that JC admitted to killing SJL.

It's the kind of thing he'd do and he's a psychopath, but there is literally nothing - until the police started prompting for it - to link him to the right place or time.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

The stuff about JC is not evidence though. It just explains why he's a really solid patsy. At the time, nothing pointed to him. Nobody ever picked him out as Mr Kipper at an identity parade.

The police officer who thought he'd confessed is contradicted by the other one who was present, who thought otherwise. The context was JC saying whoever had stolen Shirley Banks' car had something to do with SJL. But at the time, the story he was trying to sell the police was that he had innocently bought that car at an auction in Bristol, you see, off this bloke. JC nick a car? Never, officer. The very thought. But this bloke who sold JC the car, well, he's in a lot of trouble because he had obviously nicked it, and had done something to Shirley Banks, and probably to SJL as well. So the bloke who nicked the car, that's your man for both. And that's man's not JC.

The police got him describe the layout of the car auction site in Bristol where he bought the car. Needless to say he couldn't. But that obviously mendacious account is the source of the claim that JC admitted to killing SJL.

It's the kind of thing he'd do and he's a psychopath, but there is literally nothing - until the police started prompting for it - to link him to the right place or time.

The other police officer, also very compelling and smart, the one who took the longest to be convinced by the circumstantial evidence? (you mean?) he didn't think a confession, you're right, yet he too was convinced of JC's guilt eventually. Why? Smart enough to really think on it. Also JC bringing SL into the equation if entirely innocent of the crime? High risk.

There is an awful lot that really doesn't conclusively point to JC, I totally agree, but the alibi's family, they all think he did it (as far as I know) one certainly does, and they'd be aware of when he was released and if he was in vicinity of their parents or otherwise.

Also if anyone could take SL off the street in daylight, JC could. He tried a daylight carjack in Whiteladies Road in Bristol it would seem, very busy area and time.

To add, I can't see SL dating JC for any time or to be really wanting to borrow Sloaney clothes etc to do so. I certainly can't see JC making up the Kipper name and on balance I think Shorrolds a ruse. Not least as some of original team seem to think so.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'm not persuaded that something's true because some of the police say it is, because for as long as I can remember, if they can't find who did something they frame the local weirdo or an otherwise suitable patsy.

So there have been the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, all framed for terrorism then released. We have had Colin Stagg whose acquittal and release was greeted by the police with the remark "we are not looking for anyone else". Going back further there was Lesley Molseed, where they framed the local weirdo Stefan Kiszko, who was released after 16 years. There was Joanne Yeates, where they initially nicked her landlord because he looked a bit weird, and Suzanne Dando, where they framed the local weirdo Barry George, who was released.

Going back further, there was the Yorkshire Ripper case where they first tried to frame a taxi driver called Terry Hawkshaw, then fell for a hoax tape and decided to ignore all suspects who didn't have a Wearside accent. Interestingly, the plods in that case and the Birmingham Six included several of the same detectives.

The problem really is that in seizing on Mr Kipper (and why did nobody ever come forward at the time to say "he looks like someone I know?") the police omitted to gather evidence at the time in support of any other hypothesis. The CPS has duly declined to pursue their "case" against JC because they basically don't have one.

In much the same way, the Portuguese police were never going to solve the Madeleine McCann case, so they decided to frame the parents instead, and in focusing there, they missed a lot of pointers to who really did it.

If there were one solution to this case that made complete sense and was supported by evidence, it would have emerged by now. Everyone's preferred hypothesis lacks evidence, or is contradicted by other evidence, so it's really a question of which version do you dislike the least.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Indeed. Possibly we’ll see the area DV feels is significant searched in 2022? DV appeared to feel he had enough, earlier on (I think he said) for an arrest and/or serious questioning, so must surely have more evidence he can’t share (?) As, as you say there doesn’t feel to be enough.

 

[TimFisher1965]

I'm not persuaded that something's true because some of the police say it is, because for as long as I can remember, if they can't find who did something they frame the local weirdo or an otherwise suitable patsy.

So there have been the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, all framed for terrorism then released. We have had Colin Stagg whose acquittal and release was greeted by the police with the remark "we are not looking for anyone else". Going back further there was Lesley Molseed, where they framed the local weirdo Stefan Kiszko, who was released after 16 years. There was Joanne Yeates, where they initially nicked her landlord because he looked a bit weird, and Suzanne Dando, where they framed the local weirdo Barry George, who was released.

Going back further, there was the Yorkshire Ripper case where they first tried to frame a taxi driver called Terry Hawkshaw, then fell for a hoax tape and decided to ignore all suspects who didn't have a Wearside accent. Interestingly, the plods in that case and the Birmingham Six included several of the same detectives.

The problem really is that in seizing on Mr Kipper (and why did nobody ever come forward at the time to say "he looks like someone I know?") the police omitted to gather evidence at the time in support of any other hypothesis. The CPS has duly declined to pursue their "case" against JC because they basically don't have one.

In much the same way, the Portuguese police were never going to solve the Madeleine McCann case, so they decided to frame the parents instead, and in focusing there, they missed a lot of pointers to who really did it.

If there were one solution to this case that made complete sense and was supported by evidence, it would have emerged by now. Everyone's preferred hypothesis lacks evidence, or is contradicted by other evidence, so it's really a question of which version do you dislike the least.

I have to say I agree very strongly with this post.
I have exchanged many messages/emails etc with researchers and some things should be pretty clear to anyone who seriously has tried to solve this case.

I would ask these questions and make the following points.

What actually is a "fact" in this case? Well it depends on who you believe.

For instance, SL lost her possessions at the POW on Friday or Sunday, they were either nicked or she dropped them depending on who you believe and where you get your information. AL gave accounts in interviews which are contradictory at best so what is the truth?

I personally think its 99% certain she lost them Sunday night, why do I think this.
The acting landlord found then on Sunday, the permanent landlord and his wife first interviewed by DV remember this as they were there and left the next morning.
SL and AL had a phone conversation on Sunday about 10.15pm I think SL rang him from the phone box outside the POW at 10.15pm and she dropped her stuff at that time which were found minutes later by the acting landlord.
She never mentioned losing the possession to anyone over the weekend including her parents or close friend Sarah who she shared a car with her for some hours on the Sunday, why? Because she had not lost them yet.
She never mentioned it to NB on Monday morning when she saw him in her flat, why? Because she had not yet left for work and "probably" not yet discovered the loss. She probably did as she got ready for work after NB left the flat.
The permanent landlord and his wife had left by the time the police arrived at the POW asking about the possessions leaving the acting landlord to say whatever he wanted. So IF he was responsible there was nobody to dispute his word as the landlords were away and SL was not around to discuss. So he could say anything he wanted who could dispute it? Who actually said that the possessions were found on Friday? AL said this in an interview in a documentary but he told DV it never happened? three people said the possessions were found on the Sunday night the permanent landlords and the acting one 34 years afterwards to DV.

Take the office scenario on the 28th, reconstructions have MG in the office when SL left but according to DV he wasn't even there (although not confirmed for certain). According to JC (office junior not imprisoned JC) SL asked for the keys but DV has proved to my satisfaction that only one set existed and she never took them so that could not have happened. I emailed JC and he spoke to me but although he agreed he would he did not answer any of the questions I sent him.

I do think that AS is an excellent journalist and writer BUT his book was based on speaking to the family and to the police including looking at their files. This troubles me because these people seem to be the most unreliable people in the case. DL wrote an open letter to SL in which she creates a scenario of where SL was at home talking to NB on Sunday night to preserve her daughter's reputation which NB does not confirm so she in in the process altered the timeline with her open letter making finding the true timeline more difficult. The police did not do even the basics correctly, they ran with the wrong line of enquiry from the first day, they went to her flat and broke in but not to the address where SL supposedly went? they did not check the phone records which would have proved who exactly made and received calls from all the relevant parties including what times the POW the bank and SL at Sturgis exchanged calls. This would have given them a defined timeline. The POW employees could have then answered questions about the calls including the times and they could have found out when the possessions were found exactly and where and by whom. I take the point that the book is well written and that AS is an excellent writer but what exactly in it can be relied upon bearing mind where he got the info from? People have also said that DV should have asked other questions and that he has avoided certain questions but I feel some things also need to be said here to give him more credit.

Look at what info he found.

SF and NH were in a relationship.
NH and SL had a massive row in the morning.
KP had lunch with MG round the corner and that it was he not MG who employed SL, clearly SL could get out the office behind MG's back but KP coming back to find her out for personal reasons was a massive issue.
DV proved that SL was "obliged" to be in the office so she I believe she was forced into making up kipper to get out of the office.
(I think she thought Shorrolds road, made her think of Herring that made her think of kipper so she used that as it was a property that Sturgis had so it "looked legit")
There was a stock check and the regular landlord and his wife were NOT there.
The temporary landlord and his wife who had been around for some weeks being trained (not just turned up the night before as people have said) were there and by mid to late morning alone in the pub on the 28th?
The possessions were found on Sunday night and found very soon afterwards by the acting landlord something hinted at by Anita Brookner at the time of AS book being published.
(her notes on AS book are available via an American Library for those who know where to find them)
The legal advisor to DL is related to someone significant to JC's legal team.
The vendor only gave Sturgis one set of keys confirmed by a partner in Sturgis so as the police had one set to get in the next day, SL never had them.
He interviewed the couple who were the acting landlords and got information nobody else knew.

And lots more.

The couple who cannot be named, I emailed them and I did get a reply.

Something I have also said repeatedly is that this case is like a Rubik's cube, one side of the timeline matches up but then something else does not fit.

For example

WJ says she saw the fiesta at Stevenage road at about 12.45pm and she saw it again later when she came home and it was there all day until found at 10.01pm by the police and never moved.
Taxi driver saw it (he says) at 2.30pm
Garage owner came home about 5.15pm and saw the car
BW saw SL at 2.45pm about a mile away.
DV says if BW correct WJ is wrong.
Two workman were working in Stevenage Road all day and saw nothing
The car was slightly badly parked, seat pushed back, handbrake off and there was no forensic evidence.
Evidence suggests that the car was parked there by a man or taller person than SL but they left no fingerprints. So killer wore gloves or wiped the car down but police say no signs of wiping down which needs explaining and gloves if used would need to be on hand to someone by chance or they brought them suggesting premeditation and good planning.

Every aspect of the case is like this, too many options, too many clues, too many loose ends.

So which bits are correct they cannot all be right can they as they do not fit?

I think the there are only two chances to solve this case.

1. Search the POW pub then she is found or DV is discredited, its entirely possible of course that she "was" in the cellar and was moved later but a cadaver dog would probably prove this.

2. Remove the ambiguous theories and only leave in what can be proven as a proper unshakable fact by pure deductive reasoning and backed up with facts.


I still think there are other leads that can be followed which may provide vital evidence.

For the record I think JC had NOTHING to do with it but if it could be proved he did it then fine so be it, I have an open mind.

I would like to see a documentary that examines the facts of the case and does not include JC in any way so we can see the untainted facts not the false narrative we see in every documentary.

I welcome any discussion about my thoughts as long as they are constructive, we all want this to be solved don't we?

 

[Henry B]

DL and her agenda are IMO quite a big part of why SJL's life developed as it did and why the search for her failed. DL was out to protect SJL's posthumous reputation, and the misapprehension she held, carefully-curated by SJL, of how she had lived her life. Nothing else mattered more. DL was not about finding out what happened to SJL if this involved accepting even that she wasn't a 25-year-old virgin, never mind that she had slept with dozens of men. DL wanted an account of SJL's fate that showed her to be a blameless innocent - which by pretty well everyone's standards she was, but not by her mothers: those of 1950s East Sheen. DL wanted this more than she wanted SJL found; more than she wanted the truth.

The instant attempt to shut down an innocent conversation with the flat mate is evidence of this. She wouldn't tolerate even a hint that SJL might actually have been sleeping with a man. That would mean, in the parlance of the day, that far from having a lodger, SJL had "shacked up with" a bloke and was "living in sin". Yuck. Won't have that said.

DL had previously attempted to police her daughter's love life and deliberately interfered in it without hesitation. This attempt at control led SJL to seek work and any other opportunities that would allow to her to move out of home ASAP. She did and she heavily edited her accounts to DL of what was happening in her life.

This may have doomed her. Nobody but SJL seems to have known what went on between her and PSS, for example. If she had told her parents about things in her life that were worrying her, someone worldlier might have warned her. Her dad might have told whomever this bloke was that was "hassling" her to leave his daughter alone. But she did not have those conversations with her parents, and as the eldest sibling, nor had she any big brother or sister to confide in either.

So SJL's backstory is acutely relevant, but just not in the way usually assumed.

This is IMO why DL was so keen on JC as a patsy. His history of being a smooth and persuasive liar meant that a trusting innocent was duped. He was the perfect killer SJL could have done nothing to save herself from, and who stalked her after he looked at her in a shop window. She died because she was pretty, not because she was a hussy. For DL, that account is much preferable to any in which her associates and choice or number of bedmates is a factor. So that's the account that gets pushed, and as a result of this misconceived reputation management exercise, someone gets away with it.

Yes, interesting - but according to the AS book, DL was the instigator of SJL's move from home. DL and TL had been having difficulties, so DL packed TL's things (according to the book TL was 'livid) and organised a flat for them, with SL there primarily to 'look after' TL.

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

I have to say I agree very strongly with this post.
I have exchanged many messages/emails etc with researchers and some things should be pretty clear to anyone who seriously has tried to solve this case.

I would ask these questions and make the following points.

What actually is a "fact" in this case? Well it depends on who you believe.

For instance, SL lost her possessions at the POW on Friday or Sunday, they were either nicked or she dropped them depending on who you believe and where you get your information. AL gave accounts in interviews which are contradictory at best so what is the truth?

I personally think its 99% certain she lost them Sunday night, why do I think this.
The acting landlord found then on Sunday, the permanent landlord and his wife first interviewed by DV remember this as they were there and left the next morning.
SL and AL had a phone conversation on Sunday about 10.15pm I think SL rang him from the phone box outside the POW at 10.15pm and she dropped her stuff at that time which were found minutes later by the acting landlord.
She never mentioned losing the possession to anyone over the weekend including her parents or close friend Sarah who she shared a car with her for some hours on the Sunday, why? Because she had not lost them yet.
She never mentioned it to NB on Monday morning when she saw him in her flat, why? Because she had not yet left for work and "probably" not yet discovered the loss. She probably did as she got ready for work after NB left the flat.
The permanent landlord and his wife had left by the time the police arrived at the POW asking about the possessions leaving the acting landlord to say whatever he wanted. So IF he was responsible there was nobody to dispute his word as the landlords were away and SL was not around to discuss. So he could say anything he wanted who could dispute it? Who actually said that the possessions were found on Friday? AL said this in an interview in a documentary but he told DV it never happened? three people said the possessions were found on the Sunday night the permanent landlords and the acting one 34 years afterwards to DV.

Take the office scenario on the 28th, reconstructions have MG in the office when SL left but according to DV he wasn't even there (although not confirmed for certain). According to JC (office junior not imprisoned JC) SL asked for the keys but DV has proved to my satisfaction that only one set existed and she never took them so that could not have happened. I emailed JC and he spoke to me but although he agreed he would he did not answer any of the questions I sent him.

I do think that AS is an excellent journalist and writer BUT his book was based on speaking to the family and to the police including looking at their files. This troubles me because these people seem to be the most unreliable people in the case. DL wrote an open letter to SL in which she creates a scenario of where SL was at home talking to NB on Sunday night to preserve her daughter's reputation which NB does not confirm so she in in the process altered the timeline with her open letter making finding the true timeline more difficult. The police did not do even the basics correctly, they ran with the wrong line of enquiry from the first day, they went to her flat and broke in but not to the address where SL supposedly went? they did not check the phone records which would have proved who exactly made and received calls from all the relevant parties including what times the POW the bank and SL at Sturgis exchanged calls. This would have given them a defined timeline. The POW employees could have then answered questions about the calls including the times and they could have found out when the possessions were found exactly and where and by whom. I take the point that the book is well written and that AS is an excellent writer but what exactly in it can be relied upon bearing mind where he got the info from? People have also said that DV should have asked other questions and that he has avoided certain questions but I feel some things also need to be said here to give him more credit.

Look at what info he found.

SF and NH were in a relationship.
NH and SL had a massive row in the morning.
KP had lunch with MG round the corner and that it was he not MG who employed SL, clearly SL could get out the office behind MG's back but KP coming back to find her out for personal reasons was a massive issue.
DV proved that SL was "obliged" to be in the office so she I believe she was forced into making up kipper to get out of the office.
(I think she thought Shorrolds road, made her think of Herring that made her think of kipper so she used that as it was a property that Sturgis had so it "looked legit")
There was a stock check and the regular landlord and his wife were NOT there.
The temporary landlord and his wife who had been around for some weeks being trained (not just turned up the night before as people have said) were there and by mid to late morning alone in the pub on the 28th?
The possessions were found on Sunday night and found very soon afterwards by the acting landlord something hinted at by Anita Brookner at the time of AS book being published.
(her notes on AS book are available via an American Library for those who know where to find them)
The legal advisor to DL is related to someone significant to JC's legal team.
The vendor only gave Sturgis one set of keys confirmed by a partner in Sturgis so as the police had one set to get in the next day, SL never had them.
He interviewed the couple who were the acting landlords and got information nobody else knew.

And lots more.

The couple who cannot be named, I emailed them and I did get a reply.

Something I have also said repeatedly is that this case is like a Rubik's cube, one side of the timeline matches up but then something else does not fit.

For example

WJ says she saw the fiesta at Stevenage road at about 12.45pm and she saw it again later when she came home and it was there all day until found at 10.01pm by the police and never moved.
Taxi driver saw it (he says) at 2.30pm
Garage owner came home about 5.15pm and saw the car
BW saw SL at 2.45pm about a mile away.
DV says if BW correct WJ is wrong.
Two workman were working in Stevenage Road all day and saw nothing
The car was slightly badly parked, seat pushed back, handbrake off and there was no forensic evidence.
Evidence suggests that the car was parked there by a man or taller person than SL but they left no fingerprints. So killer wore gloves or wiped the car down but police say no signs of wiping down which needs explaining and gloves if used would need to be on hand to someone by chance or they brought them suggesting premeditation and good planning.

Every aspect of the case is like this, too many options, too many clues, too many loose ends.

So which bits are correct they cannot all be right can they as they do not fit?

I think the there are only two chances to solve this case.

1. Search the POW pub then she is found or DV is discredited, its entirely possible of course that she "was" in the cellar and was moved later but a cadaver dog would probably prove this.

2. Remove the ambiguous theories and only leave in what can be proven as a proper unshakable fact by pure deductive reasoning and backed up with facts.


I still think there are other leads that can be followed which may provide vital evidence.

For the record I think JC had NOTHING to do with it but if it could be proved he did it then fine so be it, I have an open mind.

I would like to see a documentary that examines the facts of the case and does not include JC in any way so we can see the untainted facts not the false narrative we see in every documentary.

I welcome any discussion about my thoughts as long as they are constructive, we all want this to be solved don't we?

Good points. AS also interviewed SL’s friends in person. Brookner says directly SL left/lost things the day/evening before.

Did no one really know why SL was selling flat? Why she was seemingly in a rush to do so & where she was planning to move to? Had she really not told any close family? I know some sort of joint ownership re: next property mentioned.

 

[Crusader21]

Did no one really know why SL was selling flat?

Selling her flat? About to recieve a £3K payment? Proposed business deal with a couple called off with resulting fallout ...

Makes you wonder was SLs finacial dealings both on the surface and hidden, ever fully scrutinised and understood?

 

[Crusader21]

we all want this to be solved don't we?

Actually there are big reasons for many people that 'sleeping dogs lie'.

JCs victims / relatives, those that are known and those hidden, have a huge vested interest in JC 'doing this' and remaining behind bars, probably for the rest of his life.

The police, their much maligned reputation. 'We got our man back in 2000'.

The Lamplugh family. DL said it was JC, so it must have been. 'Case closed'.

The SL Trust. No doubtedly doing vital work for victims of stalkers, lone workers protection etc. Would new revelations / the public viewing SL in a new way, affect the charity's ability to fundraise? Tho you'd like to think that the SLT is that well established now that they'd be all to continue on.

The murder(s), with 35 years of police and media spotlight shone in the wrong direction.

To answer your question. It has to be the right thing now, that every effort is made to find SLs remains and subseqently pursue and bring those responsible before the courts.

And yes you are right DV does deserve credit for moving the case forward.

With the stacked opposition listed above tho, it will be interesting to see what happens now ....

 

[WestLondoner]

Hi Tim and first of all welcome to the discussion.

For instance, SL lost her possessions at the POW on Friday or Sunday, they were either nicked or she dropped them depending on who you believe and where you get your information. AL gave accounts in interviews which are contradictory at best so what is the truth?

It's hugely frustrating. Although one can sometimes work out where an unreliable witness is remembering it wrong, elsewhere you can't and you're just left with an unreliable witness.

I personally think its 99% certain she lost them Sunday night, why do I think this.

I agree with you here for the reasons you give.

The permanent landlord and his wife had left by the time the police arrived at the POW asking about the possessions leaving the acting landlord to say whatever he wanted. So IF he was responsible there was nobody to dispute his word as the landlords were away and SL was not around to discuss. So he could say anything he wanted who could dispute it?

Indeed. DV's take is very interesting between the lines. He interviewed the acting manager and talks about him in the book but he has given him a pseudonym. He has not mentioned the couple with whom SJL was friends, and instantly jumped all over this when it was raised in the podcast last week. Apparently he also recently sent a tweet from Elizabeth Street in Belgravia where said couple lived; make of that what one will.

What I make of it is that "CV" and his ex are poor and can't afford lawyers, so they get themselves talked about. The mystery couple can, so they don't. They warn off not only DV but every other party who's looked into this case these last 30 years - newspapers, TV documentary makers, writers - and so they do not end up in any book. As far as I know, the only mention of them anywhere in the record is in AS' book from 1988. If you google the name of the man you find out something quite life-changing that happened to him 8 days after SJL disappeared. I would not be entirely surprised if the rarity of this book is because one or other of these two has been buying copies up and destroying them.

DV appears to me to be trying to draw attention to the PoW without mentioning this couple, because he can't. So he mentions CV instead and then suggests she is under the floor where realistically only CV and / or her killer could have put her. CV has no motive so that says someone else and CV helped or covered up. Why? Don't know. Were CV and the killer best mates? Were they both freemasons or something? Don't know.

I do think that AS is an excellent journalist and writer BUT his book was based on speaking to the family and to the police including looking at their files. This troubles me because these people seem to be the most unreliable people in the case.

Spot on.

they did not check the phone records which would have proved who exactly made and received calls from all the relevant parties including what times the POW the bank and SL at Sturgis exchanged calls.

Yes, this omission is excruciating because doing this would have exploded the "Mr Kipper" false trail before it took over the narrative. Sturgis had only been instructed on 37SR the previous Wednesday. As "Mr Kipper" obviously wasn't going to turn up at the branch, and risk being accurately remembered by the colleagues of the woman he intended to murder, his supposed viewing appointment must have been made by phone. This would have been between Wednesday at the earliest and that Monday at the latest. So had the police checked the log of all the calls made and received, they'd have identified them all, and found no call indicating any "Mr Kipper".

The couple who cannot be named, I emailed them and I did get a reply.

I presume you mean you didn't?

Something I have also said repeatedly is that this case is like a Rubik's cube, one side of the timeline matches up but then something else does not fit.

Good analogy. I think of it as like a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle that has 300 pieces missing plus 200 pieces in the box that are actually from other puzzles. To work out what picture it makes, you have to discard the right 200 pieces, and even then, you can only expect to see part of the picture. For any hypothesis to work, you have to discard other evidence.

Evidence suggests that the car was parked there by a man or taller person than SL but they left no fingerprints. So killer wore gloves or wiped the car down but police say no signs of wiping down which needs explaining and gloves if used would need to be on hand to someone by chance or they brought them suggesting premeditation and good planning.

Yes - or that it was dumped there by someone who had been in the car before and who would be able to explain it away; or that the police are wrong because they didn't do this properly either.

1. Search the POW pub then she is found or DV is discredited, its entirely possible of course that she "was" in the cellar and was moved later but a cadaver dog would probably prove this.

My sense is that DV is trying to put enough out there to get the pub and its environs searched, to find her, and to produce forensic evidence of who killed her there, and hence why. The police attitude is that until he produces evidence she was killed there and why, they're not searching the pub. It's a complete Mexican standoff the police could easily break, but they have no interest in doing so because it would blow apart their JC theory and make them look stupid, suggestible and even a bit crooked.

I still think there are other leads that can be followed which may provide vital evidence.

The two theories I know of people buying into are that JC did it, and that something happened at the pub. Are there others?