Thanks for that. It works!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #2
- Thread starter Pinkizzy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Agree, whatever is in the diary may hold a clue to what happened that Monday. However, you’d need to have a detailed knowledge of the case to pick it out.I think if we could all see the diary things would make sense , also this case would have been solved quicker I’m sure if mobile phones were about at time , what does everyone think about AL having lured SL to her death? Sorry don’t know how to start new thread
After 35 years the current Met team will not have the detailed knowledge needed. They’re only really interested in proving JC did it.
It’s possible the perpetrator has been hiding in plain sight for the last 35 years. Unless this just happens to be CV and SJL is in the immediate area of the PoW pub finding her is unlikely.
I have just ordered the AS book as well as having read DV book, hoping another book might make things any clearer ! Can I ask anyone who they think DV is alluding to in book who is guilty , I thought CV but not so sure nowYes, it all seems odd. I still find the AS 1988 book useful. And I have wondered if a meeting between SL and the couple was required by the couple (or at least one of them) more than we know, for reasons we are unaware of. But that is pure conjecture on my part.
Yes, it all seems odd. I still find the AS 1988 book useful. And I have wondered if a meeting between SL and the couple was required by the couple (or at least one of them) more than we know, for reasons we are unaware of. But that is pure conjecture on my part.[/QUOTE
I have just ordered the AS book as well as having read DV book, hoping another book might make things any clearer ! Can I ask anyone who they think DV is alluding to in book who is guilty , I thought CV but not so sure now
I have just ordered the AS book as well as having read DV book, hoping another book might make things any clearer ! Can I ask anyone who they think DV is alluding to in book who is guilty , I thought CV but not so sure now
he was claiming it was CV in the book as far as I could tell.
Has there been on movement on DV pushing his theory forward?
he was claiming it was CV in the book as far as I could tell.
Has there been on movement on DV pushing his theory forward?
Agree, whatever is in the diary may hold a clue to what happened that Monday. However, you’d need to have a detailed knowledge of the case to pick it out.I think if we could all see the diary things would make sense , also this case would have been solved quicker I’m sure if mobile phones were about at time , what does everyone think about AL having lured SL to her death? Sorry don’t know how to start new thread
After 35 years the current Met team will not have the detailed knowledge needed. They’re only really interested in proving JC did it.
It’s possible the perpetrator has been hiding in plain sight for the last 35 years. Unless this just happens to be CV and SJL is in the immediate area of the PoW pub finding her is unlikely.
Unless I interpreted thing wrong he’s looking to complete an investigation of the PoW / embankment using the same forensic team the Met use.he was claiming it was CV in the book as far as I could tell.
Has there been on movement on DV pushing his theory forward?
This is costly and would need to be crowd funded. Without a lot of people behind him this is not going to happen.
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 3,055
On a reread, it seems clear that if SJL didn't go to Shorrolds, she went to the PoW. The basis for believing that she didn't go to 37SR is the fictitious client name, the lack of keys to get in, and the absence of reliable sightings of her there. Those we have are either unreliable in themselves, eg HR who never identified her in the first place then later made and retracted a claim of seeing her bundled into a car; or are themselves clearly derivative of HR's supposed sighting; and / or came years later.
So that leaves the PoW as the only likely destination.
If PoW was the destination, several people knew she was going there. CV knew, his partner knew, and the LL and his wife knew. According to CV - but only according to CV - two other people also knew, because they rang the pub asking after her.
We know the LL and his wife were gone before SJL ever left the office, so this leaves only CV and his partner who were both there and expecting her. We don't know if the pub was open or busy, but if not, and CV's partner went out, then it becomes apparent that SJL could have gone to an empty pub. If harm came to her there, then it was either at CV's hands, or those of someone else who intercepted her there. Whoever that might have been could have done so only with CV's connivance.
DV has anonymised CV's name because the unavoidable inference is that CV is either a killer or has assisted in covering up a killing. He speculates that maybe this was an accident rather than a murder, but I think this unlikely. If someone is accidentally killed, you don't immediately hide the body and lie to the police and everyone else. You dial 999. If SJL were injured in unsuspicious circumstances, this is what CV would surely have done. This suggests that the nature of her injuries was such that it would have been obvious she was being attacked at the time she died: ligature marks around her neck, disturbance to her clothing, bruising from being restrained, etc.
So CV realises he has to cover it up. He hastily hides the body where DV suggests, then when the police are told her stuff is at the pub, it is handed over with no comment except that she never turned up. A year later, CV is reinterviewed, and this time he adds an embellishment: that there were two calls for SJL to the pub.
AFAIK nobody else gave this information, so CV is the only source. It's much too late to try to trace the incoming calls. It seems possible that on being reinterviewed, he thought he'd better introduce a few red herrings. If the police were getting interested in the PoW, and perhaps starting to discount the Mr Kipper blind alley, maybe they have worked out where she probably did go. And that was to a pub with only him, CV, in it at that time. And he doesn't work there any more so he can't get retrieve or move the body now.
So he needed someone else to know she was going there too; someone who couldn't be traced. He tried to claim he was not changing his story by saying he'd given the phone number of these callers to the police a year ago. The police had no record of his having done so. The officers were reliable, so either they had made an almighty error, or CV was lying. Luckily for CV the former was assumed, and not long after, up pops JC into the frame.
DV has anonymised CV's name, but there seems no reason for him not to have anonymised his description too. He's described as a short fat, deaf old man, but what if he was 6'3" and 17 stone in 1986? What if he could obviously have overpowered SJL?
Between the lines, the best explanation for CV's ex furiously refusing to talk to DV or even his assistant could be fear of CV. Maybe she knows what he's capable of? She immediately calls on her husband for protection and he tells DV to clear off. I'd say she's frightened of someone.
Many of the whodunit theories about other famous cases falter because they can't put the "new" suspect at the scene. Yes it might have been X who was Jack the Ripper, but does any reliable witness or evidence credibly place X at the scene of at least one of the Ripper crimes? With AFAIK the exception of Charles Lechmere, no - so there is no reason to believe any of them. Another reason these theories fail is that they require people to have done things, or been in places, or had suppositious motivations for which there's no evidence.
The best argument for this being CV is that he has put himself at the potential scene of the crime. He does so in comparative safety because nobody, until DV, has intuited that the PoW even was the scene of any crime. The argument against the involvement of anyone else is not that it's only CV's account of that day that involves others, but that actually, nobody else need have been involved. Nobody else is necessary for it to have been CV.
If so then he has been a dangerous man for years, and the obvious question is where has he lived and worked since, and who else has gone missing nearby.
So that leaves the PoW as the only likely destination.
If PoW was the destination, several people knew she was going there. CV knew, his partner knew, and the LL and his wife knew. According to CV - but only according to CV - two other people also knew, because they rang the pub asking after her.
We know the LL and his wife were gone before SJL ever left the office, so this leaves only CV and his partner who were both there and expecting her. We don't know if the pub was open or busy, but if not, and CV's partner went out, then it becomes apparent that SJL could have gone to an empty pub. If harm came to her there, then it was either at CV's hands, or those of someone else who intercepted her there. Whoever that might have been could have done so only with CV's connivance.
DV has anonymised CV's name because the unavoidable inference is that CV is either a killer or has assisted in covering up a killing. He speculates that maybe this was an accident rather than a murder, but I think this unlikely. If someone is accidentally killed, you don't immediately hide the body and lie to the police and everyone else. You dial 999. If SJL were injured in unsuspicious circumstances, this is what CV would surely have done. This suggests that the nature of her injuries was such that it would have been obvious she was being attacked at the time she died: ligature marks around her neck, disturbance to her clothing, bruising from being restrained, etc.
So CV realises he has to cover it up. He hastily hides the body where DV suggests, then when the police are told her stuff is at the pub, it is handed over with no comment except that she never turned up. A year later, CV is reinterviewed, and this time he adds an embellishment: that there were two calls for SJL to the pub.
AFAIK nobody else gave this information, so CV is the only source. It's much too late to try to trace the incoming calls. It seems possible that on being reinterviewed, he thought he'd better introduce a few red herrings. If the police were getting interested in the PoW, and perhaps starting to discount the Mr Kipper blind alley, maybe they have worked out where she probably did go. And that was to a pub with only him, CV, in it at that time. And he doesn't work there any more so he can't get retrieve or move the body now.
So he needed someone else to know she was going there too; someone who couldn't be traced. He tried to claim he was not changing his story by saying he'd given the phone number of these callers to the police a year ago. The police had no record of his having done so. The officers were reliable, so either they had made an almighty error, or CV was lying. Luckily for CV the former was assumed, and not long after, up pops JC into the frame.
DV has anonymised CV's name, but there seems no reason for him not to have anonymised his description too. He's described as a short fat, deaf old man, but what if he was 6'3" and 17 stone in 1986? What if he could obviously have overpowered SJL?
Between the lines, the best explanation for CV's ex furiously refusing to talk to DV or even his assistant could be fear of CV. Maybe she knows what he's capable of? She immediately calls on her husband for protection and he tells DV to clear off. I'd say she's frightened of someone.
Many of the whodunit theories about other famous cases falter because they can't put the "new" suspect at the scene. Yes it might have been X who was Jack the Ripper, but does any reliable witness or evidence credibly place X at the scene of at least one of the Ripper crimes? With AFAIK the exception of Charles Lechmere, no - so there is no reason to believe any of them. Another reason these theories fail is that they require people to have done things, or been in places, or had suppositious motivations for which there's no evidence.
The best argument for this being CV is that he has put himself at the potential scene of the crime. He does so in comparative safety because nobody, until DV, has intuited that the PoW even was the scene of any crime. The argument against the involvement of anyone else is not that it's only CV's account of that day that involves others, but that actually, nobody else need have been involved. Nobody else is necessary for it to have been CV.
If so then he has been a dangerous man for years, and the obvious question is where has he lived and worked since, and who else has gone missing nearby.
Last edited:
Thank you westlondoner for that , everything you say above makes a lot of sense , second time round reading DV book was thinking outside box about AL but yes everything above seems most plausible. I have another question do you think CV is in fact the man Suzy’s brother wants investigated now ?
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 3,055
Thank you westlondoner for that , everything you say above makes a lot of sense , second time round reading DV book was thinking outside box about AL but yes everything above seems most plausible. I have another question do you think CV is in fact the man Suzy’s brother wants investigated now ?
What has he said? What I have heard suggests that he buys the police JC narrative.
Agree with your take on the DV narrative, if you do as he has and follow the timeline it goes straight to the PoW and by default to CV.On a reread, it seems clear that if SJL didn't go to Shorrolds, she went to the PoW. The basis for believing that she didn't go to 37SR is the fictitious client name, the lack of keys to get in, and the absence of reliable sightings of her there. Those we have are either unreliable in themselves, eg HR who never identified her in the first place then later made and retracted a claim of seeing her bundled into a car; or are themselves clearly derivative of HR's supposed sighting; and / or came years later.
So that leaves the PoW as the only likely destination.
If PoW was the destination, several people knew she was going there. CV knew, his partner knew, and the LL and his wife knew. According to CV - but only according to CV - two other people also knew, because they rang the pub asking after her.
We know the LL and his wife were gone before SJL ever left the office, so this leaves only CV and his partner who were both there and expecting her. We don't know if the pub was open or busy, but if not, and CV's partner went out, then it becomes apparent that SJL could have gone to an empty pub. If harm came to her there, then it was either at CV's hands, or those of someone else who intercepted her there. Whoever that might have been could have done so only with CV's connivance.
DV has anonymised CV's name because the unavoidable inference is that CV is either a killer or has assisted in covering up a killing. He speculates that maybe this was an accident rather than a murder, but I think this unlikely. If someone is accidentally killed, you don't immediately hide the body and lie to the police and everyone else. You dial 999. If SJL were injured in unsuspicious circumstances, this is what CV would surely have done. This suggests that the nature of her injuries was such that it would have been obvious she was being attacked at the time she died: ligature marks around her neck, disturbance to her clothing, bruising from being restrained, etc.
So CV realises he has to cover it up. He hastily hides the body where DV suggests, then when the police are told her stuff is at the pub, it is handed over with no comment except that she never turned up. A year later, CV is reinterviewed, and this time he adds an embellishment: that there were two calls for SJL to the pub.
AFAIK nobody else gave this information, so CV is the only source. It's much too late to try to trace the incoming calls. It seems possible that on being reinterviewed, he thought he'd better introduce a few red herrings. If the police were getting interested in the PoW, and perhaps starting to discount the Mr Kipper blind alley, maybe they have worked out where she probably did go. And that was to a pub with only him, CV, in it at that time. And he doesn't work there any more so he can't get retrieve or move the body now.
So he needed someone else to know she was going there too; someone who couldn't be traced. He tried to claim he was not changing his story by saying he'd given the phone number of these callers to the police a year ago. The police had no record of his having done so. The officers were reliable, so either they had made an almighty error, or CV was lying. Luckily for CV the former was assumed, and not long after, up pops JC into the frame.
DV has anonymised CV's name, but there seems no reason for him not to have anonymised his description too. He's described as a short fat, deaf old man, but what if he was 6'3" and 17 stone in 1986? What if he could obviously have overpowered SJL?
Between the lines, the best explanation for CV's ex furiously refusing to talk to DV or even his assistant could be fear of CV. Maybe she knows what he's capable of? She immediately calls on her husband for protection and he tells DV to clear off. I'd say she's frightened of someone.
Many of the whodunit theories about other famous cases falter because they can't put the "new" suspect at the scene. Yes it might have been X who was Jack the Ripper, but does any reliable witness or evidence credibly place X at the scene of at least one of the Ripper crimes? With AFAIK the exception of Charles Lechmere, no - so there is no reason to believe any of them. Another reason these theories fail is that they require people to have done things, or been in places, or had suppositious motivations for which there's no evidence.
The best argument for this being CV is that he has put himself at the potential scene of the crime. He does so in comparative safety because nobody, until DV, has intuited that the PoW even was the scene of any crime. The argument against the involvement of anyone else is not that it's only CV's account of that day that involves others, but that actually, nobody else need have been involved. Nobody else is necessary for it to have been CV.
If so then he has been a dangerous man for years, and the obvious question is where has he lived and worked since, and who else has gone missing nearby.
On your last point about “what has been going on post his return to the North” a lot, but it would take a good detective to find any links.
Great logic, all we need is the forensic investigation to either DV is right or wrong.
I am still not convinced the POW will solve the mystery.
I just do not believe that man decided to make sexual advances in the middle of the day with his wife around at a pub and she ends up dead and he then has time to cover it up.
I just do not believe that man decided to make sexual advances in the middle of the day with his wife around at a pub and she ends up dead and he then has time to cover it up.
That a good point, to solve any kind of puzzle you need to eliminate all possibilities one, one.I am still not convinced the POW will solve the mystery.
I just do not believe that man decided to make sexual advances in the middle of the day with his wife around at a pub and she ends up dead and he then has time to cover it up.
This is just one of maybe 3 or 4, JC being one of the others, and as others have pointed out AL (although with an apparent cast iron alibi is another (his reaction to DV’s interview is odd and raises concerns).
Without a determined effort by the Met these possibilities will not be looked at and after 35 years I can’t see them putting resources into this case.
What’s the link for tonight’s chat?
I hope he answers some of the questions we have as if he takes the easy option it will make me doubt his take.
I want to know why he missed out parts that we know to be true.
Hi
I am still not convinced the POW will solve the mystery.
I just do not believe that man decided to make sexual advances in the middle of the day with his wife around at a pub and she ends up dead and he then has time to cover it up.
do you know that’s the thing that I can’t get my head around , why would he do it? I think of blackmail because of diary maybe he asks for something in return but his wife was there as you say , I don’t know it’s a strange one .. def he had something to do with it
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 3,055
I suppose the answer to the question 'why would he do it?' would be 'why would anyone do it?'
The practicalities are challenging but I guess DV's reasoning is that if she didn't go to 37SR, she went to the PoW, and she was last seen heading there. There are no other possibilities. If you don't buy the 37SR story then it follows that you need to talk to whomever SJL might have met at the PoW, because she did not survive that errand.
So DV has tracked down everyone who was there, with the possible exception of the mysterious Brendan the cellarman. He's eliminated the LL and his wife, which leaves CV and Mrs CV. He tries to speak to her, but she split up with CV within months, and she's plainly terrified of him and anyone who might be an associate. This leaves CV as the figure of interest.
If the pub was open and Mrs CV was about, this does indeed become very tricky for CV to accomplish. But if it was closed, because Mondays are quiet anyway and the handover stocktake took until 12, then Mrs CV didn't need to be around till maybe 5.30, for evening opening. In that way, everyone but CV has gone when SJL pitches up there at 1pm.
This requires CV to turn into a sex attacker at the drop of a hat. But as Sherlock said, when you have eliminated the impossible....It is hard for the rest of us to fathom why people commit crimes like this. It's been suggested that maybe her diary contained stuff that gave CV a thrill, so that he demanded sexual favours from her in exchange for its return. I can't myself see how this results in a scuffle in which she accidentally dies, because SJL would surely just have said *advertiser censored** you, I'm calling the police. And if her death was capable of being made to look like an accident, that would have been CV's best option. He can't have intended to rape her and let her go, because then he'd be arrested within the hour. So he must have intended to lure her there and kill her there, having perhaps already worked out that there was a good hiding place.
20-odd years ago I read a book about the failed Yorkshire Ripper investigation. It had a number of features in common with the failed SJL investigation, namely the fixation on a wrong hypothesis, the determination to fit up a convenient suspect, the police being taken in by obviously false "evidence", someone else eventually identifying the killer, and so on. One point I recall was that one of the murders didn't at all fit the usual pattern. From the injuries it was clearly a Sutcliffe killing, but instead of a working girl down a dark alley, the victim was a random woman crossing a park. The police concluded he'd probably been on his way home, saw someone he could kill, and did so, because he just felt like it.
That wasn't Sutcliffe's first or last murder, and if this was CV, then maybe he thought the same way. One suspects if so that this wasn't CV's first offence so I wonder who else has gone missing in his vicinity.
The practicalities are challenging but I guess DV's reasoning is that if she didn't go to 37SR, she went to the PoW, and she was last seen heading there. There are no other possibilities. If you don't buy the 37SR story then it follows that you need to talk to whomever SJL might have met at the PoW, because she did not survive that errand.
So DV has tracked down everyone who was there, with the possible exception of the mysterious Brendan the cellarman. He's eliminated the LL and his wife, which leaves CV and Mrs CV. He tries to speak to her, but she split up with CV within months, and she's plainly terrified of him and anyone who might be an associate. This leaves CV as the figure of interest.
If the pub was open and Mrs CV was about, this does indeed become very tricky for CV to accomplish. But if it was closed, because Mondays are quiet anyway and the handover stocktake took until 12, then Mrs CV didn't need to be around till maybe 5.30, for evening opening. In that way, everyone but CV has gone when SJL pitches up there at 1pm.
This requires CV to turn into a sex attacker at the drop of a hat. But as Sherlock said, when you have eliminated the impossible....It is hard for the rest of us to fathom why people commit crimes like this. It's been suggested that maybe her diary contained stuff that gave CV a thrill, so that he demanded sexual favours from her in exchange for its return. I can't myself see how this results in a scuffle in which she accidentally dies, because SJL would surely just have said *advertiser censored** you, I'm calling the police. And if her death was capable of being made to look like an accident, that would have been CV's best option. He can't have intended to rape her and let her go, because then he'd be arrested within the hour. So he must have intended to lure her there and kill her there, having perhaps already worked out that there was a good hiding place.
20-odd years ago I read a book about the failed Yorkshire Ripper investigation. It had a number of features in common with the failed SJL investigation, namely the fixation on a wrong hypothesis, the determination to fit up a convenient suspect, the police being taken in by obviously false "evidence", someone else eventually identifying the killer, and so on. One point I recall was that one of the murders didn't at all fit the usual pattern. From the injuries it was clearly a Sutcliffe killing, but instead of a working girl down a dark alley, the victim was a random woman crossing a park. The police concluded he'd probably been on his way home, saw someone he could kill, and did so, because he just felt like it.
That wasn't Sutcliffe's first or last murder, and if this was CV, then maybe he thought the same way. One suspects if so that this wasn't CV's first offence so I wonder who else has gone missing in his vicinity.
WestLondoner
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2021
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 3,055
others have pointed out AL (although with an apparent cast iron alibi is another (his reaction to DV’s interview is odd and raises concerns).
I'm not sure where I read this - perhaps the AS book 30+ years ago - but IIRC AL was very easily and rapidly eliminated. He had an office job, and his co-workers confirmed he was at the office.
His reaction is hard to understand but maybe not - it could be irritation at more amateur detectives bungling around, at the fact that this stuff constantly coming up means that if you google his name, you get links and photos relating to SJL rather than to his professional profile, at this bloke with a lithp knowing more about his own life in 1986 than he can now remember...who knows.
Great summary again WestLondoner, it’s amazing how it appears the police force have made the same mistakes as in the Yorkshire Ripper case.
This has to be down to the leadership within the Met, I have no links to any police force, but have worked with many as an expert witness.
Within this role you quickly learn to question everything and be very analytical in your approach. If you don’t you can be made to look foolish when it goes to court.
I think that any good detective would have followed up CV with vigour if left to their own devices.
It’s tragic that this line of enquiry wasn’t followed up in full at the time.
This has to be down to the leadership within the Met, I have no links to any police force, but have worked with many as an expert witness.
Within this role you quickly learn to question everything and be very analytical in your approach. If you don’t you can be made to look foolish when it goes to court.
I think that any good detective would have followed up CV with vigour if left to their own devices.
It’s tragic that this line of enquiry wasn’t followed up in full at the time.
Great summary again WestLondoner, it’s amazing how it appears the police force have made the same mistakes as in the Yorkshire Ripper case.
This has to be down to the leadership within the Met, I have no links to any police force, but have worked with many as an expert witness.
Within this role you quickly learn to question everything and be very analytical in your approach. If you don’t you can be made to look foolish when it goes to court.
I think that any good detective would have followed up CV with vigour if left to their own devices.
It’s tragic that this line of enquiry wasn’t followed up in full at the time.
Yes they also made mistakes with Nilsen he could have been caught earlier, they find a suspect and then try to get everything to fit around it ! Rather than other way about
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 204
- Guests online
- 1,982
- Total visitors
- 2,186
Totals may include hidden visitors.