UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #6

[Terryb808]

If you analyse the facts around WJ and the timings, it can really only generate one answer. Especially if you look at how the car was abandoned, that answer is that Suzy was taken as part of at least a two man operation.
I don’t believe Suzy drove her car to Stevenage Road and left it in the condition it was found. So if it was there at 12.45pm and she didn’t leave it there, then she was taken early and for some unknown reason her car was abandoned away from where it was originally parked.
IMO this is the only scenario that fits how the car was left and with what WJ said she saw.
No one (including WJ) saw who left Suzy’s car, so they got clean away.

 

[WestLondoner]

If you analyse the facts around WJ and the timings, it can really only generate one answer. Especially if you look at how the car was abandoned, that answer is that Suzy was taken as part of at least a two man operation.

It occurs to me that one possibility that allows WJ and HR both to be right is a two-man operation in which she drives to 37SR, goes inside with one abductor (A1), and a second (A2) then leaps out of the car he's waiting in and drives off in SJL's - while she's still inside the house with A1. A2 then dumps the car a mile away and legs it while A1 does whatever he does.

The problem is that AFAIK there's no evidence she went inside the house even if you accept she went there. So somehow A1 has to get her into his car and away while A2 gets rid of hers, all without her noticing or caring that her car's gone.

 

[Terryb808]

It's interesting to focus on a detail like this because it so typifies the entire case.

The purse detail is telling. This is a woman who's spent a fair part of her morning chasing down her mislaid cheque book. She's going to do all that then literally immediately after, leave her purse in an unlocked car?

If WJ is correct, then all of the 37SR "witnesses" are nothing of the kind. There is simply no conceivable reason why, to go to 37SR which is north-east of the office, SJL would head off west, in exactly the wrong direction, leave her car outside 123SR unsecured with her purse in it, and then be driven back by A N Other to 37SR. It's 2.4 miles round the houses instead of 0.5 miles, and she then supposedly carried out a totally normal-looking viewing except that she got killed at some point.

Likewise BW has to be wrong. Although there's a window when WJ wasn't there during which the car could have moved, for BW to be right SJL's car had to have been brought back and misparked again in the identical place in order to look like it had been there all day.

Another witness who has to be wrong is the one who said she saw a couple in that part of Stevenage Road later that afternoon. If WJ is right, SJL and A N Other were already long gone and not coming back.

It doesn't get a lot better if you assume instead that the 37SR "sightings" are right. You sort of can't because they're inconsistent, but inconsistent as they are, they don't leave any room for WJ to be right.

Likewise if BW is right WJ is necessarily wrong.

This is not the only such example in this case. AL's account of the PoW is certainly inaccurate - he's given two that conflict and neither reconciles to KH/CV or MH's account. Either the stuff was lost on Friday at the pub or on Sunday at the pub, but it cannot have been lost at Mossop's on either day.

If it was lost at Mossop's on Friday how did it spend 48 hours travelling to the PoW on Sunday?

It can't have been lost at Mossop's on Sunday. Nobody has suggested they went out on Sunday night. SJL left the beach separately having ignored AL all weekend, went to her parents' house, then home. There's room in this for a 10.15 phone call but not for a meal at that time, nor for her to have spent a couple of hours nattering to NB. Was Mossop's even open on a Sunday night? So DL, AL, CV/KH, MH and NB cannot all be giving accurate accounts.

As you say it’s good to focus and debate a particular point, it’s certainly helped me see very clearly what happened if WJ is categorically correct.
However, it doesn’t help solve the case, sadly (in particular for Suzy’s brother RL) it’s too late for that.
He expressed a wish to know what happened, he said he thought more about Suzy now than when she disappeared.
I can understand this thought and if I could help provide an answer I would.
If the WJ based narrative is correct, I don’t think we have much chance of providing any answers.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I realize this is stretching the facts, but I wonder how possible it is that the way the car was parked, and the condition in which it was found, are two separate events.

If you were in a hurry, or even if you simply weren't very good or very careful at parking, you might park badly; askew and partially overhanging the end of a driveway. It happens. But the car might (I stress MIGHT) have had the handbrake on and been all locked up at that point.

If Suzy returned to the car later and something happened as she was *leaving*, that could theoretically explain the unlocked door, the purse, the handbrake, etc. Only the seat is unexplained.

 

[WestLondoner]

He expressed a wish to know what happened, he said he thought more about Suzy now than when she disappeared.

I can relate to this. My brother died 13 years ago and I think about him more, not less.

 

[Salah11]

The issue for me is A woman or a couple outside 37 Shorrolds Rd at the time Suzy would of been showing the client around.

Nobody else came forward to say it was them at midday outside Shorrolds Road.

 

[WestLondoner]

The issue for me is A woman or a couple outside 37 Shorrolds Rd at the time Suzy would of been showing the client around.

Maybe, maybe not. HR said he heard someone leaving at about 1 but SJL never went inside (no prints etc), so he's not reliable. ND1 wasn't sure when he saw the man and woman except that it was between 12 and 4. ND2 added nothing so may have been a plant. JI saw a quite different man and also does not know when.

JI and MJ specifically saw a suntanned man. Would JC have had a suntan? DH would have; he'd just got back from teaching sailing in Corsica. Is that who SJL rang on Sunday night?

Nobody else came forward to say it was them at midday outside Shorrolds Road.

Well, apart from MG and SF, who were also there at the times estimated by ND1 and JI, looking for SJL.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

What time were MG and SF actually at 37SR, and what's the source for the time? I ask because 3:45PM has been mentioned a few times, but sources such as Crimewatch say it was about 4:30PM.

If witnesses were somewhat vague, saying they saw two people at between 12:00 and 4:00, 4:30PM would seem to be a little too late for it to have been MG and SF those witnesses saw. And it also seems quite amazing that witnesses could be so unsure of the time. Between 12:00 and 4:00 is no small window.

 

[Salah11]

Maybe, maybe not. HR said he heard someone leaving at about 1 but SJL never went inside (no prints etc), so he's not reliable. ND1 wasn't sure when he saw the man and woman except that it was between 12 and 4. ND2 added nothing so may have been a plant. JI saw a quite different man and also does not know when.

JI and MJ specifically saw a suntanned man. Would JC have had a suntan? DH would have; he'd just got back from teaching sailing in Corsica. Is that who SJL rang on Sunday night?


Well, apart from MG and SF, who were also there at the times estimated by ND1 and JI, looking for SJL.

Were there not multiple sightings at SR?

Yet if I am remembering correctly nobody else apart from one person claims the car was parked at Stevenage Road that early. I believe the car didn’t arrive there until mid afternoon.

 

[Terryb808]

Maybe, maybe not. HR said he heard someone leaving at about 1 but SJL never went inside (no prints etc), so he's not reliable. ND1 wasn't sure when he saw the man and woman except that it was between 12 and 4. ND2 added nothing so may have been a plant. JI saw a quite different man and also does not know when.

JI and MJ specifically saw a suntanned man. Would JC have had a suntan? DH would have; he'd just got back from teaching sailing in Corsica. Is that who SJL rang on Sunday night?


Well, apart from MG and SF, who were also there at the times estimated by ND1 and JI, looking for SJL.

Agree with the suntanned man comment above, seems possible that Suzy called DH on Sunday night and not AL.
Questions surrounded DH, when Suzy disappeared, so did he for some time, DL couldn’t raise him.
So why, and where was he?

 

[WestLondoner]

What time were MG and SF actually at 37SR, and what's the source for the time? I ask because 3:45PM has been mentioned a few times, but sources such as Crimewatch say it was about 4:30PM.

It was IIRC around 3.45 when MG wondered where SJL was and went over to 37SR to look, so before 4 is possible. It's as reliable as WJ's 12.40 I guess. ISTR he went twice. Callers to BBC Crimewatch in 1986 commented on MG's resemblance to the Kipper sketch.

Yet if I am remembering correctly nobody else apart from one person claims the car was parked at Stevenage Road that early. I believe the car didn’t arrive there until mid afternoon.

The source is WJ but her account was corroborated by the neighbour she accompanied to the bank, whose garage the Fiesta was blocking.

An otherwise unidentified schoolboy claimed to have seen it at noon. This cannot have been SJL's car but nor was it necessarily the one WJ saw. If it was then WJ is wrong.

Two other witnesses saw a couple near the car's location later but did not mention the car. MJ said the man was suntanned and had a briefcase, and 'James Galway man' told the driver of a taxi he had hailed that this couple were arguing fiercely; the cabbie's fare never came forward. It has been speculated (here) that 'James Galway man' was CV, dumping the car and laying a false trail.

 

[WestLondoner]

If Suzy returned to the car later and something happened as she was *leaving*, that could theoretically explain the unlocked door, the purse, the handbrake, etc. Only the seat is unexplained.

Good thinking, I like it. How about if somebody else returned to the car, to remove stuff from it?

Something on the back seat perhaps, behind the passenger seat. So from the pavement side, he had to move the driver's seat back to reach it without getting in the car**.

This could be something that would lead either to him (e.g. the briefcase with which a man was seen nearby), or to where she had been (e.g. the photocopy of the 37SR information).

If her abductor didn't know that she had written her appointment destination in her diary, and thought it possible that she had not, then it would make sense to retrieve these details, so as not to tell the police where to look for sightings of her.

Ironically, if she had just written "12.45 o/s" and not said where, better information might have come in.

You know what? I actually believe this. Can we think of any idiotically stupid sex offender who's known to leave incriminating evidence pointing to himself in cars?

** edited for clarity

 

[Salah11]

It was IIRC around 3.45 when MG wondered where SJL was and went over to 37SR to look, so before 4 is possible. It's as reliable as WJ's 12.40 I guess. ISTR he went twice. Callers to BBC Crimewatch in 1986 commented on MG's resemblance to the Kipper sketch.

The source is WJ but her account was corroborated by the neighbour she accompanied to the bank, whose garage the Fiesta was blocking.

An otherwise unidentified schoolboy claimed to have seen it at noon. This cannot have been SJL's car but nor was it necessarily the one WJ saw. If it was then WJ is wrong.

Two other witnesses saw a couple near the car's location later but did not mention the car. MJ said the man was suntanned and had a briefcase, and 'James Galway man' told the driver of a taxi he had hailed that this couple were arguing fiercely; the cabbie's fare never came forward. It has been speculated (here) that 'James Galway man' was CV, dumping the car and laying a false trail.

Has anything more come from CV and the pub and DV?

out of the all theories that’s the most far fetched for me. I would have the boyfriend as a bigger suspect then poor old CV.

Moo

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

It was IIRC around 3.45 when MG wondered where SJL was and went over to 37SR to look, so before 4 is possible. It's as reliable as WJ's 12.40 I guess. ISTR he went twice. Callers to BBC Crimewatch in 1986 commented on MG's resemblance to the Kipper sketch.

So there is no direct source for MG being at 37SR as early as 3:45PM? The original Crimewatch reconstruction seemed to take its timings from MG, who appeared in the video. It stated that MG began to wonder where Suzy was at about 3:30PM and went to 37SR about an hour later, at 4:30PM.

WJ's timing of 12:40-12:45 seems to come from AM's timing of 12:49PM when she was in the bank. WJ saw the car before they left to go shopping, so logically it must have been before 12:49PM.

The only way the timing could be wrong is if the bank's clock was wrong--for example if it was showing GMT when it was actually BST: it would be reading 12:49PM GMT when it was actually 1:49PM BST.

 

[WestLondoner]

Has anything more come from CV and the pub and DV?

out of the all theories that’s the most far fetched for me. I would have the boyfriend as a bigger suspect then poor old CV.

Agreed, except that DV is a former detective who based on what he gave the police was expecting almost immediate arrests. Given how high the threshold is for doing that - and he would know this - then he must have far more on CV than is in the book (which is nothing at all). He has also mused darkly on what else the real perp has been up to for the last 35 years.

So there is no direct source for MG being at 37SR as early as 3:45PM? The original Crimewatch reconstruction seemed to take its timings from MG, who appeared in the video. It stated that MG began to wonder where Suzy was at about 3:30PM and went to 37SR about an hour later, at 4:30PM.

There are so many assumptions in that reconstruction that it strikes me as a bit worthless, but it isn't really essential that it be MG and SF who were seen. I'm sceptical because really, how surprising is it to see men and women in a street?

It's not like the police were looking for, I don't know, a velociraptor, or something. If they had been, and HR reckoned he saw this hissing, savage six-foot lizard thing outside, they'd go Yeah, that was probably it...probably didn't mistake the postman for a velociraptor...six-foot lizard? Hissing? Savage? Yep, that's got to be our velociraptor. They're not going to go Hmm..it's all a bit vague...that could have been a Deinonychus...completely different. Instead they were looking for something seen in every street every day. The only person who gave the correct time was someone who was wrong or unsure about literally everything else - so why does this have to have been SJL?

I just think, why weren't these sightings just randoms, or people remembering the wrong day - i.e. the same way they handwaved BW away? You almost need a "control" of sightings in other unrelated streets, to know the prior probability of seeing a couple in a street.

 

[Terryb808]

I’ve been re-reading AS again, Witness JI P75 describes a man she saw in Shorrolds Road and this is almost identical to a description of DH P67.
Okay, coincidence, and yes they happen, but it’s certainly not John Cannan. He’s not tall, bronzed and very handsome.
Recently in a post a very good explanation of why the drivers seat was all the way back was given. This adds up, collecting a bag from behind the passenger side seat make perfect sence.
These small details help put the puzzle together.

 

[Salah11]

Agreed, except that DV is a former detective who based on what he gave the police was expecting almost immediate arrests. Given how high the threshold is for doing that - and he would know this - then he must have far more on CV than is in the book (which is nothing at all). He has also mused darkly on what else the real perp has been up to for the last 35 years.

Yes and they waved him away didn’t they. He has never gotten anywhere with his pet theory unfortunately and part of me wishes he had solved it just so it was solved for the all involved.

Unfortunately his book hasn’t got us any closer to solving this mystery.

Imo

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Good thinking, I like it. How about if somebody else returned to the car, to remove stuff from it?

Something on the back seat perhaps, behind the passenger seat. So from the pavement side, he had to move the driver's seat back to reach it without getting in the car**.

This could be something that would lead either to him (e.g. the briefcase with which a man was seen nearby), or to where she had been (e.g. the photocopy of the 37SR information).

If her abductor didn't know that she had written her appointment destination in her diary, and thought it possible that she had not, then it would make sense to retrieve these details, so as not to tell the police where to look for sightings of her.

Ironically, if she had just written "12.45 o/s" and not said where, better information might have come in.

You know what? I actually believe this. Can we think of any idiotically stupid sex offender who's known to leave incriminating evidence pointing to himself in cars?

** edited for clarity

Your thinking regarding the car seat matches what I've previously said about the seats in old Fiestas. I never drove one, but I was a passenger many times and it was always difficult, if not impossible, to reach the back seats without moving the fronts seats. The example I gave previously was something as simple as Suzy reaching back to place her sunhat in the window, but getting documents or a briefcase would be equally likely. The result is the same: the driver's seat isn't in driving position.

Whether it was Suzy or "Kipper" (or both) who returned to the car, I do think it's a real possibility that the poor parking, and the sort of ransacked condition the car was in when it was found, are two different events. You no longer have to explain Suzy leaving the car unlocked with her belongings inside.

There's still no obvious explanation for why Suzy went to 123SR, but driving away in another vehicle and (someone) returning later does explain a lot.

 

[ruby925]

I have ordered the AS book now, but not up to speed with all the details. As far as I remember there was no physical evidence that SJL was ever at Shorrolds. Is it possible that the diary entry was a fake name and a plausible address to enable Suzy to leave the office, but the intention was always to meet someone (she knew) at Stevenage Rd at lunchtime? I can't see anyone leaving a car unlocked with a purse in the door pocket in London, parking overhanging the driveway etc sounds like it was intended to be a quick stop/pick up someone.

 

[Terryb808]

I have ordered the AS book now, but not up to speed with all the details. As far as I remember there was no physical evidence that SJL was ever at Shorrolds. Is it possible that the diary entry was a fake name and a plausible address to enable Suzy to leave the office, but the intention was always to meet someone (she knew) at Stevenage Rd at lunchtime? I can't see anyone leaving a car unlocked with a purse in the door pocket in London, parking overhanging the driveway etc sounds like it was intended to be a quick stop/pick up someone.

DV’s book “Finding Suzy” (which he doesn’t) outlines well why Suzy put the fake entry in her desk diary. His research justifies his conclusion very well.
Where he differs from your conclusion is that in his opinion Suzy went straight to the PoW pub and not to Stevenage Road.
You can get DV’s book as a Kindle E-Book & it’s not expensive, IMO worth reading.
In order I’d read AS first, DV second and then if you want to know why the Met are fixated on John Cannan, take a look at CBD’s book “Prime Suspect”, again available via Kindle.
These books don’t provide any answers, but, they do give you enough information to form your own opinions.
This forum has come up with some very good narratives, chances are one of them is correct, but they all lack evidence.