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

[AfricanGrey]

Yes and according to AL and research by DV (which he is good at) they were found on Sunday.
This was confirmed in his book after he interviewed CV.

The interview was 33 years later, CV was unsure which day of the week they were found.

 

[AfricanGrey]

The obvious question if they were lost on Friday is how they weren't found until Sunday. They weren't going to sit on or under a pub table for two days. Both the permanent and relief landlord agreed on this and IIRC CV and KF hadn't even arrived until Saturday or Sunday.

I would need to know why DV thinks this was CV because he has not given anything that explains why CV would do this - but was expecting arrests.

The items were found by CV on Friday night, and they were given to the police on Monday night by CV.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

DV actually believes Suzy lost her belongings on Sunday, 27th July, not the previous Friday. It's one of the many discrepancies in this case.

Based on his interviews with the permanent landlord, MH, and the temporary landlord, CV, DV is also pretty sure the PoW was closed that Monday morning for a stock check and may not have reopened until after lunchtime. That's one of the keystones of DV's theory, that the pub wasn't open to the public. MH was going on vacation and handed the keys over to CV that very morning.

I think the conversations on this case keep going round and round in circles. Maybe it's time for more lateral thinking? What if SJL's belongings were lifted when she was windsurfing on Sunday and then placed outside the POW pub for the temporary landlord to discover? IMO it's obvious she didn't lose her belongings on the Friday.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Personally I always believe in Occam's Razor until a more unlikely scenario can be proven. There is no single completely obvious scenario in this case, but there are many fairly simple ones.

I think it's highly unlikely that Suzy's belongings were stolen in advance by someone who planned to plant them later. Just as I think it's unlikely there were two identical cars parked in the exact same peculiar spot on Stevenage Road. Or that the police had secretly found Sturgis' keys to 37 Shorrolds Road despite saying they never found them.

Everything most likely has a very simple and straightforward answer. We just don't know what those answers are.

 

[Terryb808]

Personally I always believe in Occam's Razor until a more unlikely scenario can be proven. There is no single completely obvious scenario in this case, but there are many fairly simple ones.

I think it's highly unlikely that Suzy's belongings were stolen in advance by someone who planned to plant them later. Just as I think it's unlikely there were two identical cars parked in the exact same peculiar spot on Stevenage Road. Or that the police had secretly found Sturgis' keys to 37 Shorrolds Road despite saying they never found them.

Everything most likely has a very simple and straightforward answer. We just don't know what those answers are.

You are right again.

Looking at the current topic of the lost items. Suzy went to work on Saturday morning, there’s no way she wouldn’t have noticed they were missing.

These lost items are only really important if you believe she went to collect them on Monday and that was the reason for the fake appointment.

I think you’re right about not over complicating things, what happened was simple and the perpetrator got away with it.

To a degree it’s understandable that the police followed the Mr Kipper and Shorrolds Road line. However, they should have had an open mind to other possibilities.

Now they have a closed mind to everything except “JC did it”

 

[WestLondoner]

DV had a theory which he was trying to provide evidence for. Finding the items on Sunday 27th suited his story; unfortunately for him, this was not correct. The police records can prove this point.
The PoW was open as normal on Monday 28th.
People’s memories of events which occurred over thirty years before are sometimes inaccurate, not from any intention to deceive, rather simply due to the passage of time.

The police only ever dealt with CV, which is consistent with his having been the person in charge when they were collected, but doesn't say anything about when they were originally found. Both he and the permanent landlord recall being there when they were found, which means it was after CV and KF arrived, but we don't know when that was. There may be something conclusive about this in the police records, but those aren't public.

As Terry points out, it doesn't matter except that it's interesting AL has given inconsistent accounts of it, and inasmuch the errand may have been the reason for a fake diary appointment.

I think AL is managing the issue that she ended it with him at the PoW that Friday and perhaps left abruptly (conceivably losing her cheque book in the process). Then and now he didn't want this delved into, but the fact she had nothing to do with him for the balance of the weekend says all was not well, and probably over. There was thus no phone call on Sunday, no arrangement for anything that week and his phone call to her office on Monday was him being a bit needy. It suited both him and DL to gloss over this.

This still leaves the question of why a visit to the PoW would have proven fatal to SJL. We discussed DV's PoW theory at length when his book came out, and I think the general conclusion here was scepticism, certainly about her still being there. If she were found under the pub floor today, suspicion would point unerringly to roughly one person, so you'd never do it. A much better place of concealment would be the adjoining railway embankment, which could conceivably not have been disturbed since. I'm personally undecided as to how busy the PoW was. I worked in pubs in the 1980s that were rammed in the evenings and dead at lunchtime. He could have been there alone but 'could have been' =/= 'was'.

Even if CV defintely was alone we are still left wondering what DV knows about CV that persuades him he's a killer.

 

[WestLondoner]

Personally I always believe in Occam's Razor until a more unlikely scenario can be proven.

The trouble with this case is that it defeats Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is that she went to 37SR and was abducted.

However, we don't know how she got to 37SR. If she drove her car there then she or someone else drove it away as well as his own. On the basis of other statements, her car went in completely the opposite direction from the office and never moved again. If she was driven to 37SR from 123SR by someone, then the sightings of her waiting outside make no sense.

We can be pretty sure SJL never went inside 37SR because a/ that would be stupid by her abductor and b/ there'd be traces of her. He could keep his hands in his pockets, but if he does that, she has to leave not a single print on any door, door handle, cupboard, light switch or banister rail that she touches.

If she never went into 37SR, then she never came out. This means that HR's account is wrong because he said he heard them do so.

If we grant that HR saw somebody at 1pm and it was SJL and Mr Nobody, then we have that one sketch to go on, based on a few seconds' glance. We don't really know who else saw what. Nobody else is sure of what time they saw whatever they saw, so the various "corroborating" sightings could be of MG and SF.

A simple-ish scenario that fits some of the facts is one where she goes to 123SR, parks sloppily, meets someone by arrangement, goes back to 37SR, then goes elsewhere with said someone who kills or restrains her then goes back to her car. This allows witnesses to have seen her car in 123SR and her outside 37SR.

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why she met someone at 123SR and didn't go in, met someone outside then was driven to 37SR and didn't go in there either.

It would allow the various sightings later that afternoon at / near 123SR to be correct, but it requires that the BW sightings and the Fiesta being driven erratically near Shorrolds all be discarded.

All this adds up to quite a lot less than any easily-available simplest explanation, and that's before you even consider who an abductor might be. The simplest solution - that it was JC - fails the sense check of how many others it might have been. The simple solution is not that JC was this man because it's what he'd do. The simple solution is that it was done by whoever out of everyone possible was most likely to do it.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

Revenge of a jilted lover?

Apparently, Suzy had a few.

I tend to think it might have been the other way round.

Would she really go to the trouble of putting in a fake appointment, run the risk of facing the ire of her boss just to meet up with some guy she had already dumped ? Plus, if he was being really pushy and wanted to meet at a location of his choice, she could possibly start getting a bad feeling about the whole thing.

What if she agreed to meet with some rich guy who she wanted to make it 'official' with ? That person could have a lot to lose if they had a wife, kids etc.

A big generalisation coming up here here I know, but wouldn't a jilted lover would be more likely to 'go to pieces' after a murder/abduction and be more prone to making a mistake, rather than someone with a lot to lose who would be more cold and calculating ?

 

[WiseOwl]

I tend to think it might have been the other way round.

Would she really go to the trouble of putting in a fake appointment, run the risk of facing the ire of her boss just to meet up with some guy she had already dumped ? Plus, if he was being really pushy and wanted to meet at a location of his choice, she could possibly start getting a bad feeling about the whole thing.

What if she agreed to meet with some rich guy who she wanted to make it 'official' with ? That person could have a lot to lose if they had a wife, kids etc.

A big generalisation coming up here here I know, but wouldn't a jilted lover would be more likely to 'go to pieces' after a murder/abduction and be more prone to making a mistake, rather than someone with a lot to lose who would be more cold and calculating ?

Whatever the scenario, whoever did it definitely did not go to pieces; In fact, they committed the perfect crime.

No-one knows where Suzy went that day, no-one knows what happened to her and no-one knows who was responsible.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The trouble with this case is that it defeats Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is that she went to 37SR and was abducted.

However, we don't know how she got to 37SR. If she drove her car there then she or someone else drove it away as well as his own. On the basis of other statements, her car went in completely the opposite direction from the office and never moved again. If she was driven to 37SR from 123SR by someone, then the sightings of her waiting outside make no sense.

We can be pretty sure SJL never went inside 37SR because a/ that would be stupid by her abductor and b/ there'd be traces of her. He could keep his hands in his pockets, but if he does that, she has to leave not a single print on any door, door handle, cupboard, light switch or banister rail that she touches.

If she never went into 37SR, then she never came out. This means that HR's account is wrong because he said he heard them do so.

If we grant that HR saw somebody at 1pm and it was SJL and Mr Nobody, then we have that one sketch to go on, based on a few seconds' glance. We don't really know who else saw what. Nobody else is sure of what time they saw whatever they saw, so the various "corroborating" sightings could be of MG and SF.

A simple-ish scenario that fits some of the facts is one where she goes to 123SR, parks sloppily, meets someone by arrangement, goes back to 37SR, then goes elsewhere with said someone who kills or restrains her then goes back to her car. This allows witnesses to have seen her car in 123SR and her outside 37SR.

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why she met someone at 123SR and didn't go in, met someone outside then was driven to 37SR and didn't go in there either.

It would allow the various sightings later that afternoon at / near 123SR to be correct, but it requires that the BW sightings and the Fiesta being driven erratically near Shorrolds all be discarded.

All this adds up to quite a lot less than any easily-available simplest explanation, and that's before you even consider who an abductor might be. The simplest solution - that it was JC - fails the sense check of how many others it might have been. The simple solution is not that JC was this man because it's what he'd do. The simple solution is that it was done by whoever out of everyone possible was most likely to do it.

But isn't the reason it seems to defeat Occam's Razor simply the fact that we don't have answers for so many things?

Just knowing if Suzy's appointment with Kipper was real or not would answer many questions. If HR saw Suzy and Kipper at around 1:00PM rather than 12:45PM, for example, that would erase the question of timing. It would mean there was plenty of time to have gone from Sturgis to 123SR to 37SR without having to fudge things a few minutes this way or that.

The real reason for so many things is probably mundanely simple, and if the truth ever comes out we'll probably shake our heads and say, "Really? That's all there was to it?!? 40 years and THAT's it?!?!?"

 

[lee sumner]

Where did AS get all this information about Suzy from though? Was this drawn from the police reports he was working on, was it from the police officers working on the case he spoke to, or did a friend/work colleague/family member give these details to the police?

AS had access to the original case files. i think his book is really good.

 

[lee sumner]

But isn't the reason it seems to defeat Occam's Razor simply the fact that we don't have answers for so many things?

Just knowing if Suzy's appointment with Kipper was real or not would answer many questions. If HR saw Suzy and Kipper at around 1:00PM rather than 12:45PM, for example, that would erase the question of timing. It would mean there was plenty of time to have gone from Sturgis to 123SR to 37SR without having to fudge things a few minutes this way or that.

The real reason for so many things is probably mundanely simple, and if the truth ever comes out we'll probably shake our heads and say, "Really? That's all there was to it?!? 40 years and THAT's it?!?!?"

i believe occams razor probably does apply to this case. its other people who make it complicated with there conspiracy theories etc.

 

[lee sumner]

DV's book goes into detail about the walk WJ took with her two children and their dog, before she went out shopping with AM. If there's any chance Suzy did want to show 123SR to a client, I wonder if she could have knocked at the door when WJ was out for her walk and not received an answer? Probably not, but maybe worth considering.

DV's book contains a lot of interesting information and tries hard to make sense of conflicting information. But I'm not sure it really answers very much, unfortunately.

DV does not ask certain players in the case the right questions, and that is because he would not like certain answers that might blow his theory away. like MG. did he see SL take the keys from the office that day.

 

[WiseOwl]

AS had access to the original case files. i think his book is really good.

I am aware of AS having access to the original investigation.

I was replying to the fact that in his book he describes Suzy as nervous, anxious, with frequent stomach problems. She was the only one of the four children who didn't go away to boarding school, and was trapped at home with her parents, desperate to please her mother.

This information doesn't sound like it would come from the police, more like from someone who knew her and her family very well. Even if it was in the police reports, then who was it that gave them this personal info about Suzy?

I also think AS book is really good, the only thing i'm unsure about is that does he just relay everything he's read in the police files in his book, or does he put his own spin on it in certain parts?

It's still an excellent read though!

 

[RichardKimble]

40 yrs ago Crimewatch started, SL is one of a few featured.

As BBC show marks 40th anniversary: Cases Crimewatch couldn't crack

Crimewatch was an extraordinary tool for catching crooks - helping police crack open more than 5,000 cases including hundreds of high-profile murders.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Eastend Eagle]

How much do we know about KeIth PERry? Does he have a middle name?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

DBM

 

[Eastend Eagle]

I think the conversations on this case keep going round and round in circles. Maybe it's time for more lateral thinking? What if SJL's belongings were lifted when she was windsurfing on Sunday and then placed outside the POW pub for the temporary landlord to discover? IMO it's obvious she didn't lose her belongings on the Friday.

The police only ever dealt with CV, which is consistent with his having been the person in charge when they were collected, but doesn't say anything about when they were originally found. Both he and the permanent landlord recall being there when they were found, which means it was after CV and KF arrived, but we don't know when that was. There may be something conclusive about this in the police records, but those aren't public.

As Terry points out, it doesn't matter except that it's interesting AL has given inconsistent accounts of it, and inasmuch the errand may have been the reason for a fake diary appointment.

I think AL is managing the issue that she ended it with him at the PoW that Friday and perhaps left abruptly (conceivably losing her cheque book in the process). Then and now he didn't want this delved into, but the fact she had nothing to do with him for the balance of the weekend says all was not well, and probably over. There was thus no phone call on Sunday, no arrangement for anything that week and his phone call to her office on Monday was him being a bit needy. It suited both him and DL to gloss over this.

This still leaves the question of why a visit to the PoW would have proven fatal to SJL. We discussed DV's PoW theory at length when his book came out, and I think the general conclusion here was scepticism, certainly about her still being there. If she were found under the pub floor today, suspicion would point unerringly to roughly one person, so you'd never do it. A much better place of concealment would be the adjoining railway embankment, which could conceivably not have been disturbed since. I'm personally undecided as to how busy the PoW was. I worked in pubs in the 1980s that were rammed in the evenings and dead at lunchtime. He could have been there alone but 'could have been' =/= 'was'.

Even if CV defintely was alone we are still left wondering what DV knows about CV that persuades him he's a killer.

Perhaps interesting that the permanent landlord was apparently also present when SL's belongings were discovered IMO

 

[Eastend Eagle]

How much do we know about KeIth PERry? Does he have a middle name?

KeIth P PERry?

 

[WestLondoner]

KeIth P PERry?

I see what you did there