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

[lee sumner]

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.

occams razor says they were lost on friday. then found sunday.

 

[Eastend Eagle]

I see what you did there

Do you think it's possible?

 

[Eastend Eagle]

occams razor says they were lost on friday. then found sunday.

Is it really likely they lay undiscovered for 48 hours?

 

[lee sumner]

Is it really likely they lay undiscovered for 48 hours?

if they were under the tables outside. this is where i think they were.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

occams razor says they were lost on friday. then found sunday.

I respectively disagree. I firmly believe that they were mislaid on the Sunday evening.

 

[lee sumner]

I respectively disagree. I firmly believe that they were mislaid on the Sunday evening.

you could be right, and i just want to say i dont buy DV theory. i think he is nuts. his book is nonsense.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The reason I don't believe Suzy could have lost her belongings on Friday is twofold.

Firstly, she apparently didn't mention it to anyone on Saturday or Sunday. None of her friends or colleagues appear to have reported her mentioning it at work on Saturday, at the party on Saturday night, or during the beach trip on Sunday.

Secondly, the patio at the front of the PoW is small, and I would expect most (good) landlords to do a tidy-up at the end of each day. I think it's highly unlikely that a chequebook and diary would have been missed for two days in such a visible spot.

The diary being lost on Sunday night--even with no obvious explanation for Suzy being there--makes the most sense to me.

Probably the most common thread in this case is that Suzy appears to have repeatedly gone to places nobody knew she was going to. There's a very definite air of secrecy surrounding what Suzy was up to. I'm not suggesting she was doing anything wrong, only that it's very difficult to figure out what really happened without knowing what Suzy was really doing.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

you could be right, and i just want to say i dont buy DV theory. i think he is nuts. his book is nonsense.

Yes, his theory is reliant on quite a number of factors coming together. The primary ones being :-

SL actually visiting the pub
CV being alone
CV being a sexual predator.

Because we have so little to go on, I don't rule it out completely, but I tend to think she met up with someone she knew and the situation went downhill quite quickly.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Yes, his theory is reliant on quite a number of factors coming together. The primary ones being :-

SL actually visiting the pub
CV being alone
CV being a sexual predator.

Because we have so little to go on, I don't rule it out completely, but I tend to think she met up with someone she knew and the situation went downhill quite quickly.

Just to point out, CV wouldn't nec have to be a sexual predator. There could have been a wide variety of incidents / accidents that arose. The theory would certainly rely on whomsoever was at or around the pub (probably CV) had the time, inclination, and level of criminality and dishonesty to cover up her death and that anyone around who noticed also never spoke up.

 

[lee sumner]

The reason I don't believe Suzy could have lost her belongings on Friday is twofold.

Firstly, she apparently didn't mention it to anyone on Saturday or Sunday. None of her friends or colleagues appear to have reported her mentioning it at work on Saturday, at the party on Saturday night, or during the beach trip on Sunday.

Secondly, the patio at the front of the PoW is small, and I would expect most (good) landlords to do a tidy-up at the end of each day. I think it's highly unlikely that a chequebook and diary would have been missed for two days in such a visible spot.

The diary being lost on Sunday night--even with no obvious explanation for Suzy being there--makes the most sense to me.

Probably the most common thread in this case is that Suzy appears to have repeatedly gone to places nobody knew she was going to. There's a very definite air of secrecy surrounding what Suzy was up to. I'm not suggesting she was doing anything wrong, only that it's very difficult to figure out what really happened without knowing what Suzy was really doing.

i agree. suzy also appears to be quite a mystery woman herself. you probably know she was known to be secretive about her life, and that makes it really hard to figure out what happened to her.

 

[WestLondoner]

When I first read DV, I couldn't actually fathom what he thought had happened at the pub, because the circumstances are so sketchy. She didn't go to 37SR, therefore she went to the pub and died there, apparently. However, from what's in his book, he doesn't know whether the pub was open, closed, busy, or dead; he doesn't know who else was there. It would be a bit odd if the brewery was happy to close at lunchtime and write off the takings just because the landlord was off on his holibobs. DV doesn't have an explanation for the 123SR or FPR sightings. He does suggest that this could have been some accident rather than deliberate, meaning CV does not need to be a predator, so that's a reach he's not quite making. But otherwise it's a bit flimsy.

Where DV is right is that it is lamentable there was no curiosity about the PoW at the time. They searched her flat where she wasn't supposed to be going, they searched 37SR where she was supposed to be going, they searched 123SR where she wasn't supposed to be going, AL presumably told them he'd been to the PoW with her on the Friday and she was supposed to be going there that very Monday. Yet nobody thought to search the PoW too, or verify that it was open (the till record would prove this), establish how busy it was, or put a notice inside and out asking if you were there that day and had you seen her. WTF not?!

If that had been done then it would have been clear in July 1986 whether she had been killed there and hidden. As things stand, she might have been, but only if a lot of now unverifiable facts drop into place.

 

[lee sumner]

When I first read DV, I couldn't actually fathom what he thought had happened at the pub, because the circumstances are so sketchy. She didn't go to 37SR, therefore she went to the pub and died there, apparently. However, from what's in his book, he doesn't know whether the pub was open, closed, busy, or dead; he doesn't know who else was there. It would be a bit odd if the brewery was happy to close at lunchtime and write off the takings just because the landlord was off on his holibobs. DV doesn't have an explanation for the 123SR or FPR sightings. He does suggest that this could have been some accident rather than deliberate, meaning CV does not need to be a predator, so that's a reach he's not quite making. But otherwise it's a bit flimsy.

Where DV is right is that it is lamentable there was no curiosity about the PoW at the time. They searched her flat where she wasn't supposed to be going, they searched 37SR where she was supposed to be going, they searched 123SR where she wasn't supposed to be going, AL presumably told them he'd been to the PoW with her on the Friday and she was supposed to be going there that very Monday. Yet nobody thought to search the PoW too, or verify that it was open (the till record would prove this), establish how busy it was, or put a notice inside and out asking if you were there that day and had you seen her. WTF not?!

If that had been done then it would have been clear in July 1986 whether she had been killed there and hidden. As things stand, she might have been, but only if a lot of now unverifiable facts drop into place.

it would not be a good place to hide a body. i imagine the POW would have been really busy at certain times, and it does not add up hiding a body in a cellar, or anywhere inside the pub. i think you said the railway embankment at the back of the POW would be a better disposal site, and i agree.

 

[Terryb808]

it would not be a good place to hide a body. i imagine the POW would have been really busy at certain times, and it does not add up hiding a body in a cellar, or anywhere inside the pub. i think you said the railway embankment at the back of the POW would be a better disposal site, and i agree.

To close this loop both the cellar & railway embankment need to be looked at properly.
This would put an end to the PoW as a possibility, while the police say the case is open, they’re not actually working on it.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The problem is that the police like to have evidence (or at least a working theory) of what happened before they'll expend resources.

DV saying Suzy must have gone to the PoW isn't evidence that she actually did. The police aren't going to start searching without something, anything, to suggest she was actually there. Personally I think there's as much reason to search the cellar of the PoW as there was to search the garden of JC's mother's house (i.e. no good reason at all), but for better or worse that's not the way the police would look at it.

 

[tes1984]

KeIth P PERry?

It's possible.

In the EARONS case in America, there was a letter sent referring to himself as 'James Dean'.
The EARONS turned out to be: Joseph JAMES DEANgelo .

In the BTK case, also in the USA, the killer sent a word puzzle including the solution 'DRADER'.
BTK turned out to be: Dennis RADER

 

[tes1984]

To close this loop both the cellar & railway embankment need to be looked at properly.
This would put an end to the PoW as a possibility, while the police say the case is open, they’re not actually working on it.

They should search that area just in case...

Based on how close she lived, I think Suzy would definitely have used the PoW.

 

[tes1984]

I very much doubt if SJL lost her possessions on the Friday, went away for the weekend without a care in the world, and didn't chase things up until the Monday morning. She was a very chaotic character when you step back and look at even her known interactions.

 

[WestLondoner]

The diary would be a fascinating read.

I always thought it was interesting how, very early on, the story got around that Sturgis had deliberately seated SJL at a window desk so passing men could letch at her. This claim always sounded quite unlikely to me. However much of a lecher someone might be, does anyone really go into an open-plan office, with no intention of buying a house, just to leer at the sales staff? Genuine question. I'm a bloke and I wouldn't do this; can anyone female confirm that this is a thing that happens?

Anyway, it turns out that this story originated with SJL herself. She made this claim in a diary entry, but AFAIK, there's no evidence for it at all. If you look at the Sturgis office, it's clear that with the possible exception of MG's, every desk is a window desk: it's an all-glass shopfront on a corner. It doesn't sound like any such letching would necessarily have been unwelcome.

Another dubious claim in her diary was that she went for an interview with Sturgis and was "hired on the spot". This is often misrepped as her speculatively walking into a branch and being hired. Actually she went for an interview at head office for something, and KP thought she'd do well in sales. Having established there was a vacancy in a suitable office, she was offered it. This is not much different from how any job gets filled.

The presence of Steve Wright as a contact in her diary is extremely interesting. What are the odds of being personally known to more than one serial killer, at the same time, in the same place?

 

[Terryb808]

Some interesting coincidences again from WestLondoner, if that’s what they are.
Sooner or later one of them just has to be more than a coincidence.
KP raises his head again, he hired her for a job she didn’t initially go for. Then was present on the day she disappeared.
Then we have Steve Wright, who just happened to be a serial killer on shore leave on the day she disappeared.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

The diary would be a fascinating read.

I always thought it was interesting how, very early on, the story got around that Sturgis had deliberately seated SJL at a window desk so passing men could letch at her. This claim always sounded quite unlikely to me. However much of a lecher someone might be, does anyone really go into an open-plan office, with no intention of buying a house, just to leer at the sales staff? Genuine question. I'm a bloke and I wouldn't do this; can anyone female confirm that this is a thing that happens?

Anyway, it turns out that this story originated with SJL herself. She made this claim in a diary entry, but AFAIK, there's no evidence for it at all. If you look at the Sturgis office, it's clear that with the possible exception of MG's, every desk is a window desk: it's an all-glass shopfront on a corner. It doesn't sound like any such letching would necessarily have been unwelcome.

Another dubious claim in her diary was that she went for an interview with Sturgis and was "hired on the spot". This is often misrepped as her speculatively walking into a branch and being hired. Actually she went for an interview at head office for something, and KP thought she'd do well in sales. Having established there was a vacancy in a suitable office, she was offered it. This is not much different from how any job gets filled.

The presence of Steve Wright as a contact in her diary is extremely interesting. What are the odds of being personally known to more than one serial killer, at the same time, in the same place?

This seems to happen a lot in many different situations. Someone shares their belief that something happened for XYZ reason, and soon it's stated as a fact despite only being an opinion; that's why Websleuths has such strict rules about stating opinions as facts.

Honestly, it feels like Suzy had a habit of doing the same thing DL frequently did: self-aggrandizing.

"I've been put in the front window because I'm beautiful and will draw in the punters!" or "I walked in to the interview and was instantly given the best job without even trying!"

I don't particularly like the way KP came across in DV's book, but I also don't see him being involved in Suzy's disappearance. If he was really at lunch with MG and another colleague that seems to make it virtually impossible anyway.

Steve Wright, on the other hand, sounds like a far more likely candidate given what we know.