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

[lee sumner]

The only way JC could have approached SJL is if, in the pre-release hostel, he had been able to flout the curfew. Whether this was so is going to be hard to establish either then or now, because nobody's going to disclose that. The guards look incompetent and the lags would lose their racket.

If he was able to do that, then the money he had inherited would have funded a certain superficially prosperous appearance. The issue is that according to the CPS there is no evidence they ever met. Given this then you have to ask why this has to have been JC and why it couldn't have been someone else who was similar.

it would be great if we knew how much time JC spent working in acton on the pre release scheme. this is info that we will never be able to pin down, not after all these years, but if he was there everyday, then there would be no time for him to be stalking SL.

 

[Konstantin]

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.

It is interesting that he gives inconsistent accounts, although human memory is fallible and it was a long time ago, so that could go a long way to explaining it. Also because it really might not be important--so it's not something he thought about. There are lots of non suspicious explanations.

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.

Actually, although we have no idea if this is true or not--we do know that SL was planning on dumping him and while he seemed to think he was her main or steady bf, from what we know of her behaviour that weekend, she wasn't falling over herself to be with him after he went away. So maybe he did get dumped then or there was a convo about that as a possibility, or she didn't invite him up to her place after their evening out. After she disappeared, he was the prime suspect and would have been even more so if he admitted they had a bust up that night. But that is speculation. I assume, since it was known among her mates that she was planning to give him the old heave ho, the police found out about that--although perhaps after he was cleared because he had an alibi.

 

[Konstantin]

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.

This. It is very selective and set up in such a way to guide the reader into believing his conclusions. Which is how a crime writer puts together a crime novel...He is setting a scene in a particular way to lead you to a certain outcome.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

This. It is very selective and set up in such a way to guide the reader into believing his conclusions. Which is how a crime writer puts together a crime novel...He is setting a scene in a particular way to lead you to a certain outcome.

Then with all due respect to DV, he's not a very good crime novel writer.

I didn't find his conclusion very convincing at all. His theory is perhaps not impossible, but he provides absolutely no real evidence (even strong circumstantial) to support it.

His theory basically amounts to: Suzy had an appointment at 37SR and an appointment to pick up her belongings from the PoW. If she wasn't doing one of those things, she must have been doing the other.

That might be good enough for DV, but it isn't good enough for me.

 

[lee sumner]

This. It is very selective and set up in such a way to guide the reader into believing his conclusions. Which is how a crime writer puts together a crime novel...He is setting a scene in a particular way to lead you to a certai

It is interesting that he gives inconsistent accounts, although human memory is fallible and it was a long time ago, so that could go a long way to explaining it. Also because it really might not be important--so it's not something he thought about. There are lots of non suspicious explanations.



Actually, although we have no idea if this is true or not--we do know that SL was planning on dumping him and while he seemed to think he was her main or steady bf, from what we know of her behaviour that weekend, she wasn't falling over herself to be with him after he went away. So maybe he did get dumped then or there was a convo about that as a possibility, or she didn't invite him up to her place after their evening out. After she disappeared, he was the prime suspect and would have been even more so if he admitted they had a bust up that night. But that is speculation. I assume, since it was known among her mates that she was planning to give him the old heave ho, the police found out about that--although perhaps after he was cleared because he had an alibi.

it must have been weird for AL. his emotions would have been all over the place if suzy did dump him over the weekend. he was probably hurt by her actions, then she disappears into thin air. he had just got back from holiday as well, so the poor guy was probably in bits.

 

[Konstantin]

Then with all due respect to DV, he's not a very good crime novel writer.

I didn't find his conclusion very convincing at all. His theory is perhaps not impossible, but he provides absolutely no real evidence (even strong circumstantial) to support it.

His theory basically amounts to: Suzy had an appointment at 37SR and an appointment to pick up her belongings from the PoW. If she wasn't doing one of those things, she must have been doing the other.

That might be good enough for DV, but it isn't good enough for me.

I read his book quite a while ago and made some comments in an old thread about it. I might be misremembering parts of it. Others have also written their view of it, which are of course just as valid as my own ramblings. My impression was that he had structured the book in such a way to lead the reader into making "discoveries" that pointed to a particular direction. He presents information to be read in a certain way. He describes his encounter with SL's ex boyfriend in a way that makes him look like he is hiding something perhaps, when the reality is that we only have DV's account of what happened, it reads like it is dramatized a bit, it's decades after the events, it is not a formal interview, the ex boyfriend might have had all sorts of other things on his mind, the list goes on and on. The ex boyfriend, like the pub temporary landlord, are real people with real emotions, not characters in a crime novel.

I didn't like his descriptions of a man that he all but named as a murderer and sex attacker who is still alive, easily findable, and who is under zero suspicion by the police. For publication in a book that will raise his profile, even if he doesnt make much from sales. I find that...disturbing? I don't know.

So yes, that irritated me although I appreciated his efforts to try to worm out more information.

 

[Konstantin]

it must have been weird for AL. his emotions would have been all over the place if suzy did dump him over the weekend. he was probably hurt by her actions, then she disappears into thin air. he had just got back from holiday as well, so the poor guy was probably in bits.

Yes, it must have been a huge trauma. I doubt he has ever moved past it completely. Ambiguous loss is hard, and SJL is almost certainly dead, i.e. murdered. Horrific for him and for all her friends and family.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Initially I was quite appreciative of DV for giving us new snippets of information from his interviews. But the more I think about it, the more I find what he has done very exploitative. Worse, for a former detective, it feels very unprofessional and half-baked.

So many times, and with so many cases, I see what so-called "experts" are doing and it makes me horrified that these are the people we rely on.

 

[Konstantin]

Initially I was quite appreciative of DV for giving us new snippets of information from his interviews. But the more I think about it, the more I find what he has done very exploitative. Worse, for a former detective, it feels very unprofessional and half-baked.

So many times, and with so many cases, I see what so-called "experts" are doing and it makes me horrified that these are the people we rely on.

Yeah I have the same conflicted feelings. I think DV has some issues with the Met as well, although I don't know what they are (the Met has not really done itself any favours in terms of its own conduct either).

 

[lee sumner]

I read his book quite a while ago and made some comments in an old thread about it. I might be misremembering parts of it. Others have also written their view of it, which are of course just as valid as my own ramblings. My impression was that he had structured the book in such a way to lead the reader into making "discoveries" that pointed to a particular direction. He presents information to be read in a certain way. He describes his encounter with SL's ex boyfriend in a way that makes him look like he is hiding something perhaps, when the reality is that we only have DV's account of what happened, it reads like it is dramatized a bit, it's decades after the events, it is not a formal interview, the ex boyfriend might have had all sorts of other things on his mind, the list goes on and on. The ex boyfriend, like the pub temporary landlord, are real people with real emotions, not characters in a crime novel.

I didn't like his descriptions of a man that he all but named as a murderer and sex attacker who is still alive, easily findable, and who is under zero suspicion by the police. For publication in a book that will raise his profile, even if he doesnt make much from sales. I find that...disturbing? I don't know.

So yes, that irritated me although I appreciated his efforts to try to worm out more information.

you are correct. DV suspects everyone. AL made a comment that suzy would never be found, DV thinks this was a odd thing to say, but i dont think it sounds odd. after 30 yrs who can blame him thinking like that. better be careful around DV as you might become the prime suspect, ha, ha.

 

[lee sumner]

Initially I was quite appreciative of DV for giving us new snippets of information from his interviews. But the more I think about it, the more I find what he has done very exploitative. Worse, for a former detective, it feels very unprofessional and half-baked.ha

So many times, and with so many cases, I see what so-called "experts" are doing and it makes me horrified that these are the people we rely on.

DV has clearly got tunnel vision. hard to believe he was a detective.

 

[Terryb808]

DV has clearly got tunnel vision. hard to believe he was a detective.

Exactly, his book is far from objective, he makes his mind up its CV, ignores anything that contradicts this and does his best to make everyone a suspicious character.

What’s more disappointing is he’s an ex Met detective and should be far more professional.

IMO he’s not approached this with an open mind and not looked for clues that may point to someone who's been hiding in plain sight all along.

 

[WestLondoner]

What's frustrating about DV's book is that there's nothing in it that explains why SJL would have died at the pub, or why CV isn't just an inarticulate deaf bloke. I actually signed up here to get other people's take on WTF his book was getting at.

I buy that she needed the diary back. But DV infers that as that was the errand she had to run, it must have been a fake appointment. Whoah. Not so fast Mr. Bond. She could have had a genuine appointment at 1.15 and simply sloped off early, to get to the PoW first, then do the appointment. If she comes back at 2pm and MG says "You were a long time" she just says "Yes, he was late / took ages / etc." So why does 37SR have to have been a red herring?

We know DV was expecting arrests. This can only be because 1/ he's a twit, or 2/ he knows something about CV that he can't disclose.

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

 

[RichardKimble]

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

You could use the same scenario with JC, what if JD had found through investigation that SJL was going to meet JC, (unlikely but not impossible) and he says she never turned up, no body no forensics, the CPS saying the two can't be placed together fits into that.Not forgetting this is what 14 + yrs after the fact.

 

[WestLondoner]

You could use the same scenario with JC, what if JD had found through investigation that SJL was going to meet JC, (unlikely but not impossible) and he says she never turned up, no body no forensics, the CPS saying the two can't be placed together fits into that.Not forgetting this is what 14 + yrs after the fact.

I think that's more or less what the police did do, or tried to do. They were told by an informant that JC had been hanging around and had access to the required props etc, so they then tried - 14 years late - to gather accounts and statements that supported it. It may be that there was intelligence in 1986 that they simply overlooked.

 

[lee sumner]

It is interesting that he gives inconsistent accounts, although human memory is fallible and it was a long time ago, so that could go a long way to explaining it. Also because it really might not be important--so it's not something he thought about. There are lots of non suspicious explanations.



Actually, although we have no idea if this is true or not--we do know that SL was planning on dumping him and while he seemed to think he was her main or steady bf, from what we know of her behaviour that weekend, she wasn't falling over herself to be with him after he went away. So maybe he did get dumped then or there was a convo about that as a possibility, or she didn't invite him up to her place after their evening out. After she disappeared, he was the prime suspect and would have been even more so if he admitted they had a bust up that night. But that is speculation. I assume, since it was known among her mates that she was planning to give him the old heave ho, the police found out about that--although perhaps after he was cleared because he had an alibi.

 

[lee sumner]

11 statements it took to clear AL from the enquiry. that is a lot of statements. they obviously done there homework when checking AL alibi.

 

[lee sumner]

What's frustrating about DV's book is that there's nothing in it that explains why SJL would have died at the pub, or why CV isn't just an inarticulate deaf bloke. I actually signed up here to get other people's take on WTF his book was getting at.

I buy that she needed the diary back. But DV infers that as that was the errand she had to run, it must have been a fake appointment. Whoah. Not so fast Mr. Bond. She could have had a genuine appointment at 1.15 and simply sloped off early, to get to the PoW first, then do the appointment. If she comes back at 2pm and MG says "You were a long time" she just says "Yes, he was late / took ages / etc." So why does 37SR have to have been a red herring?

We know DV was expecting arrests. This can only be because 1/ he's a twit, or 2/ he knows something about CV that he can't disclose.

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

 

[lee sumner]

What's frustrating about DV's book is that there's nothing in it that explains why SJL would have died at the pub, or why CV isn't just an inarticulate deaf bloke. I actually signed up here to get other people's take on WTF his book was getting at.

I buy that she needed the diary back. But DV infers that as that was the errand she had to run, it must have been a fake appointment. Whoah. Not so fast Mr. Bond. She could have had a genuine appointment at 1.15 and simply sloped off early, to get to the PoW first, then do the appointment. If she comes back at 2pm and MG says "You were a long time" she just says "Yes, he was late / took ages / etc." So why does 37SR have to have been a red herring?

We know DV was expecting arrests. This can only be because 1/ he's a twit, or 2/ he knows something about CV that he can't disclose.

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

What's frustrating about DV's book is that there's nothing in it that explains why SJL would have died at the pub, or why CV isn't just an inarticulate deaf bloke. I actually signed up here to get other people's take on WTF his book was getting at.

I buy that she needed the diary back. But DV infers that as that was the errand she had to run, it must have been a fake appointment. Whoah. Not so fast Mr. Bond. She could have had a genuine appointment at 1.15 and simply sloped off early, to get to the PoW first, then do the appointment. If she comes back at 2pm and MG says "You were a long time" she just says "Yes, he was late / took ages / etc." So why does 37SR have to have been a red herring?

We know DV was expecting arrests. This can only be because 1/ he's a twit, or 2/ he knows something about CV that he can't disclose.

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

same here. i was thinking WTF is with his theory. DV wants us to believe that SL changed her mind about picking up her missing items, and instead of going to pick them up at 6pm as arranged, she has now changed the time.

 

[lee sumner]

What's frustrating about DV's book is that there's nothing in it that explains why SJL would have died at the pub, or why CV isn't just an inarticulate deaf bloke. I actually signed up here to get other people's take on WTF his book was getting at.

I buy that she needed the diary back. But DV infers that as that was the errand she had to run, it must have been a fake appointment. Whoah. Not so fast Mr. Bond. She could have had a genuine appointment at 1.15 and simply sloped off early, to get to the PoW first, then do the appointment. If she comes back at 2pm and MG says "You were a long time" she just says "Yes, he was late / took ages / etc." So why does 37SR have to have been a red herring?

We know DV was expecting arrests. This can only be because 1/ he's a twit, or 2/ he knows something about CV that he can't disclose.

The second seems likelier. Imagine for example that you're digging into an unsolved disappearance - Martin Allen, say, the 15-year-old who disappeared in 1979. Suppose you find out, total bombshell, that he had been on his way to meet Dennis Nilssen. You further find out that Dennis Nilssen had been interviewed about this in 1979, but said the kid never turned up, and the police bought it. At no point in the following decades did anyone remember this or connect it to what Nilssen was up to. Until you turned up, found out who the last person Martin Allen was going to meet was, oh and the place had a basement.

That did not happen of course. Nilssen's now dead. But if you found something like that out about someone at the PoW, and you found out that there was a place to stash a body, you might well expect instant arrests - as DV seems to have done.

i think CV is a inarticulate deaf bloke, ha, ha. funny comment.