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

[WestLondoner]

An example of DL not being all there as early as 1988 is that according to AS she believed herself to be nationally famous already on the back of the Slimnastics thing she was involved in.

Certain types of mental illness cause the sufferer to imagine everything is about themselves. They see signs on the side of buses and they think it's a message to themselves. They see a TV programme and they think the presenter is speaking to them. Thinking Slimnastics has made you famous because it's a big deal to you fits quite well with this. The decision constructively to accuse JC of murdering SJL possibly owes a lot to the police wanting to get DL off their back. She had the ear of the Home Secretary and Cannan was jailed for good anyway so pinning it on him solved the DL problem at no cost, even to JC. Sorted.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

Based on what she said herself, and on what others have said about her, I suspect DL was a delusional narcissist.

Normally saying this would go against the WS rules, but DL openly admitted she *liked* the attention she got from Suzy being missing. As unpleasant as it is to think about, there are people who enjoy being a victim, and DL strikes me as one of them.

Being a victim gave DL two things: the attention she craved, and also a free pass for her own very questionable behavior--because who would dare to criticize the poor woman who lost her beloved daughter?

 

[WestLondoner]

Both the public account of SJL's life as presented to the public, and the private account shared with the police, appear to have been edited to suit DL. She wanted SJL to appear in a certain light more than she wanted her killer found.

 

[Konstantin]

Both the public account of SJL's life as presented to the public, and the private account shared with the police, appear to have been edited to suit DL. She wanted SJL to appear in a certain light more than she wanted her killer found.

AS certainly had to edit his book to ensure that it did not contain anything that portrayed SJL as anything but an angel--IIRC DL did not like the book anyway.

I can empathize though -- it must be extraordinarily painful to have one's idea of one's beloved daughter "tainted" by finding out details of her private life that she had (totally normally and understandably) kept a secret from you. In SJL's case, her mother's insistence on controlling the narrative about her daughter and her colourful private life may have affected the investigation.

There is a similar situation with Claudia Lawrence, whose mother in particular finds it very hard to accept that her daughter may have had a complicated private life, which may have played a role in her murder (even if, of course, it should not have and no one should blame the victim).

 

[WestLondoner]

Based on what she said herself, and on what others have said about her, I suspect DL was a delusional narcissist.

People like that can be hugely destructive to families. SJL was clearly quite secretive in her life, with highly compartmentalised friendships and relationships that were kept rigorously separate from each other. This could easily be a habit of mind formed because she had such an intrusive and domineering mother; she perhaps got into the habit of keeping things to herself so her mother couldn't interfere.

As a result the police, in questioning of the so-called "Putney Set" (like there was only ever one), may have been dredging the wrong pond altogether.

 

[WestLondoner]

Double post deleted by me

 

[lee sumner]

Is there any trace of the temporary secretarcath

Based on what she said herself, and on what others have said about her, I suspect DL was a delusional narcissist.

Normally saying this would go against the WS rules, but DL openly admitted she *liked* the attention she got from Suzy being missing. As unpleasant as it is to think about, there are people who enjoy being a victim, and DL strikes me as one of them.

Being a victim gave DL two things: the attention she craved, and also a free pass for her own very questionable behavior--because who would dare to criticize the poor woman who lost her beloved daughter?

DL wanted to be a actress. that is why he liked the attention.

 

[lee sumner]

An example of DL not being all there as early as 1988 is that according to AS she believed herself to be nationally famous already on the back of the Slimnastics thing she was involved in.

Certain types of mental illness cause the sufferer to imagine everything is about themselves. They see signs on the side of buses and they think it's a message to themselves. They see a TV programme and they think the presenter is speaking to them. Thinking Slimnastics has made you famous because it's a big deal to you fits quite well with this. The decision constructively to accuse JC of murdering SJL possibly owes a lot to the police wanting to get DL off their back. She had the ear of the Home Secretary and Cannan was jailed for good anyway so pinning it on him solved the DL problem at no cost, even to JC. Sorted.

in the days following SL going missing. DL and PL got good sleep. they were not up all night going crazy wondering where there daughter is.

 

[lee sumner]

Just to clarify, the disappearances were in the north east, which according to the media in general isn’t (sadly) an uncommon occurrence.

how did you know where to look regarding the disappearances in the north east.

 

[lee sumner]

Is there any trace of the temporary secretary yet?

katheline ready was the secretary.

 

[Terryb808]

how did you know where to look regarding the disappearances in the north east.

KH isn’t hard to find, there are several disappearances generally related to a single pub in Middlesbrough.
This pub is no longer in existence, all the victims were prostitutes and hooked on drugs.
IIRC at least one has been solved.

 

[AfricanGrey]

DV has no credible evidence against CV, he has nothing other than what he has included in his book. He has tried to make a name for himself by claiming to have solved the SJL mystery, however accusing an innocent man will get him nowhere and will ultimately destroy any credibility he has as a serious crime writer.

 

[Terryb808]

DV has no credible evidence against CV, he has nothing other than what he has included in his book. He has tried to make a name for himself by claiming to have solved the SJL mystery, however accusing an innocent man will get him nowhere and will ultimately destroy any credibility he has as a serious crime writer.

While not a fan of DV’s book “Finding Suzy”, which it doesn’t, I personally have no idea what other information he may have.
He’s a good researcher and identified things not in the public domain before.
I’m in favour of clear constructive criticism, however, it’s unfair to state as you do without proof and also without DV being in a position to respond.
I’d welcome DV’s response her on the WS forum, so if you read this, please respond.

 

[AfricanGrey]

I would welcome a response from DV/DH too, however I doubt he would engage with WS.
I would be more than happy to argue the case with him

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

DV may have a lot more evidence than he put in his book, but his book is the case he put out into the public domain. We can't judge his theory on anything else if he won't reveal anything else. Based solely on that book, I think the case he put forward is a poor one.

The thing is, he chose to publish his book as it is. I'm honestly not sure he does have much more evidence. I believe he has such tunnel-vision about his own theory, that he thinks the evidence in his book is a lot more convincing than it actually is.

 

[WestLondoner]

To be scrupulously fair, if one assumes DV has nothing on CV beyond what's in the book, then one should likewise assume the police have nothing on Cannan beyond what's been in the various documentaries.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I do feel the same way about the Met's case against JC. We can only judge it based on the information they've released/leaked, and none of it convinces me.

Do they know more? Almost certainly. But if you trust the CPS, none of their evidence is convincing enough.

 

[Terryb808]

To be scrupulously fair, if one assumes DV has nothing on CV beyond what's in the book, then one should likewise assume the police have nothing on Cannan beyond what's been in the various documentaries.

Very well put, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
On that basis JC & CV are in the clear.