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

[WiseOwl]

Maybe we should just simplify matters.......

One theory we haven't discussed is that maybe Suzy disappeared of her own accord.

Perhaps she jetted off to the Middle East with the owner of 37 Shorrolds Road - this would explain the disappearance of both Suzy and the keys.

Problem solved!

 

[su5ie]

I've taken a look at the google street view of Whittingstall Road and radpole Road and surrounding area around where Sturgis was located ( it is still an estate agents) and I'm sure business names have changed over the years but it seems like a bustling area . Plenty of town houses on both roads and lots of business units either side of the main road A304 .I'm flabbergasted as to how nobody seen suzy leave Sturgis to go to her car which if we are led to believe was during normal lunchtime hours which can fall anywhere between 12 and 2pm for the majority of workers now and in 1986 . Would the side walk not be busy with people coming and going and drivers going up and down on their commute and stopping at the junction to allow other cars to turn at the junctions

Before I had taken a look I was of the assumption it was prehaps a quiet suburban type street and suzys car was parked in a similar quiet street to where it was parked on Stevenage . A would be abductor at her car would have to be either already hidden in the car or very lucky to not attract attention from a passerby or tenant during a forcing of someone into their car there and if the witness statement of suzy turning right and not left towards Shorrolds where was she going ?

Did she think after the argument with a colleague that I'm outta here and headed to neither Shorrolds or PoW but for a walk to clear her head and was taken opportunistically from an i Stevenage Road was it backed onto a park or river walkway prehaps suzy parked the car herself and went for a stroll here and slipped into the river it happened nicola bulley why not suzy and no one else involved in her vanishing at all .would explain no dna evidence in car and partial thumbprint on rear-view is a colleagues from using it before and pulled back seat was suzy stretching out her legs before she got out .would also explain why passengers door was locked . And the sighting of a "couple " arguing at the football pitches

Just a musing of mine lol

 

[WestLondoner]

DV had the perfect opportunity to ask MG about the keys, because he interviewed him twice. All he had to do was to ask him if he saw Suzy go behind his desk and take the keys to 37SR, but for some reason he failed to do this.

IMO, he avoided this question because if MG had answered 'yes' it would have put an end to DV's theory that Suzy didn't take the keys. OR maybe he did ask the question, got an answer he didn't like and then omitted it from his book?

The thing is, the keys are almost incidental in a way to DV's theory. It's not just about whether or not SJL took the keys. For his PoW theory to be right, WJ, HR, and BW also all have to be wrong about what they saw when. Even if he's right about the keys, that's not the only thing he needs to be right about.

 

[Cherwell]

I'll ask again.
What makes everyone think Suzy didn't take the keys? Why wouldn't she?

If she was going to a genuine viewing, she would have taken them.
If she invented the viewing, she would still take them to back up her story.

As for how did the police get in, police routinely gain access to locked properties every day. It doesn't matter how they got in; there's no reason why this detail would have been mentioned.

 

[Terryb808]

The thing is, the keys are almost incidental in a way to DV's theory. It's not just about whether or not SJL took the keys. For his PoW theory to be right, WJ, HR, and BW also all have to be wrong about what they saw when. Even if he's right about the keys, that's not the only thing he needs to be right about.

You’re right, his theory is very basic, when I first started looking at this case, the first narrative that came to mind was “Suzy went to the PoW to get her things”.
However, just how important these lost items were to Suzy is just pure conjecture.
Without talking to her close friends of that time it’s something we’ll never know.
DV does tend to ignore witnesses that don’t fit, or try and undermine their accounts.
Not exactly objective, but, being objective doesn’t sell books.

 

[Konstantin]

You’re right, his theory is very basic, when I first started looking at this case, the first narrative that came to mind was “Suzy went to the PoW to get her things”.
However, just how important these lost items were to Suzy is just pure conjecture.
Without talking to her close friends of that time it’s something we’ll never know.
DV does tend to ignore witnesses that don’t fit, or try and undermine their accounts.
Not exactly objective, but, being objective doesn’t sell books.

I found that he constructed the narrative in his book exactly to support his theory.

 

[Konstantin]

I'll ask again.
What makes everyone think Suzy didn't take the keys? Why wouldn't she?

If she was going to a genuine viewing, she would have taken them.
If she invented the viewing, she would still take them to back up her story.

As for how did the police get in, police routinely gain access to locked properties every day. It doesn't matter how they got in; there's no reason why this detail would have been mentioned.

Yes. DV's theory relies on him stating unequivocally that police would have had to break the door down if they did not have the keys, which is just not true. If she invented the story as an excuse to leave the office at lunchtime then she would most certainly not have wanted her colleagues or bosses to think she made a fake appointment as that would have reflected very badly on her. By all accounts she was a diligent worker. Why would she not take them, especially if there was only one set. She would potentially face some very awkward questions then, when she got back. SJL was not stupid.

It makes no sense for her not to have taken them and that narrative also relies on her colleagues who said shortly after her going missing that they saw her take them, to all be mistaken or lying. Why would they lie, given the seriousness of the situation.

 

[WiseOwl]

I'll ask again.
What makes everyone think Suzy didn't take the keys? Why wouldn't she?

If she was going to a genuine viewing, she would have taken them.
If she invented the viewing, she would still take them to back up her story.

As for how did the police get in, police routinely gain access to locked properties every day. It doesn't matter how they got in; there's no reason why this detail would have been mentioned.

Exactly. As i said in an earlier post, if Suzy didn't take the keys then where did they disappear to? It doesn't make sense.

It's DV who has fostered this idea about Suzy not taking the keys, and he's clearly ignored any evidence to the contrary just to push his theory about the PoW pub.

Whether the appointment at 12.45 was real or not, Suzy took the keys with her.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Is some one reading our threads lol

On a serious note , I speculate his novels cut close to the bone of his crimes . As far as I'm aware Cannan had a stroke and was confined to a wheelchair during this parole hearing which is why it may have been considered releasing him to an open prison. I believe he should die in prison and not be given the grace of dying anywhere else . I highly suspect he is guilty of Sandra courts murder as the MO was the same as Shirley's

.I feel police narrowing of suspects by eliminating all other perpetrators in the area does nothing to ensure bringing closure to Suzys case as even if circumstantial evidence is there connecting JC to the case and possible dna links from sierra ,His barrister can always use the trial by media line .Which so far that has been the reason he is seen as the only suspect .

I'm glad to see the issue of the Mr kipper nickname attributed to cannan cleared up as I wasn't sure from previous articles alleging he recieved the nickname after Suzy by fellow lags or before Suzys disappearance

BBM I agree although it's probably not how law & justice work.

I wonder, if one of the principles of the prison system is 'rehabilitation', what efforts anyone makes to encourage an inmate to tell the truth about their crimes for the sake of the greater good and to ease the suffering of victims families?

 

[su5ie]

The thing is, the keys are almost incidental in a way to DV's theory. It's not just about whether or not SJL took the keys. For his PoW theory to be right, WJ, HR, and BW also all have to be wrong about what they saw when. Even if he's right about the keys, that's not the only thing he needs to be right about.

Yes the keys are irrelevant in the matter and whether she took them or not doesn't affect the resulting disappearance. The only thing the definitive answer would show is that Sturgis staff were mistaken and made assumptions , outright lied or told the truth .
For Wendy and Sturgis staff to be right about the timing of suzy leaving the office and the car parked on Stevenage road .Suzy had to drive there herself as the two statements show only 5/10 minute window of Suzy going to her car ,getting in ,driving to destination without hassle, parking up and walking away unseen .not a very big window.

All witnesses involved seem to think they are not mistaken. But their unwillingness to prehaps withdraw their Statements has maybe led the police down a garden path of assumptions and hunches and with no corroborated witness statements from the public it's a wild goose chase .
I'm torn between three scenarios, Sturgis staff involvement or Suzy accidently falling into water by herself or a perpetrator abducting her in the area of Stevenage Road.

When a case is tainted Like this one has by DL also the original investigating officer and the complicated history of suzy and various witnesses coming forward with vastly different timelines and sightings it's very hard to solve.
I'm presuming here that the man whom suzys friend claims to have seen with her in the car at 2.45 has not come forward either ??

 

[Officer Dibble]

Yes. DV's theory relies on him stating unequivocally that police would have had to break the door down if they did not have the keys, which is just not true. If she invented the story as an excuse to leave the office at lunchtime then she would most certainly not have wanted her colleagues or bosses to think she made a fake appointment as that would have reflected very badly on her. By all accounts she was a diligent worker. Why would she not take them, especially if there was only one set. She would potentially face some very awkward questions then, when she got back. SJL was not stupid.

It makes no sense for her not to have taken them and that narrative also relies on her colleagues who said shortly after her going missing that they saw her take them, to all be mistaken or lying. Why would they lie, given the seriousness of the situation.

Are you saying, without saying it, that how do you know the office staff are telling the truth? Or have I got that wrong? JMO