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

[lee sumner]

AS's book explains this perfectly clearly on page 26:

WJ called for a neighbour, AM. She noticed as she did so that a white Ford Fiesta was parked by AM's garage, slightly overlapping the entrance, and she wondered whether AM's husband LM would have difficulty getting his car into the garage that evening.

The two women drove to the NatWest bank at Fulham Cross, where AM noted the time by the bank's clock as 12.49. When WJ returned from shopping a couple of hours later, she noticed the car still parked overlapping the driveway to the garage.

So WJ was friends with the owner of the garage where the car was overlapping the driveway - this is why she noticed it. Also, AM's husband LM was the driver who confirmed the car was overlapping the driveway to the garage when he returned home from work that day at 5.15pm.

The police also confirmed that the bank's clock was accurate when they checked it after receiving AM's statement.

i have a copy of AS book, so know what it says, but it does not make sense the car being there from around 1240pm then the rest of the day. we have witness HR who seen a couple outside 37 shorrolds rd around 1pm, but WJ saying the car was facing her on stevenage rd at 1pm. then we have BW who seen SL and a mystery man driving up fulham palace rd around 245pm. this is why i think WJ is mistaken.

 

[Konstantin]

Yes she’ll lock it if she got into the perpetrators car willingly to leave with him, No if she just got in for a 5 minute chat and was abducted.

Where did the witness see the "right ruck"? Was that Stevenage Road? (But there were workmen there all day and they didn't remember seeing anything, although did they never go for lunch or for a toilet break?)

 

[lee sumner]

The sale of suzys flat would have only covered the mortgage repayment to the bank . So with whose money was she going to buy a new property with

According to AS book when Suzys assets were being assessed she didnt own much Dad mentions her buying a property with someone else but I've not seen this delved into any further and as far as I can see this person never came forward publicly anyway . Its almost said as an off the cuff remark .

I most definitely feel ,the married man she was seeing ,the married man cooking her nice meals , the man pressuring her and whomever she was buying this property with and sent the roses are one and the same person . I feel the meeting that day was pre arranged
If you notice the entries in her work diary morning and 6pm appointment scribbled , wrote most probably while on the phone and wrote in haste as person is calling out information. MR KIPPER entry is neater its already in her head ,she is writing from memory in relaxed fashion .

If we look at what suzy is telling us by her actions not what others assume or their" Truths " Suzy is telling us she was involved with a married man and he was doing things she didn't like and she felt pressured . She was selling her flat with no other property lined up . She was secretive. she didnt have huge savings and she engaged in risky behaviour

. Why the police and her family believe that someone who was engaged in risky behaviour in her personal life , would not also make risky choices in work by making a false entry in a diary to meet some one known to her is beyond me . I'm not judging her lifestyle I'm just making an observation.
In my mind she arranged to meet at 123StR that day with a person well known to her . No sign of a struggle, no chunks of hair or chipped nails to say she was dragged out of her car or into another car ,no dropped keys ,no paperwork in her car . No tyre marks of a car that screeched off everything tells us either she never entered that car or got out of her own free will
Things turned sour over some disagreement and she was disposed of .too much hassle to keep her alive . Imo she was probably dating or involved in a relationship with possibly a crooked businessman or a gangland type figure either that or she never left the office .

i did wonder what were her plans regarding living arrangements. where was she going to live. was she moving back with her parents, or was she going to downsize to a 1 bedroom flat for herself.

 

[Terryb808]

Where did the witness see the "right ruck"? Was that Stevenage Road? (But there were workmen there all day and they didn't remember seeing anything, although did they never go for lunch or for a toilet break?)

It was Stevenage Road, he got the cab in Finley Street. Can’t recall the exact time as it’s been a while since I watched the Crimewatch video.

 

[Konstantin]

It was Stevenage Road, he got the cab in Finley Street. Can’t recall the exact time as it’s been a while since I watched the Crimewatch video.

Between 2 and 2.30 pm according to the Crimewatch video. Of course the man and woman having the argument could have been anyone.

Having rewatched the Crimewatch episode, something stood out. The presenter asks the police officer who appears on the show whether he thought Suzy knew "Mr Kipper" and he answers that yes, given that her car was in Stevenage "and she was seen in Shorrolds later." It seems like he, at least, thought that Suzy drove first to Stevenage Road and then later went to Shorrolds Road -- her car didn't move unless you believe WJ's report. That would suggest a hypothesis that Suzy was driven from Stevenage Road to Shorrolds Road. Unless I misunderstood what the officer was implying.

 

[Cherwell]

"and she was seen in Shorrolds later."

Could this be a confusion with the sighting of MG and SF at Shorrolds Road?

Although the reconstruction shows two men, not a man and a woman, which is odd. It makes sense to me that MG would take a woman with him in case Suzy was in distress.

 

[Terryb808]

Between 2 and 2.30 pm according to the Crimewatch video. Of course the man and woman having the argument could have been anyone.

Having rewatched the Crimewatch episode, something stood out. The presenter asks the police officer who appears on the show whether he thought Suzy knew "Mr Kipper" and he answers that yes, given that her car was in Stevenage "and she was seen in Shorrolds later." It seems like he, at least, thought that Suzy drove first to Stevenage Road and then later went to Shorrolds Road -- her car didn't move unless you believe WJ's report. That would suggest a hypothesis that Suzy was driven from Stevenage Road to Shorrolds Road. Unless I misunderstood what the officer was implying.

I think the police realised that Mr Kipper was someone Suzy knew. Also that her car never moved once it reached Stevenage Road.
That’s why they didn’t believe Barbara W when she said she saw Suzy driving towards Hammersmith at approximately 2.45pm.
I’m not sure Suzy ever went to Shorrolds Road, IMO that she left Stevenage Road in (Mr Kippers) car under duress.

 

[su5ie]

Between 2 and 2.30 pm according to the Crimewatch video. Of course the man and woman having the argument could have been anyone.

Having rewatched the Crimewatch episode, something stood out. The presenter asks the police officer who appears on the show whether he thought Suzy knew "Mr Kipper" and he answers that yes, given that her car was in Stevenage "and she was seen in Shorrolds later." It seems like he, at least, thought that Suzy drove first to Stevenage Road and then later went to Shorrolds Road -- her car didn't move unless you believe WJ's report. That would suggest a hypothesis that Suzy was driven from Stevenage Road to Shorrolds Road. Unless I misunderstood what the officer was implying.

This officers comment also stood out to me which backed up my belief that suzy drove to Stevenage Road of her own accord to meet someone known to her at a prearranged rendezvous point . Landmarked by the Sturgis sign. My query on car phones was me wondering did the perp ring suzy at the office when he got there to signal he had arrived and she was to leave

WJ may well have observed her car at 12.45 .I suspect suzy left the office between 12.25 and 12.35 Sturgis did not have a clock on the wall so staff I assume would have to check their watches for a time . While Wendy comes in lets her dog off the leash etc before wendy looks out the window . Suzy pulls up ,drops keys as she is eager to see the person or rushing or she is nervous she pushes back the seat to retrieve the keys and gets into the other person's car . Forgets in her haste to lock the door as maybe the other person only has a lunch hour to do business and is in a hurry . She has also lied to work .

HR can still be right at seeing a couple at 1pm at Shorrolds as This is only a 5/10 minute drive from Stevenage . Woman / suzy observed standing at 37SR alone like she was waiting for someone at 12 50 Could be suzy waiting for male to find parking . He told her to go ahead into the property but she waits Suzy and Male don't go into house or they do but don't touch anything and maybe get as far as the hallway . prehaps Male decides to back out or is not serious about buying so makes an excuse. They get back into his car and prehaps this is when an argument ensues .

BW sighting could have been on the Saturday. I have not seen anything related to suzys comings and goings in work that day . Suzy did not wave back and BW possibly didn't know suzy had her hair dyed so could easily be mistaken and trying to be helpful.

The sighting of the couple arguing outside of a car ( I can't recall make of car ) at corner of the Football grounds ( I can't recall the time ) is on the route back from Shorrolds to Stevenage I feel this is where suzy was killed . Whether or not her body is in the surrounding fields or she was put into the car and buried at a different location I don't know but my gut is telling me this is what happened


One thing about times ,people when recalling time will tend to round it off .they will never say I left at 11 .42 it will be 11.40 or 11.45.

On the partial thumbprint : This was not a complete print and as far as I can see it was not checked in any way against AL , james C or anyone else because testing wasn't advanced enough at the time . It could have been suzy checking her own appearance before she got out. Suzys DNA was retrieved from a sample of DL and PLs blood so no record of her blood group or dna to profile existed

 

[su5ie]

Another poster in thread #5 post 585 tells of an article in the daily mail 1987 of suzy discussing at length with her father about a property deal she was doing with a client of Sturgis. He was going to put up the money for suzys new flat so he could use it for post . She told her mother DL not to press her further until the deal was sealed . This person never came forward and in my opinion this is definitely who suzy went to meet .He was there in plain sight in sturgis client records but I suspect these were not checked to see who on the books had at least one or two appointments with suzy or frequented the same establishments as her

 

[Konstantin]

I think the police realised that Mr Kipper was someone Suzy knew. Also that her car never moved once it reached Stevenage Road.
That’s why they didn’t believe Barbara W when she said she saw Suzy driving towards Hammersmith at approximately 2.45pm.
I’m not sure Suzy ever went to Shorrolds Road, IMO that she left Stevenage Road in (Mr Kippers) car under duress.

Yes, that sounds very plausible. The time that her car was seen in Stevenage Road fits the time she left the office if she drove straight there.

37SR had some forensics done on it which presumably at the time would have been fingerprints -- no sign that SJL had ever been inside the property was found, right? That doesn't mean she really was never there, but...

Maybe she went to 37SR slightly later in "Mr Kipper's" car and that explains the sightings? The two "artists drawings" of the male seen there by 2 witnesses are similar, suggesting that both did see the same person.

 

[WiseOwl]

Between 2 and 2.30 pm according to the Crimewatch video. Of course the man and woman having the argument could have been anyone.

Having rewatched the Crimewatch episode, something stood out. The presenter asks the police officer who appears on the show whether he thought Suzy knew "Mr Kipper" and he answers that yes, given that her car was in Stevenage "and she was seen in Shorrolds later." It seems like he, at least, thought that Suzy drove first to Stevenage Road and then later went to Shorrolds Road -- her car didn't move unless you believe WJ's report. That would suggest a hypothesis that Suzy was driven from Stevenage Road to Shorrolds Road. Unless I misunderstood what the officer was implying.

The police believed that Suzy had driven to Stevenage Road, met someone there, and had then gone to Shorrolds Road to view the property, tying in with HR's alleged sighting of a couple around 1.00pm.

What doesn't make sense about this scenario is that, if Suzy thought it was a genuine appointment, then why meet this person at Stevenage Road instead of at the property in Shorrolds Road? She clearly wrote o/s in her diary for that lunchtime, meaning that she would meet the client outside the property.

 

[WiseOwl]

Could this be a confusion with the sighting of MG and SF at Shorrolds Road?

Although the reconstruction shows two men, not a man and a woman, which is odd. It makes sense to me that MG would take a woman with him in case Suzy was in distress.

It has never been stated who MG went with when he went to 37SR that afternoon. In AS's book (page 8), it just states that he went 'with a colleague'. In the Crimewatch reconstruction, it of course shows him banging on the door and looking through the window of 37SR with a male colleague, so presumably either NH or JC.

Interestingly, after the Crimewatch show had been broadcast, viewers had phoned to say that MG looked similar to one of the photofit pictures of Mr Kipper. The response? The detectives merely laughed over this (AS book page 130).

IMO this is MG, and i really believe the description given comes from HR. I am astounded that none of the police involved could see the likeness to MG.

 

[su5ie]

The police believed that Suzy had driven to Stevenage Road, met someone there, and had then gone to Shorrolds Road to view the property, tying in with HR's alleged sighting of a couple around 1.00pm.

What doesn't make sense about this scenario is that, if Suzy thought it was a genuine appointment, then why meet this person at Stevenage Road instead of at the property in Shorrolds Road? She clearly wrote o/s in her diary for that lunchtime, meaning that she would meet the client outside the property.

Prehaps suzy was writing o/s to cover her behind . A simple explanation for her to give to bosses as to why negotiations over sale didn't begin . So excuse being client never showed I was supposed to meet them outside or client showed but wasn't interested in going inside as when they seen limited parking for example decided it wasn't for them



The police seemed to laugh a lot at possible leads or indiscrepancies pointed out to them in witness statements

 

[Konstantin]

It has never been stated who MG went with when he went to 37SR that afternoon. In AS's book (page 8), it just states that he went 'with a colleague'. In the Crimewatch reconstruction, it of course shows him banging on the door and looking through the window of 37SR with a male colleague, so presumably either NH or JC.

Interestingly, after the Crimewatch show had been broadcast, viewers had phoned to say that MG looked similar to one of the photofit pictures of Mr Kipper. The response? The detectives merely laughed over this (AS book page 130).

IMO this is MG, and i really believe the description given comes from HR. I am astounded that none of the police involved could see the likeness to MG.

What is interesting, is that in the Crimewatch reconstruction we see HR looking out of his window (I assume the reconstruction was filmed in his actual house although I don't know if he was actually in the episode or whether an actor played his role) through a very thick net curtain. You can see out of it but what you can see isn't that clear and it is not clear what his line of sight was and how long he glimpsed the couple he said he saw for.

I assume that MG spoke to HR face to face without the intermediary of a net curtain. Did he speak to him twice? I've always been puzzled by the fact that AS in his book when he describes MG's call with the police after he reports Suzy missing, says that HR was "now saying" that the woman he saw was "bundled" into a car. When and how did HR convey this information, which AS's phrasing suggests occurred after the first time MG went round to 37SR?

 

[su5ie]

What is interesting, is that in the Crimewatch reconstruction we see HR looking out of his window (I assume the reconstruction was filmed in his actual house although I don't know if he was actually in the episode or whether an actor played his role) through a very thick net curtain. You can see out of it but what you can see isn't that clear and it is not clear what his line of sight was and how long he glimpsed the couple he said he saw for.

I assume that MG spoke to HR face to face without the intermediary of a net curtain. Did he speak to him twice? I've always been puzzled by the fact that AS in his book when he describes MG's call with the police after he reports Suzy missing, says that HR was "now saying" that the woman he saw was "bundled" into a car. When and how did HR convey this information, which AS's phrasing suggests occurred after the first time MG went round to 37SR?

I wondered this too was it that night or the Tuesday day and night. Also for me the net curtain was too thick to make out much of a clear view

 

[WiseOwl]

What is interesting, is that in the Crimewatch reconstruction we see HR looking out of his window (I assume the reconstruction was filmed in his actual house although I don't know if he was actually in the episode or whether an actor played his role) through a very thick net curtain. You can see out of it but what you can see isn't that clear and it is not clear what his line of sight was and how long he glimpsed the couple he said he saw for.

I assume that MG spoke to HR face to face without the intermediary of a net curtain. Did he speak to him twice? I've always been puzzled by the fact that AS in his book when he describes MG's call with the police after he reports Suzy missing, says that HR was "now saying" that the woman he saw was "bundled" into a car. When and how did HR convey this information, which AS's phrasing suggests occurred after the first time MG went round to 37SR?

It does say in the book (very briefly on page 10) that MG 'returned to Shorrolds Road again: still nothing'.

It doesn't state what time this second visit was, or if he spoke to HR again, but he did say to the police officer that HR 'now thought' the couple had been arguing and the woman was bundled into the car. So, presumably, he did speak to HR again on his second visit to 37SR and this is where the info came from.

 

[WestLondoner]

In the reconstruction the man and woman are seen standing back from the house and looking up at it. It has always struck me that this is what you'd if you were trying to see if anyone was inside, and you don't have the key.

I was initially sure that HR and the others had all simply seen MG outside 37SR on his first visit there. From discussion here I don't think this works because the visits were too close together for him to mistake MG in this way. I do have reservations about all these sightings though - HR described a blonde and a man leaving a house SJL seems never to have entered, and other witnesses were unsure of the time I.e. it could have been 4pm. Anyone seen at 4pm was probably MG IMHO.

 

[WiseOwl]

In the reconstruction the man and woman are seen standing back from the house and looking up at it. It has always struck me that this is what you'd if you were trying to see if anyone was inside, and you don't have the key.

I was initially sure that HR and the others had all simply seen MG outside 37SR on his first visit there. From discussion here I don't think this works because the visits were too close together for him to mistake MG in this way. I do have reservations about all these sightings though - HR described a blonde and a man leaving a house SJL seems never to have entered, and other witnesses were unsure of the time I.e. it could have been 4pm. Anyone seen at 4pm was probably MG IMHO.

The Crimewatch reconstruction has MG (and colleague) at 37SR around 4.30pm. We know from AS's book he visits 37SR again, and we also know that he phones the police to report Suzy missing at 6.45 that evening. I would reckon that his second visit to SR would be around 6.00 - 6.30.

I wonder exactly who the witnesses were that described the man who looks like MG in the photofit?

 

[Konstantin]

In the reconstruction the man and woman are seen standing back from the house and looking up at it. It has always struck me that this is what you'd if you were trying to see if anyone was inside, and you don't have the key.

I was initially sure that HR and the others had all simply seen MG outside 37SR on his first visit there. From discussion here I don't think this works because the visits were too close together for him to mistake MG in this way. I do have reservations about all these sightings though - HR described a blonde and a man leaving a house SJL seems never to have entered, and other witnesses were unsure of the time I.e. it could have been 4pm. Anyone seen at 4pm was probably MG IMHO.

I did start to wonder if the reconstruction showed that shot because they wanted to portray "Suzy's colleagues looking for her at the house" and thought that shot best accomplished that -- and/or filming them going inside and searching would mean the owner having the inside of his house on TV, plus if you only have time for one or two shots then perhaps they thought the outside one better tells the story? It's annoying though, because it really isn't clear if MG went inside -- it is very ambiguous from the AS narrative too.

Yes, HR seems to claim he was alerted by the sound of the door closing or something, if he is right either Suzy was inside and left or MG went inside and left... or he was just wrong.

I have to say, if I went to search for a missing colleague in a house like that and could not get inside -- I would not be content with just knocking on the door -- would you? You would worry that she had come to some grief inside and could not answer or get to the door, you would surely want to get inside and check she was not lying unconscious or worse). Looking through ground floor windows and a letterbox would hardly cut it. If I were worried enough to report someone missing to the police, I would get a locksmith to open the blooming door first if I didn't have keys myself!

 

[Konstantin]

The Crimewatch reconstruction has MG (and colleague) at 37SR around 4.30pm. We know from AS's book he visits 37SR again, and we also know that he phones the police to report Suzy missing at 6.45 that evening. I would reckon that his second visit to SR would be around 6.00 - 6.30.

I wonder exactly who the witnesses were that described the man who looks like MG in the photofit?

Good reasoning.

If MG searched the house from top to bottom inside, then why would he go back a second time? Perhaps he didn't have time to enter the first time, or he couldn't because he didn't have a key, or perhaps he never went inside at all, but if it were me, and I knocked on the door of the house and no sign of her answering, I'd think that 4 and a half hours would be a long time for someone to lie unconscious or worse and I would want to get in there.

According to AS, this is the man who gave the second description of Mr Kipper

Two men in particular — Noel Devere, a thirty-yearold unemployed bar-cellar man, and Nicholas Doyle, fortyone, an unemployed jeweller — would each come forward to tell police that they had definitely seen Susannah outside 37 Shorrolds Road that lunchtime. Doyle would tell them that he had seen a man with her too, and would give detectives the best description of a man yet — better even than Riglin’s. (p71)

Equally certain that he had seen Susannah was Doyle, the unemployed jeweller. Like Harry Riglin he remembered a man with her too, but could not be specific about times — only that it was sometime between midday and four o’clock. The woman was standing on the pavement looking up at number 37, he recalled, and he thought at the time that she and the man a few paces away both looked too smart to be interested in this particular £128,000 house. The man was between twentyfive and thirty, with dark swept-back hair and wearing an ‘immaculate and expensive’ charcoal grey suit. His nose looked as though it might have been broken at some time, Doyle thought. Perhaps he was an ex-serviceman or a former public schoolboy who had been injured playing rugby, he suggested — or, alternatively, a very well-dressed East End villain. (p75)

Both Doyle and Devere said that the hair of the woman they'd seen was lighter than Suzy's hair in the photo they'd been shown of her -- SJL had had her hair lightened recently so she would have appeared blonder.