UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 July 1986

[WestLondoner]

my main issues with DV’s theory...is that CV and/or his wife had already done the responsible thing and called the bank

For me, this important point more or less torpedoes CV as any sort of suspect. It is juuuuuuust about possible that he did the right thing, having found a random female's stuff; and that then, when the random female in question turned up and he got an eyeful of her, he was overcome with lust and decided to do her a bad turn instead of a good one. Even though her colleagues probably, the bank certainly, and others at the pub knew where she'd gone.

Trouble is, as well as doing this off the cuff, he also had the world's best hiding place ready to hand - what a stroke of luck. And when quizzed by the plod, he needlessly volunteered two phone calls, guaranteed to attract their intense curiosity. Now why would he do that? Wouldn't he just say Yes, she phoned around lunchtime and said she'd be over later, but she never came.

Incidentally, some of the accounts suggest that she didn't go to the pub at lunchtime at all, because on the phone she said she'd go over there later. It seems highly likely to me that this was for the benefit of / intended to be overheard by her office colleagues. Her story to them, via her diary, was that she was going to a viewing. So she couldn't very well say anything else on the phone to the pub. Hence she tells the pub later or after work but heads right over.

He was interviewed by the police twice according to AS and came across as honest. If he’d really just murdered someone and hidden the body all on the spur of the moment and then knowing the police would eventually find out about her appointment to visit the pub and then suddenly the cops show up soon after you just killed and the body is yards away— are you going to come across as normal and honest?

I would say not, but DV dwells on a previous case where a killer was interviewed downstairs with his victim's body under his bed upstairs - so who knows.

the diary was a pocket diary not one of the big ones where you write your life story in too.

Yes, I'd guess more of a contacts diary really. But she did keep a diary in which she wrote “The company puts me in the window desk, as the most attractive female. That’s how it is, the most attractive female on display for any man to see.” Was that in a pocket diary or a third one, a larger private diary perhaps? If a pocket diary it would not have been in the one the police retrieved, because she was hired in 1985.

The slightly chilling thing about this diary is that we can probably infer that her killer is not in it. If he were, he'd presumably want the diary to disappear when she did.

I think DV is right that she went off on this direction and not to 37SR, but where I part company from him is his claim that she went to the PoW and died there. It seems more likely to me that she went to do her other errand - retrieving her tennis kit so she could go straight to a game at 7pm following a viewing at 6pm. As has been pointed above, she could have retrieved her diary at any time that evening, but if she kept her 6pm viewing appointment she'd have missed her 7pm tennis. If you were her and pushed for time at lunchtime wouldn't you go home as first priority and to the pub only if there was time? DV notes that he tennis stuff was found by the police at home, so she never went there. But her other stuff was found by the police at the pub, so by the same logic she didn't go there.

There is something DV has left out that he can't tell us.

 

[Crusader21]

For me, a big question would be -

Andrew Stephens in his 1988 book, recorded at length SL's long-term association / friendship with a particular female (and indeed her husband). This liaison was reported as having a proposed business venture side which Stephens reported that SL pulled out of mid-1986. Also the female, by her own admission, admitted that she had been due to meet SL that Monday lunchtime.

Q. Why doesn't this female (and couple), appear at all in your book?

 

[WestLondoner]

@ crusader

That would be a good one. That really is the dog that didn't bark.

Mine would be, You say SJL needed to do two things - retrieve her tennis kit from home which had to be ahead of her 7pm game, and retrieve her diary from the pub, which she could do any time. She retrieved nothing from either place, so why do you maintain she must have gone first to the pub, which was the less pressing errand?

 

[Terryb808]

Agree with Crusader21 on the couple and the business venture.
I’d ask, many independent (some experts) believe JC is guilty, given his history of lies when it come to alibis and the fact his own sister thinks he’s guilty do you think he’s innocent.

 

[Crusader21]

It seems more likely to me that she went to do her other errand - retrieving her tennis kit so she could go straight to a game at 7pm following a viewing at 6pm ......... DV notes that he tennis stuff was found by the police at home, so she never went there.

There'd be nothing to stop SL heading to Disraeli Rd for the aforementioned tennis kit and innocuously disappear (leaving behind the kit), from her home residence. Probably at the hands of someone she knew.

Also as there was no police interest or appeal on this scenario, any eye witnesses seeing SL at her home address on Monday lunchtime wouldn't have came forward ....

 

[Crusader21]

DV is a smart guy, I'd be 99.9% sure he reads these pages! Google 'suzy lamplugh discussion' for example.

Wonder will our questions feature in this Q & A session!?

 

[Terryb808]

DV is a smart guy, I'd be 99.9% sure he reads these pages! Google 'suzy lamplugh discussion' for example.

Wonder will our questions feature in this Q & A session!?

Probably not, far too probing.

 

[Crusader21]

Here's another Q -

Now deceased witness Harry Riglin and a number of other people came forward to the police, reportingly witnessing a 'blonde haired lady' and a 'good-looking, tanned, suited man' in Shorrolds Road at lunchtime. There must be a high probability that these individuals were there that day, at that time.

Q. Any ideas as to who this couple was and why they were at No 37 at exactly the same time that Suzy faked her house-viewing appt?

 

[Crusader21]

Probably not, far too probing.

You reckon DV is just involved in a bit of a pre-Christmas sales pitch for his book? This may be the case ....

 

[WestLondoner]

Probably not, far too probing.

Yes, I suspect the questions accepted will mainly be those he answers in the book. If you were to ask "Have you edited all mention of your actual suspect and theory out of the book because libel?", he can't really say Yes because then nobody'd buy the book, and if he said No, I doubt anyone on here would believe him...

 

[WiseOwl]

DV live on You Tube, Weds December 15th, 9pm UK time.

As 'David will also answer your questions live on air', if you were able to put a question to DV on the SL case, what would you ask?

Thanks for posting this @Crusader21, I will definitely be tuning in next Wednesday evening!

My question to DV would be: Have you ever read Andrew Stephen's book?

 

[asyousay]

My question to DV would be


If Suzy had spoken to somebody at the pub and saidn she would go to the PW later on what makes him suspect she went in her lunch break?

 

[Konstantin]

Thanks for posting this @Crusader21, I will definitely be tuning in next Wednesday evening!

My question to DV would be: Have you ever read Andrew Stephen's book?

He has definitely read it, does he not refer to it in the book but he does not mention AS?
It is the definitive book on the case that had access to police investigation, he would have to be crazy not to have read it.
The AS book mentions CV (calling him by his real name), mentions his two police interviews, including the one in the review of the case a year (I think) after SJL disappeared in which CV did mention the phone calls he says that he got on that day asking after SJL. The police found that very odd at the time and had no report at all of them having been given a piece of paper with a phone number on it from CV. THey put it down to CV being muddled in his mind after a year, I think.

So yes he has read the book and that his how he knows about CV and how he tracked him down because CV is in the phone book under his real name, even if that's an old address (no idea) it would not be hard to find him from there. And no I am not suggesting anyone tries to do that.

 

[Konstantin]

It seems more likely to me that she went to do her other errand - retrieving her tennis kit so she could go straight to a game at 7pm following a viewing at 6pm. .

Well the source for the tennis appointment is only DL in an interview saying that SJL had told her she wanted to play tennis that evening.

We don't know if she actually was planning to, or if DL misremembered, or if she did tell DL that but changed her mind.

I am less inclined to take this tennis appointment thing as being a real thing that she actually planned that day and something that her mum suggested in one interview.

Why did DL not tell the police that when they interviewed her? She didn't seem to be anxious to go to wherever SJL might have played to see if she turned up or if someone she was meant to play with turned up and had had message from SJL, or the police didnt seem to want to find out who her partner was meant to be and follow up that lead. I just think we can't read that much into a throw away remark from DL.

 

[Konstantin]

My question to DV would be


If Suzy had spoken to somebody at the pub and saidn she would go to the PW later on what makes him suspect she went in her lunch break?

I think this is a pretty good question actually.

DV seems to imply that because he thinks she did not take the keys then this was not a real viewing and she must not have gone to 37SR and when we establish that we need to figure out where else she might have gone, and he lands on the pub as being the place she must have gone to, arguing that the diary was very important to her.

But she had told the pub she would be there at 18:00 so why do that and then turn up at 12:45?

You could argue well, she didn't want her colleagues to overhear her saying she would go there at 12:45 because that would not be allowed due to the staffing shortage. But in that case you would expect SJL to try to make the fake Kipper appointment as bona fide looking as possible to avoid being caught out-- assuming Sturgis were so strict she had to fabricate the appointment in the first place. If I were going to do that I would (1) not put a silly name like Kipper that is going to draw attention, I would say Smith or whatever, and (2) I would take along the keys and particulars as props to avvoid someone asking why i had not done that.

So yes, the pub is one place she MIGHT have gone but what makes him so sure in the absence of any knowledge about what was in her diary and how compelling it was for her to get it that lunchtime.

 

[WiseOwl]

He has definitely read it, does he not refer to it in the book but he does not mention AS?
It is the definitive book on the case that had access to police investigation, he would have to be crazy not to have read it.
The AS book mentions CV (calling him by his real name), mentions his two police interviews, including the one in the review of the case a year (I think) after SJL disappeared in which CV did mention the phone calls he says that he got on that day asking after SJL. The police found that very odd at the time and had no report at all of them having been given a piece of paper with a phone number on it from CV. THey put it down to CV being muddled in his mind after a year, I think.

So yes he has read the book and that his how he knows about CV and how he tracked him down because CV is in the phone book under his real name, even if that's an old address (no idea) it would not be hard to find him from there. And no I am not suggesting anyone tries to do that.

So if DV has indeed read AS's book then he would know that MG went to Shorrolds Road twice that day, actually went inside the property and also spoke to HR.

So why does DV not mention this to MG when he interviews him for his book? It is important information after all and, if true about the keys, would back DV's theory about Suzy not going to Shorrolds Road at all.

On the other hand, why does MG not mention it either? He surely would remember finding the keys and entering the property as well? What reasons would he have for keeping this quiet? And why didn't he tell police at the time he had found the keys?

All very confusing and not making any sense.

 

[asyousay]

Yes I don’t like the keys mystery at all and how could the police not suss this off the bat?


I will admit I wonder how truthful the book is as something’s don’t add up.


Then add in the Police being so dismissive about the evidence as well.

MOO

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

Well the source for the tennis appointment is only DL in an interview saying that SJL had told her she wanted to play tennis that evening.

We don't know if she actually was planning to, or if DL misremembered, or if she did tell DL that but changed her mind.

I am less inclined to take this tennis appointment thing as being a real thing that she actually planned that day and something that her mum suggested in one interview.

Why did DL not tell the police that when they interviewed her? She didn't seem to be anxious to go to wherever SJL might have played to see if she turned up or if someone she was meant to play with turned up and had had message from SJL, or the police didnt seem to want to find out who her partner was meant to be and follow up that lead. I just think we can't read that much into a throw away remark from DL.

We don't know if this is his only source for this information, he carried out lots of interviews he said, tracing many.

 

[WiseOwl]

I think this is a pretty good question actually.

DV seems to imply that because he thinks she did not take the keys then this was not a real viewing and she must not have gone to 37SR and when we establish that we need to figure out where else she might have gone, and he lands on the pub as being the place she must have gone to, arguing that the diary was very important to her.

But she had told the pub she would be there at 18:00 so why do that and then turn up at 12:45?

You could argue well, she didn't want her colleagues to overhear her saying she would go there at 12:45 because that would not be allowed due to the staffing shortage. But in that case you would expect SJL to try to make the fake Kipper appointment as bona fide looking as possible to avoid being caught out-- assuming Sturgis were so strict she had to fabricate the appointment in the first place. If I were going to do that I would (1) not put a silly name like Kipper that is going to draw attention, I would say Smith or whatever, and (2) I would take along the keys and particulars as props to avvoid someone asking why i had not done that.

So yes, the pub is one place she MIGHT have gone but what makes him so sure in the absence of any knowledge about what was in her diary and how compelling it was for her to get it that lunchtime.

If you look at the page from Suzy's diary that day she had an appointment at 6pm so wouldn't be able to get to the pub at that particular time.

Also CV did say that he'd taken a call from Suzy around lunchtime to say that she'd be there before they opened, but of course never turned up.

I agree though that there is no real evidence to say that Suzy was going to the pub at 12.45 that day.

In fact after MG had gone to lunch I don't see as to why Suzy would not just mention it to NH or SF that she was going to the pub to collect her things, why would she keep it a secret from them?

 

[Lady Stoddart-West]

For me, this important point more or less torpedoes CV as any sort of suspect. It is juuuuuuust about possible that he did the right thing, having found a random female's stuff; and that then, when the random female in question turned up and he got an eyeful of her, he was overcome with lust and decided to do her a bad turn instead of a good one. Even though her colleagues probably, the bank certainly, and others at the pub knew where she'd gone.

Trouble is, as well as doing this off the cuff, he also had the world's best hiding place ready to hand - what a stroke of luck. And when quizzed by the plod, he needlessly volunteered two phone calls, guaranteed to attract their intense curiosity. Now why would he do that? Wouldn't he just say Yes, she phoned around lunchtime and said she'd be over later, but she never came.

Incidentally, some of the accounts suggest that she didn't go to the pub at lunchtime at all, because on the phone she said she'd go over there later. It seems highly likely to me that this was for the benefit of / intended to be overheard by her office colleagues. Her story to them, via her diary, was that she was going to a viewing. So she couldn't very well say anything else on the phone to the pub. Hence she tells the pub later or after work but heads right over.



I would say not, but DV dwells on a previous case where a killer was interviewed downstairs with his victim's body under his bed upstairs - so who knows.



Yes, I'd guess more of a contacts diary really. But she did keep a diary in which she wrote “The company puts me in the window desk, as the most attractive female. That’s how it is, the most attractive female on display for any man to see.” Was that in a pocket diary or a third one, a larger private diary perhaps? If a pocket diary it would not have been in the one the police retrieved, because she was hired in 1985.

The slightly chilling thing about this diary is that we can probably infer that her killer is not in it. If he were, he'd presumably want the diary to disappear when she did.

I think DV is right that she went off on this direction and not to 37SR, but where I part company from him is his claim that she went to the PoW and died there. It seems more likely to me that she went to do her other errand - retrieving her tennis kit so she could go straight to a game at 7pm following a viewing at 6pm. As has been pointed above, she could have retrieved her diary at any time that evening, but if she kept her 6pm viewing appointment she'd have missed her 7pm tennis. If you were her and pushed for time at lunchtime wouldn't you go home as first priority and to the pub only if there was time? DV notes that he tennis stuff was found by the police at home, so she never went there. But her other stuff was found by the police at the pub, so by the same logic she didn't go there.

There is something DV has left out that he can't tell us.

What was in this pocket book? DV seems to suggest the police may know it was allegedly salacious. Was this 'secret diary' the source of what AS decided not to include in the book but unfortunately had to later disclose to family. NB: AS interviews etc.