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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

I would like to see the original diary entry you quote. It was said in the AS book that SJL had the desk nearest the window because she was the most attractive female, but she wasn't exactly spotlighted and sat sideways on. Even if what you quote comes from her family, I would still like other evidence. Looking at photos of Sturgis - as seen in the 1986 Crimewatch reconstruction - most of the staff seem quite visible. I don't imagine SJL would have simply put up with her desk if she didn't like it. And chivalry was (and still is) a formidable force. She could have moved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought MG went to the Crocodile Tears wine bar and met colleagues from other branches? This was in the 1988 AS book.

It was in both AS & DV's books about MG going to the Crocodile Tears but there is discrepancies in the time.

In AS's book it states that MG saw Suzy picking up the keys to go to Shorrolds Road, but in DV's book apparently he went to lunch at midday meaning he wasn't around when Suzy picked up the keys at 12.40 to go to view the property.

He is interviewed twice in DV's book and at no time does he mention seeing Suzy pick up the keys for Shorrolds Road.
 
I would like to see the original diary entry you quote. It was said in the AS book that SJL had the desk nearest the window because she was the most attractive female, but she wasn't exactly spotlighted and sat sideways on. Even if what you quote comes from her family, I would still like other evidence. Looking at photos of Sturgis - as seen in the 1986 Crimewatch reconstruction - most of the staff seem quite visible. I don't imagine SJL would have simply put up with her desk if she didn't like it. And chivalry was (and still is) a formidable force. She could have moved.

I don't know who surfaced it but it is cited here: The woman who disappeared: why is Britain still obsessed with Suzy Lamplugh?

And I recall my 20-something female colleagues at the time, who went to sales appointments alone, finding it unnerving.

I'd question that she didn't like it. My reading of that entry is that she did like it.
 
It was in both AS & DV's books about MG going to the Crocodile Tears but there is discrepancies in the time.

In AS's book it states that MG saw Suzy picking up the keys to go to Shorrolds Road, but in DV's book apparently he went to lunch at midday meaning he wasn't around when Suzy picked up the keys at 12.40 to go to view the property.

He is interviewed twice in DV's book and at no time does he mention seeing Suzy pick up the keys for Shorrolds Road.
Can you give me the AS page number for MG saying he saw Suzy pick up the keys? I've just looked and it says: 'She went to pick up the keys from the key board behind MG's desk' - but there is no mention of him seeing her. That is on page 29 of the paperback edition.
 
The 'kipper tie' thing seems to come in years later. The quote about JC requesting kippers for breakfast and kipping easily in the hostel/prison comes from the 1988 book.

Are you sure? JC wasn't charged until 1988 and wasn't convicted until 1989. A book written in 1988 suggesting JC was involved would have been in contempt of court, because it would have prejudiced a fair trial.
 
I don't know who surfaced it but it is cited here: The woman who disappeared: why is Britain still obsessed with Suzy Lamplugh?

And I recall my 20-something female colleagues at the time, who went to sales appointments alone, finding it unnerving.

I'd question that she didn't like it. My reading of that entry is that she did like it.
Yes, it does sound rather like SJL to like it. No criticism. She was living the life. Misandrist Feminism does tend to taint the waters as the years go on. We were living in the 1980s - the age of the chaperone was long past - and women could, and in fact, always had spoken out.
 
Are you sure? JC wasn't charged until 1988 and wasn't convicted until 1989. A book written in 1988 suggesting JC was involved would have been in contempt of court, because it would have prejudiced a fair trial.
You are absolutely right! Getting my sources muddled. Sorry!
 
Can you give me the AS page number for MG saying he saw Suzy pick up the keys? I've just looked and it says: 'She went to pick up the keys from the key board behind MG's desk' - but there is no mention of him seeing her. That is on page 29 of the paperback edition.

I haven't read AS's book, I took the information from @sian morris's posts (#937 & #938) which referred to this.

I believe Sian also quoted it was on Page 6 of AS's book.
 
I haven't read AS's book, I took the information from @sian morris's posts (#937 & #938) which referred to this.

I believe Sian also quoted it was on Page 6 of AS's book.
Yep, thanks for that. 'The estate agent manager remembered SJL coming behind his desk to pick up the keys...' It is on page 6. No direct quote from MG though.
 
Yes, it does sound rather like SJL to like it. No criticism. She was living the life. Misandrist Feminism does tend to taint the waters as the years go on. We were living in the 1980s - the age of the chaperone was long past - and women could, and in fact, always had spoken out.

Also, it's only her own reported explanation of where she was seated. AFAIK nobody from the firm ever confirmed that yes, they put good-looking women at window desks to interest male passers-by. It could easily just be vanity speaking - which would be easier to establish if we knew the tone of her other diary entries.
 
Yep, thanks for that. 'The estate agent manager remembered SJL coming behind his desk to pick up the keys...' It is on page 6. No direct quote from MG though.

That's what some of us were debating the other day, where exactly did AS get his information from for his book?

We have read that he had access to the police files from the original investigation but how accurate are these? For instance, where does the quote come from about MG remembering seeing Suzy coming behind his desk to get the keys? From MG himself? Another member of staff? An assumption on the part of the investigating officer?

We just don't know.
 
Also, it's only her own reported explanation of where she was seated. AFAIK nobody from the firm ever confirmed that yes, they put good-looking women at window desks to interest male passers-by. It could easily just be vanity speaking - which would be easier to establish if we knew the tone of her other diary entries.
AS quotes some of the diary entries and it doesn't really sound like her. As I say, she could have moved - of that I'm 100% convinced, having worked in male/female workplaces since I left school in 1981. It was probably a vanity thing - and if the firm suggested it, she could have refused easily. In the 1986 Crimewatch reconstruction, we see the SJL actor at her desk through the window and she wasn't exactly showcased there.
 
That's what some of us were debating the other day, where exactly did AS get his information from for his book?

We have read that he had access to the police files from the original investigation but how accurate are these? For instance, where does the quote come from about MG remembering seeing Suzy coming behind his desk to get the keys? From MG himself? Another member of staff? An assumption on the part of the investigating officer?

We just don't know.
I wonder if he just assumed or thought it had been said? He was a journalist, not a police officer. I'm a writer and confusion can slip in - as I've proved here! :)
 
Can I just ask - I haven't read DV's book yet, would people recommend it? Does it bring new evidence to light, and is it a useful pointer in finally resolving what happened to SJL?
 
I wonder if he just assumed or thought it had been said? He was a journalist, not a police officer. I'm a writer and confusion can slip in - as I've proved here! :)


AS worked closely with the original team and had the benefit of thousands of pieces of information. However his SL 'impartial' book was later received, he had a very good reputation as an editor, journalist, writer and was selected by the family for this reason. There are articles available on line that discuss his book, its reception, his meticulous research and difficulties he faced later on.

AS was put in touch with the two main detectives on the case but also, as he says in own words: ’sought out other police officers at all levels of the MET as well and received considerable unofficial co-operation from them. The detectives had not only carefully talked to everyone connected to the tragedy but literally thousands of others too, and in effect, I am able to take advantage of their vast research and knowledge of the case. Before long, I knew a great about Susannah Lamplugh and her disappearance

AS clearly thought that the morning's events in the office were inconsequential so didn't hyper focus here. A few things he did say were interesting, not least SL was in an unusually good mood and that her final call was with the landlord's wife. This final call was seconds before she left the office at lunchtime and she was half sitting on desk and half standing up, anxious to leave as soon as possible. Who or what was the source of this information? CV? I felt that she'd organised picking up her belongings with the pub rather earlier NOT seconds before she left. Did this indicate a change a plan? Bringing the time forward for their collection? It would have been useful to bring this earlier account to the attention of SF and MG to see if it further jogged their memories, after they had spoken freely first, without bias from this earlier account.
 
Last edited:
Can I just ask - I haven't read DV's book yet, would people recommend it? Does it bring new evidence to light, and is it a useful pointer in finally resolving what happened to SJL?

I personally would recommend DV's book but I won't say anything else about it as it's best to read it yourself and form your own opinion.

What I will say though is that DV does have his own theory on what happened to Suzy, and he has presented his findings to the Met.
 
One of the things about the 1988 AS book is so much could not be revealed. Even the management of Faber and Faber said some 'incredibly difficult stuff' was left out. SJL led a complex life when it came to relationships. The 'left out' stuff might have been the key to unnerving somebody enough to give himself away - or have prompted more people to come forward with different evidence. DL hated the idea, of course. I suppose it's understandable. Many a grieving parent would want to preserve their own view of their child.



see this is so selfish of the parents and probably IMO jeopardized the case. She was a adult and free to make adult choices and they let their own selfish needs go before catching the killer.


MOO
 
see this is so selfish of the parents and probably IMO jeopardized the case. She was a adult and free to make adult choices and they let their own selfish needs go before catching the killer.


MOO
Good point, however, no parent would want the press painting a picture of SJL being a little more than a prostitute. Harsh I know, but if you read some of the newspapers of the time you’ll see that this was a real danger.
They were in a no win situation, preserve her reputation and keep the public on side, or let the press paint a totally different picture and loose public support.
Doing the former undoubtedly hindered the police investigation.
 
Good point, however, no parent would want the press painting a picture of SJL being a little more than a prostitute. Harsh I know, but if you read some of the newspapers of the time you’ll see that this was a real danger.
They were in a no win situation, preserve her reputation and keep the public on side, or let the press paint a totally different picture and loose public support.
Doing the former undoubtedly hindered the police investigation.



Ooh wow yes as a parent you never want such things published and as they were middle class as well they wanted their reputation intact. But it’s still super frustrating they got so much leeway with the police.


But as you rightly pointed out to me it was a completely different era and one that I have no idea about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
1,502
Total visitors
1,719

Forum statistics

Threads
599,391
Messages
18,095,271
Members
230,858
Latest member
friesandchips
Back
Top