UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #2

[Terryb808]

Some great applied logic in our recent posts, it’s an insult that the Mets JD said he hates armchair detectives.
He needs to realise that they have no agenda other than to find the truth.
Not JC did it, now let’s make everything fit that.

 

[Konstantin]

He was picked up in Finlay Street, which is a turning off Stevenage Road, about a quarter of a mile south of where the car was found. This is actually back towards the bridge, in the general direction of the pub. So if this is CV, he's heading the right way.

What I am not sure of is where the BT workers were. The car was parked on the 'wrong' side of the road i.e. someone cut across the road to dump it there. If the BT workers were further up in the same direction, then CV perhaps heads south to have his back to them. If they were in one of those little red and white workmen's tents at the time, it might not have been obvious to him that anyone was inside. There is nothing in the area today that looks like a phone junction box though.

Well, I found an article that describes this incident. The fare was put down in North End Road, "near McDonald's". There is a McDonalds on that road today, but I don't know if it is in the same place as it was back then. If so it seems to be a short walk from there to West Brompton Tube, from where you can get the District Line a couple of stops to East Putney, which appears to be right next to the PoW pub.

I mean, it's a very nice place to be dropped off if you did want to go to that station but didn't want the driver to know you were going to that station.

Obviously though this is all pure conjecture.

How well did this person know London though to be able to pull that off? You would need a good knowledge of that area to give a location for your drop off close to that station and know that it was a couple of stops away from the station you wanted.

It's very interesting that the person chose to cross the road to park on the other side, why? It does suggest that there might have been cars parked all the way along the left hand side that he was driving up, and at that stage he didn't want to turn around and find another place to park so he just dumped the car in an available spot.

 

[WestLondoner]

he Mets JD said he hates armchair detectives.

At least we are armchair detectives, as opposed to...well...armchairs.

it's a very nice place to be dropped off if you did want to go to that station but didn't want the driver to know you were going to that station.

100%. Yes it is.

How well did this person know London though to be able to pull that off?

According to DV, MH, the regular landlord of the PoW, was a training manager who as of late 1985 / January 86 had been training couples to run pubs. The couples lived in while training. CV and KF were his third pair of trainees. So they had had ample time to get familiar with the immediate area. I'd say it was possible - whenever I've relocated to new places I've usually got familiar with the locale in a week or two.

 

[Konstantin]

At least we are armchair detectives, as opposed to...well...armchairs.


100%. Yes it is.


According to DV, MH, the regular landlord of the PoW, was a training manager who as of late 1985 / January 86 had been training couples to run pubs. The couples lived in while training. CV and KF were his third pair of trainees. So they had had ample time to get familiar with the immediate area. I'd say it was possible - whenever I've relocated to new places I've usually got familiar with the locale in a week or two.

So they had been trained while living in the pub, then either called back to cover the days that MH took off or the end of their training coincided with them being asked to immediately do a few days cover alone? That was the first time they had done relief cover at this pub?

Am I remembering correctly that CV was very detailed about remembering he'd gone for a Chinese takeaway the night he found SJL's missing stuff? (I remember thinking that this was an odd thing to remember after all this time, unless he had gone over the story again and again because he had to give witness statements and so on. I gave a witness statement 10 years ago regarding a road accident I saw, and I can remember some of the key things I put in it--about where I was and what I had been doing before I saw the accident--there is no way that I would have remembered these mundane things now if I hadn't written the statement. But for example, this incident was so long ago I couldn't tell you the exact time of day it was or the month it happened in, who else had been around, what I had been wearing, etc. So maybe this individual has a very good memory or maybe he is someone who storifies or pads his accounts to give extra detail, it could be his usual style of speaking. We don't know.

I'm going to go back and read DV again and also AS which has now come down in price somewhat...

 

[WestLondoner]

So they had been trained while living in the pub, then either called back to cover the days that MH took off or the end of their training coincided with them being asked to immediately do a few days cover alone? That was the first time they had done relief cover at this pub?

Basically yes, although the exact timings are a slightly tricky to unravel. MH went off to be trained by the brewery in how to be a training manager in late 1985, and then "He’d taken his first live-in couple at the pub on their twelve-week course in January 1986....‘I had one couple that came from the North [CV and KF], one couple from London, and another couple from Cornwall.’"

The slight timing anomaly is that the week of 28/7/86 was week 30 of the year, so if CV/KF were the third couple, and already living there, they can't have completed more than 5 or 6 weeks of the 12 by then. Clearly, they hadn't yet got to the module about Not Murdering Estate Agents And Hiding Them On Licensed Premises, which was presumably advanced material, only delivered to trainees around week 11 or 12.

If they were a previous couple, had completed the 12 weeks but had as you suggest been called back to act as relief, then CV would have lived there for at least 3 months previously; and may possibly have moved on to other pubs nearby meanwhile. MH says that he used to stay with CV and KF occasionally but they broke up 6 months later; this doesn't give MH much opportunity to have stayed with then as a couple if he met them for the first time only while training them. So possibly CV was a previous trainee / acquaintance; but it's then not clear what happened to the current PoW trainee couple, who are never mentioned.

Am I remembering correctly that CV was very detailed about remembering he'd gone for a Chinese takeaway the night he found SJL's missing stuff?

You are indeed. Funny thing to remember, but if, as you say, you have had to repeat it many times, that perhaps fixes the details in a way that doesn't usually happen.

I put in a macabre quip about not murdering estate agents above but it occurs to me that this could be an incredibly banal but plausible reason for CV to conceal a genuine accident. If someone dies at the PoW the first hour while he's in charge there, he's never going to get a license to run pubs, because he could be considered not of good character - which is a factor. Could his rationale have been that simple? "I'm 30, if I lose this job I'll never get another in the pub trade, and I'll have to start all over again"?

 

[Terryb808]

Some great applied logic in our recent posts, it’s an insult that the Mets JD said he hates armchair detectives.
He needs to realise that they have no agenda other than to find the truth.
Not JC did it, now let’s make everything fit that.

Basically yes, although the exact timings are a slightly tricky to unravel. MH went off to be trained by the brewery in how to be a training manager in late 1985, and then "He’d taken his first live-in couple at the pub on their twelve-week course in January 1986....‘I had one couple that came from the North [CV and KF], one couple from London, and another couple from Cornwall.’"

The slight timing anomaly is that the week of 28/7/86 was week 30 of the year, so if CV/KF were the third couple, and already living there, they can't have completed more than 5 or 6 weeks of the 12 by then. Clearly, they hadn't yet got to the module about Not Murdering Estate Agents And Hiding Them On Licensed Premises, which was presumably advanced material, only delivered to trainees around week 11 or 12.

If they were a previous couple, had completed the 12 weeks but had as you suggest been called back to act as relief, then CV would have lived there for at least 3 months previously; and may possibly have moved on to other pubs nearby meanwhile. MH says that he used to stay with CV and KF occasionally but they broke up 6 months later; this doesn't give MH much opportunity to have stayed with then as a couple if he met them for the first time only while training them. So possibly CV was a previous trainee / acquaintance; but it's then not clear what happened to the current PoW trainee couple, who are never mentioned.


You are indeed. Funny thing to remember, but if, as you say, you have had to repeat it many times, that perhaps fixes the details in a way that doesn't usually happen.

I put in a macabre quip about not murdering estate agents above but it occurs to me that this could be an incredibly banal but plausible reason for CV to conceal a genuine accident. If someone dies at the PoW the first hour while he's in charge there, he's never going to get a license to run pubs, because he could be considered not of good character - which is a factor. Could his rationale have been that simple? "I'm 30, if I lose this job I'll never get another in the pub trade, and I'll have to start all over again"?

One point about remembering details, in theory CV only had to recall what happened twice. Once when the police called to collect the diary etc and the second time a year later when the police returned to question the witnesses again.
Then there’s DV’s interview 30 plus years on, and it’s this one with the level of detail that is suspicious.
Let’s be objective, you step in to manage the PoW for a week, SJL disappeared that week and you just happened to find her things the day before she went missing.
Okay, big deal on the day, but 30 years on it’s just history.

 

[Konstantin]

Basically yes, although the exact timings are a slightly tricky to unravel. MH went off to be trained by the brewery in how to be a training manager in late 1985, and then "He’d taken his first live-in couple at the pub on their twelve-week course in January 1986....‘I had one couple that came from the North [CV and KF], one couple from London, and another couple from Cornwall.’"

OK. I think this is a really relevant point. It would really be worth having this clarified (maybe DV has done so and not published the details).

If MH's timings are accurately remembered then he can't have had three couples complete the 12 week course by the time that SJL went missing.

I wonder if he's doing something as simple as listing the couples he had in order, but the third couple came after SJL disappeared.

That would make sense because you wouldn't want to have to run training courses with no breaks, you would probably take a few weeks in between couples. Maybe it was CV that came first, as he is listed first, then the London couple, and then CV and KF came back to act as relief after the London couple had gone. They would be looking for work experience by then.

I don't think that it would have been allowed for a couple just a few weeks into the course to act as your relief cover. They won't have covered everything they need to have. Also there is nothing to say that CV and KF continued on at the pub after MH returned from his trip away. So this is a question that needs to be put to MH.

MH says that he used to stay with CV and KF occasionally but they broke up 6 months later; this doesn't give MH much opportunity to have stayed with then as a couple if he met them for the first time only while training them. So possibly CV was a previous trainee / acquaintance; but it's then not clear what happened to the current PoW trainee couple, who are never mentioned.

So he must have stayed with them AFTER he trained them. Meaning, that could be in between him training them and the London couple arriving for training. He got to know them in the 12 weeks they stayed with him, and went to visit them. Then he would have had to stay with them AFTER SJL went missing, since he stayed a few times and they broke up 6 months later and CV quit the trade. After only a very short time in it, and a big investment in his training. And that would leave KF in the lurch as you have to be a couple to run a pub apparently.

 

[Terryb808]

What is puzzling is the fact that the PoW landlord got on so well with CV. He told DV that he visited CV & partner in the North East.
It’s not a place you’d go for a holiday, so the attraction must be the people and not the place.
This bond was formed within the 12 weeks training period, it appears to have been strong enough for the landlord to have them back to take over when he needed to be away.
On the subject of memory isn’t it odd that DV said the landlord told him they had a fly infestation in the cellar when he got back.
I don’t think I’d remember such a thing 30 plus years later.

 

[WestLondoner]

So presumably there'd been one couple for 12 weeks, a gap, then another couple for 12 weeks, then another gap, at which point the LL needs to take some holiday. He wants to be covered by someone he has trained, so one of those couples is seconded back.

We tend not to discuss the accident possibility but could that be what it was? Literally within the first hour CV's left on his own in the pub, someone dies in it. He thinks he'll be accused of her murder, or that he'll be blamed and lose his whole line of work, so he covers it up.

The trouble with it I guess is that hiding SJL's death requires him to have panicked, in effect. Nothing about CV's presumed actions looks like panic; however - quite the reverse.

 

[Terryb808]

I think DV has thought it was an accident and CV just had an incredible run of good luck avoiding detection.
He’s gone into a mode where he’s thinking automatically.
Hide the body in the void, move it later.
Get rid of her car, Stevenage Road (triggered by the Craven Cottage connection).
Get back to the PoW quickly, use a cab and then the tube (in case someone saw me abandon the car).
Make up the “right ruck story” to put SJL in Stevenage Road.
IMO his reactions are calm in the light of what happened, so much so that it makes you wonder if this is the first time it’s happened.
In this case I’d be surprised if he didn’t move the body somewhere else. The constant thought that it could be discovered at any time is too great a risk.
It looks like you could get a car to the rear of the PoW, certainly to the side door. This complicates the narrative because while CV may be the prime suspect, there’s as little actual evidence that he is the perpetrator.
Especially if SHL is not in the PoW cellar or on the railway embankment.

 

[WestLondoner]

If I were the perp, I might have stashed the body under that floor pro tem, but if left there, it incriminates me absolutely. Nobody else but the staff would have had access, and when she disappeared there were really only two staff it might have been: CV, and the cellarman. But there's no reason why the cellarman would have known SJL was coming whereas CV admits speaking to her. So it's CV who'd have to explain a body.

So as a priority he ought to have wanted to move the body, but he'd have to do so when his partner wasn't around and he wasn't observed. Moving her to the embankment would say he had to do this at night; but then his partner's around. By day his partner's not necessarily around, but then he can't really do the embankment thing. So he can't do it by day and he can't do it by night. Hence logically, he'd either have to move her elsewhere or in some other way, or she's still there.

The interview with KF suggests she knows something about all this, even if all she knows is she needs not to answer any questions.

 

[Terryb808]

If I were the perp, I might have stashed the body under that floor pro tem, but if left there, it incriminates me absolutely. Nobody else but the staff would have had access, and when she disappeared there were really only two staff it might have been: CV, and the cellarman. But there's no reason why the cellarman would have known SJL was coming whereas CV admits speaking to her. So it's CV who'd have to explain a body.

So as a priority he ought to have wanted to move the body, but he'd have to do so when his partner wasn't around and he wasn't observed. Moving her to the embankment would say he had to do this at night; but then his partner's around. By day his partner's not necessarily around, but then he can't really do the embankment thing. So he can't do it by day and he can't do it by night. Hence logically, he'd either have to move her elsewhere or in some other way, or she's still there.

The interview with KF suggests she knows something about all this, even if all she knows is she needs not to answer any questions.

IMO CV’s partner knows what happened, she went along with the cover up and they parted 6 months later.
Her reaction to DV turning up speaks volumes, I can’t see any other reason for it.
In these circumstances she’s an accessory and has a lot to loose.

 

[WestLondoner]

I wonder if she and CV read the diary, saw mention in it of the substantial commissions SJL was earning and said to themselves OK, rich four-timing cow can write us a cheque if she wants her diary back - or we show it to her mother / boyfriend / etc....There's an altercation, SJL dies, CV takes charge but both are implicated.

It's far fetched, but then going to a pub at lunchtime and vanishing is far fetched, and that is what actually happened...

 

[Terryb808]

I wonder if she and CV read the diary, saw mention in it of the substantial commissions SJL was earning and said to themselves OK, rich four-timing cow can write us a cheque if she wants her diary back - or we show it to her mother / boyfriend / etc....There's an altercation, SJL dies, CV takes charge but both are implicated.

It's far fetched, but then going to a pub at lunchtime and vanishing is far fetched, and that is what actually happened...

I don’t think it’s far fetched at all, probably very true, maybe one day soon we’ll get the truth?

 

[WestLondoner]

When DV / Caroline talked to KF in DV's book, first she wouldn't talk at all. Then when Caroline went back on her own, she had phoned her husband, who ranted at Caroline to get lost - but throughout,

...she kept saying stuff to me like, “I’ll have the phone back now. Can I have the phone back?’ all the time I was still talking to him. It was almost as if she didn’t want me explaining anything to him. I got the impression she hadn’t really told him what we were actually there about.’​

That's actually quite interesting. It's almost as though she's made something up to get her husband angry at these callers so he'll rant at Caroline. But she keeps trying to get the phone back before Caroline can explain to him what she has actually come about. It's as though her real reason is not what he's just been told, and / or, maybe this is the first time he would ever have heard about her connection to the SJL case, and / or, what if Caroline tells him she and DV never even mentioned SJL yet somehow his wife knew exactly who they were there about?

Wouldn't that be interesting if so?

 

[Konstantin]

When DV / Caroline talked to KF in DV's book, first she wouldn't talk at all. Then when Caroline went back on her own, she had phoned her husband, who ranted at Caroline to get lost - but throughout,

...she kept saying stuff to me like, “I’ll have the phone back now. Can I have the phone back?’ all the time I was still talking to him. It was almost as if she didn’t want me explaining anything to him. I got the impression she hadn’t really told him what we were actually there about.’​

That's actually quite interesting. It's almost as though she's made something up to get her husband angry at these callers so he'll rant at Caroline. But she keeps trying to get the phone back before Caroline can explain to him what she has actually come about. It's as though her real reason is not what he's just been told, and / or, maybe this is the first time he would ever have heard about her connection to the SJL case, and / or, what if Caroline tells him she and DV never even mentioned SJL yet somehow his wife knew exactly who they were there about?

Wouldn't that be interesting if so?

Yes I agree.

I can understand if she didn't want to talk to the media and have, say, sensationalist Daily Mail reporters buzzing around trying to make crazy headlines up, although I think for legal reasons there would be no story there, as any sensationalist headline would have to hint at something that could really result in a libel charge against the paper.

Also this case is decades old and KF's association with it, officially, is incredibly tangential. It's not a case that is in the news that much at all any more and when it is, JC is the "hook" for the story, which is something that would very much point away from KF.

There is clearly some bad blood or very real emotional tension between KF and CV even now all these decades after they broke up--didn't they break up 6 months after the SJL disappearance? I can't imagine being at all fussed about an ex partner of such ancient history unless they were extremely scary and abusive. Which is not something that MH, for example, picked up on if it were the case. If this pair have a story they got straight with each other they wouldn't want either to talk to anyone about it individually because that could upset the story for sure, which is what DV seemed to me to be hinting at in how he reported all this.

It could be something as simple as SJL did say she was popping over there that lunch time and never turned up and when it came out she was missing, this pair agreed to say she was meant to come at 6pm just because they didn't want any trouble, especially if, for example, SJL's diary was a bit racy and they were scared the police might pin something on CV. So they agree to this story, then it comes out that SJL could not have come to the pub at 6 because she had an appointment, so CV digs himself in deeper with some phone call stories, and now they are worried if this all comes out he is going to look like he did something he didn't.

It could just be that the SJL case was so upsetting that it upset both of them deeply thinking of their tangential connection to what is a very harrowing case of a young woman losing her life so suddenly and with no resolution. I don't know how that would affect someone so many years on.

 

[Terryb808]

Yes I agree.

I can understand if she didn't want to talk to the media and have, say, sensationalist Daily Mail reporters buzzing around trying to make crazy headlines up, although I think for legal reasons there would be no story there, as any sensationalist headline would have to hint at something that could really result in a libel charge against the paper.

Also this case is decades old and KF's association with it, officially, is incredibly tangential. It's not a case that is in the news that much at all any more and when it is, JC is the "hook" for the story, which is something that would very much point away from KF.

There is clearly some bad blood or very real emotional tension between KF and CV even now all these decades after they broke up--didn't they break up 6 months after the SJL disappearance? I can't imagine being at all fussed about an ex partner of such ancient history unless they were extremely scary and abusive. Which is not something that MH, for example, picked up on if it were the case. If this pair have a story they got straight with each other they wouldn't want either to talk to anyone about it individually because that could upset the story for sure, which is what DV seemed to me to be hinting at in how he reported all this.

It could be something as simple as SJL did say she was popping over there that lunch time and never turned up and when it came out she was missing, this pair agreed to say she was meant to come at 6pm just because they didn't want any trouble, especially if, for example, SJL's diary was a bit racy and they were scared the police might pin something on CV. So they agree to this story, then it comes out that SJL could not have come to the pub at 6 because she had an appointment, so CV digs himself in deeper with some phone call stories, and now they are worried if this all comes out he is going to look like he did something he didn't.

It could just be that the SJL case was so upsetting that it upset both of them deeply thinking of their tangential connection to what is a very harrowing case of a young woman losing her life so suddenly and with no resolution. I don't know how that would affect someone so many years on.

Like the thinking, but I personally wouldn’t be that concerned about it on the day 36 years ago.
With guilt come fear, now 36 years on someone turns up wanting to interview her for his book. A lifetime has passed, this should have made what should be an insignificant event even more insignificant.
So if you have nothing to hide why react like that, all it does (to any self respecting detective) is make you suspicious.

 

[Konstantin]

So I found some other oddities about the CV story that are worth considering, after going back and reading the part of the DV book where he interviews MH, the pub landlord.

1. MH says that he new CV and KF pretty well and went to stay with them in their house if they were on holiday up north and the pair were there. But he then says that after the pair split up, which he recalls as being within 6 months of the SJL disappearance, he "never heard from either of them again after that."

So that suggests if MH is remembering the year correctly that he started to train people, CV and KF had to have been the first couple since there would not have been time for this close friendship to develop and for MH to go and stay with them on more than one occasion--it is implied that he stayed with them more than once.

It's slightly odd then, that after the SJL disappearance and the breakup of the couple over, as MH recalls it, KF deciding she didn't want to run pubs any more, the pair of them never made contact again with their good friend MH.

2. This is even odder. MH was around when SJL's items were found and "handed in" as he puts it. He was not there when the police turned up to interview the pub landlord regarding the items. and it was CV who was interviewed. (This is because by that time, MH had gone off on his personal business and CV was in charge of the pub as relief cover). A year later, the police came back to the pub to reinterview CV. MH recalls that this was when he "found out the items were connected to a missing persons case."

So, two things here. First, did the police not have any contact details for CV--his home phone in the north? They believed he was still working at the pub and went there to track him down. So CV didn't tell them he was the relief cover?

That's minor though and probably there is a simple explanation. What is not easy for me to explain away is why CV did not tell MH when MH returned and surely asked, what happened when I was away? Anything to note? that the missing items that MH was present when they were found were in fact connected to a missing persons case. Why would he not say that? Surely as part of your handover you would mention this, say that the police might come back, even ask MH to contact them to ask if he can add to the statements since CV would have known that MH was around at the time they were found?

All I can come up with here is that the police thought the missing items were so trivial and unconnected to SJL's disappearance that no one really took that much notice of this tiny loose end, and CV wasn't bothered by it. Even so, it's notable enough as an incident to have reported it to MH, and if it were so trivial, why did CV recall a year later about two very weird phone calls? If those phone calls happened why would he not tell this as part of his story to MH? (He never told MH anything about this at all.)

 

[Terryb808]

So I found some other oddities about the CV story that are worth considering, after going back and reading the part of the DV book where he interviews MH, the pub landlord.

1. MH says that he new CV and KF pretty well and went to stay with them in their house if they were on holiday up north and the pair were there. But he then says that after the pair split up, which he recalls as being within 6 months of the SJL disappearance, he "never heard from either of them again after that."

So that suggests if MH is remembering the year correctly that he started to train people, CV and KF had to have been the first couple since there would not have been time for this close friendship to develop and for MH to go and stay with them on more than one occasion--it is implied that he stayed with them more than once.

It's slightly odd then, that after the SJL disappearance and the breakup of the couple over, as MH recalls it, KF deciding she didn't want to run pubs any more, the pair of them never made contact again with their good friend MH.

2. This is even odder. MH was around when SJL's items were found and "handed in" as he puts it. He was not there when the police turned up to interview the pub landlord regarding the items. and it was CV who was interviewed. (This is because by that time, MH had gone off on his personal business and CV was in charge of the pub as relief cover). A year later, the police came back to the pub to reinterview CV. MH recalls that this was when he "found out the items were connected to a missing persons case."

So, two things here. First, did the police not have any contact details for CV--his home phone in the north? They believed he was still working at the pub and went there to track him down. So CV didn't tell them he was the relief cover?

That's minor though and probably there is a simple explanation. What is not easy for me to explain away is why CV did not tell MH when MH returned and surely asked, what happened when I was away? Anything to note? that the missing items that MH was present when they were found were in fact connected to a missing persons case. Why would he not say that? Surely as part of your handover you would mention this, say that the police might come back, even ask MH to contact them to ask if he can add to the statements since CV would have known that MH was around at the time they were found?

All I can come up with here is that the police thought the missing items were so trivial and unconnected to SJL's disappearance that no one really took that much notice of this tiny loose end, and CV wasn't bothered by it. Even so, it's notable enough as an incident to have reported it to MH, and if it were so trivial, why did CV recall a year later about two very weird phone calls? If those phone calls happened why would he not tell this as part of his story to MH? (He never told MH anything about this at all.)

Great points, this just makes it even clearer that CV has something to hide. If he is such a scatter brain then how can he be trusted to run a pub.
As you point out it’s good practice to debrief the permanent landlord on what’s happened while he’s been away and to prepare him for the possibility that the police may return to question him.
On its own it supports the “insignificant event” possibility, but when taken with the change in statement one year on, and his partner’s reaction to DV, it becomes suspicious.
What doesn’t add up is that CV left the permanent landlord with a body in the cellar of the PoW (or on the embankment) and if found to face the consequences.
No one with any sense would do this, it’s just far too risky.

 

[WestLondoner]

That was what I was wondering a page or two back. The regular landlord, who's apparently your mate, comes back from his break and asks, "So - anything happen while I was away?"

What happened was that you spoke to a woman who's still in the news as a missing person. You were the last person to speak to her. She arranged to come to the pub and get the lost items that the landlord put aside on the fuse box in the cellar. Then there was a call from a woman saying had "us Susan" arrived yet, and keep her there if she turned up. Then a bloke claiming to be the plod phoned up asking the same thing. These were just the calls you took. You don't know if there were others besides that Karen took. SJL never did turn up. But at 10pm the police did, and collected her stuff. In the week or two since, you've been watching the TV coverage that says she went to meet a Mr Kipper at 12.44, which is odd because you spoke to her at 12.40 and she was then coming to your pub.

So what's your answer to the landlord's question?

"Nothing."

DMAFF, as the young people say!