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

[PPowell]

I've just started to read the David Videcette book and thought this forum is a good place to seach for a discussion on the case, and was wondering if I can ask a question.

Everybody seems to know who CV is. Are they just writing CV as it's a well known person to save writing the name out in full, or is it because the theory isn't proved so worried about writing the name? Is there any info you can give me for a clue to who CV is please?

 

[WestLondoner]

Hi there PPowell

CV is short for "Clive Vole", and this is not an individual's real name either. It's a pseudonym David V has given to anonymise that individual. "CV" is someone on whom suspicion inferentially falls based on the facts and deductions set out in DV's book. I guess he is anonymised either because libel or because putting his real name out there would prejudice a trial if ever there were one.

In the 1987/88 book by Andrew Stephen, CV's part in events is described using his real name. This is why he is sometimes referred to on here as "KH", or "CV/KH". Andrew Stephen didn't suggest that KH was anything other than an honest witness.

It's been pointed out to me here that David Videcette likes his word games. His surname is an anagram of "detective". One of the former Lamplugh case detectives he interviews, supposedly "Albert Clyne", is an anagram of "clearly bent". I don't know what CV's name is an anagram of, possibly nothing, but it seems likely that DV's anonymised everything else about him as well - location, height, appearance, deafness etc...

 

[Konstantin]

Just some additional points of interest from the AS book, which contradict information that DV published (I would take the AS book to be correct on these points simply because AS had access to police sources and files for his research and this was all done very soon after events when things were still relatively fresh.)

1. Soon after MG phoned the police at 18:45 on the day that SJL disappeared--the Monday--the police sent two officers to enter and search the address and Shorrolds Road and following that an officer was posted on guard duty outside:

"The duty inspector, Ken THompson, was alerted. So too were the CID at the station, and from there two plainclothes detectives were immediately sent to 'enter and search' 37 Shorrolds Road. Nothing of apparent relevance was found but a constable was posted on guard duty outside."

So if this is the case, the police had to enter the premises shortly after MG called in with his report that SJL was missing. Either they met MG there and he gave them the key--which would surely have raised questions in his mind as he would have known that SJL did not take it in that case--or the two plainclothes officers just put the door in with their shoulder as they did to SJL's flat. If the door had a simple yale lock it wouldn't take much to do that, and the police would then have to resecure it so it wasn't standing unlocked, unless they mounted a permanent guard on it until forensics came.

The Duty Inspector, Johnstone, did indeed despatch officers to SJL's apartment as well to check she was not there but that occurred AFTER the officers were sent to Shorrolds Road. Johnstone himself visited the address on Shorrolds Road that same night.

2. On the Tuesday morning less than 24 hours after SJL disappeared, two officers were sent to the PoW pub to collect SJL's missing items in particular they were interested in her diary. AS writes that:

"The landlord had found them the previous Friday night soon after SJL had apparently dropped them after having dinner with AL at Mossops restaurant in Upper Richmond Road. The publican contacted her bank on Monday morning who duly rang her at Sturgis. She then spoke to the landlord's wife at around 12:40 that lunchtime--in other words immediately before she left the office--and arranged to pick them up at six o'clock on MOnday evening. But she never turned up."

So there are two important points here: (a) that the police knew about the missing diary and its location at the PoW pretty much immediately, and sent someone the very next morning to talk to CV and KF and (b) SJL did NOT speak to CV on the phone to arrange to pick up her stuff but to KF. I assume that the resident landlord and his wife would have been gone by 12:40 and so KF was the landlord's wife in question here.

That is crucial I think, because how did the police know that SJL spoke to KF unless they confirmed that fact with her? They would have wanted her to confirm this point, to see what SJL had said exactly.

Also, it adds some credence to CV's story that someone from the police called him soon after SJL went missing. Although if they called the day before it would have been in the evening, because MG didn't call the police until 18:45

I wonder if more people knew that SJL was supposed to go to the PoW at 18:00 that night or if it had been suggested--despite her appointment for a viewing--and someone did call the PoW after the police and say listen, if she does show up there, please let us know. Because by then lots of people were looking for her.

 

[WestLondoner]

I am actually quite sceptical of anything in AS' book purporting to be factual that originates from the police records.

For example, he assumes that the cheque book etc were lost on the Friday night but there's good reason to think otherwise. He describes SJL leaving the office and MG "remembering" her leaning over him to get the keys. MG can't have remembered anything of the kind because he'd left the office already.

The entire supposed sequence of events relating to 37SR is thus suspect. There's no evidence, in photos taken outside the following morning, of the house having been entered forcibly. HR's supposed recollection of "Mr Kipper", like his recollection of SJL being forced into a car and his positive ID of DK, the BMW owner in Antwerp, as Mr Kipper, shows his evidence to be worthless. The likeliest sequence of events at 37SR is that MG and SF turned up there, couldn't get in because keys, made a racket and HR later ID'ed MG as "Mr Kipper". HR then made up two visits. This was suggested at the time to the plod, who tittered and held their sides.

We don't know who SJL spoke to at the PoW and when, but the chances are there were two calls. One was to arrange the 6pm pickup. The second was to cancel it and rearrange pickup for right away. She'd never have arranged it for 6pm in the first place had she known about the 43 Waldemar appointment. Once that appointment was sought, she booked in the 6pm viewing, rang the pub to change the arrangement, and left right away.

Given the pig's ear the police have made of the timeline, it's entirely plausible that SJL spoke to someone at the pub mid-morning, then rearranged at 12.40 with someone else. That someone else did not mention any rearrangement of the visit. So the police went away happy that KF had been the only person to speak to SJL, and that CV had not done so. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

 

[Terryb808]

I am actually quite sceptical of anything in AS' book purporting to be factual that originates from the police records.

For example, he assumes that the cheque book etc were lost on the Friday night but there's good reason to think otherwise. He describes SJL leaving the office and MG "remembering" her leaning over him to get the keys. MG can't have remembered anything of the kind because he'd left the office already.

The entire supposed sequence of events relating to 37SR is thus suspect. There's no evidence, in photos taken outside the following morning, of the house having been entered forcibly. HR's supposed recollection of "Mr Kipper", like his recollection of SJL being forced into a car and his positive ID of DK, the BMW owner in Antwerp, as Mr Kipper, shows his evidence to be worthless. The likeliest sequence of events at 37SR is that MG and SF turned up there, couldn't get in because keys, made a racket and HR later ID'ed MG as "Mr Kipper". HR then made up two visits. This was suggested at the time to the plod, who tittered and held their sides.

We don't know who SJL spoke to at the PoW and when, but the chances are there were two calls. One was to arrange the 6pm pickup. The second was to cancel it and rearrange pickup for right away. She'd never have arranged it for 6pm in the first place had she known about the 43 Waldemar appointment. Once that appointment was sought, she booked in the 6pm viewing, rang the pub to change the arrangement, and left right away.

Given the pig's ear the police have made of the timeline, it's entirely plausible that SJL spoke to someone at the pub mid-morning, then rearranged at 12.40 with someone else. That someone else did not mention any rearrangement of the visit. So the police went away happy that KF had been the only person to speak to SJL, and that CV had not done so. Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

This makes pure logical sence, and is a good reason for the bogus Mr Kipper appointment.
As far as I can see all the parts of the narrative fit together.
If (as I believe) Mrs CV was fully aware of what happened the only issue is what then happened to SJL’s body.
In this scenario CV could have moved her body during the night, as far as I’m aware there was no one else in the pub overnight.
The problem I think that DV feels is important is a search revealing nothing in the PoW. This is why he wants a full forensic inspection.
Two people are key to this, Mrs CV & the cellar man. Both were evasive when DV turned up to interview them. In the case of the cellar man, extremely so, if he has nothing to hide why not try and get some payback from DV for being interviewed?

 

[WestLondoner]

Mrs CV is a conundrum. Either she was part of what happened; or she wasn't but is aware of what happened; or she knew nothing about it. In all three cases, she is perhaps afraid of CV because she knows what he is presumably capable of doing.

Her reaction to DV's visit points IMO strongly to one of the first two. SJL's name was not even mentioned - just some lost property, a long time ago - yet she's instantly defensive and seems to know what it's about. When Caroline persists, she gets her husband on the phone - but doesn't want Caroline disclosing to him what she's come about. This is not the reaction you'd expect if she knew nothing.

The PoW cellarman is notably absent. He'd have had access to the required cellar, but all we hear is that he was called Brendon. There is no interview. There is another cellarman, ND, but he can't be the same guy under another name, because that's his name on the electoral roll. This one refuses to admit to existing. DV's interest in him was that he came forward weeks later, and repeated the police account of events at 37SR verbatim.

Could ND the cellarman have been an associate or mate of CV? Could he have been persuaded by CV to give the police a fictitious sighting of SJL at 37SR, once CV learnt from the media that the police were focusing on Mr Kipper? This would reinforce their conviction that she went there, and their belief in Mr Kipper, thereby ensuring they continued to misdirect themselves away from the PoW?

 

[Terryb808]

There’s only one thing missing and the Met pointed this out to DV and thats knowing what SJL’s diary contained.
They know and DV doesn’t, if it contains nothing suggestive and controversial then CV has no reason to demand favours or money.
It’s a great pity the content is such a secret.

 

[Crusader21]

As a matter of interest, does anyone know when the idea that CV was behind this first entered the discourse on this case? Was it before DV (obliquely) suggested it?

For me, KH / CV first became a figure of interest in the Chris Barry Dee book Prime Suspect.

Although Barry Dee has JC as our man, KH / CV is mentioned at length and his actions do appear to be very odd.

For years you could read the relevant sections relating to KH online, but these have now disappeared completely.

 

[Terryb808]

For me, KH / CV first became a figure of interest in the Chris Barry Dee book Prime Suspect.

Although Barry Dee has JC as our man, KH / CV is mentioned at length and his actions do appear to be very odd.

For years you could read the relevant sections relating to KH online, but these have now disappeared completely.

Yes, any mention of him or attempt to obtain evidence that highlights similarities to the James Galway man seem to be quickly removed.
If he’s innocent then I guess this is understandable, but it does mean that this thread is closely watched over and a report submitted almost immediately.

 

[Crusader21]

There's a section too on SL here which can be read online, by that same author. Requires a bit of searching and scrolling ....

Talking with Serial Killers 2

 

[Crusader21]

Fwd to 2.01 (2 hours and 1 min) into video for some pics of PoW in 80s, plus details of floor levels etc, etc!

 

[Konstantin]

I read the relevant bits in the Berry Dee book about CV.

First, most of what Berry Dee writes about SJL's movements before her disappearance etc seem to be lifted from the AS book, and so does what he writes about CV, he effectively is quoting AS without attribution.

I find Berry Dee's comment on the phone calls CV alleges were made to him to be illogical. Berry Dee claims, and he attributes this to "officers investigating the SJL case", that "Sarah" was phoning the pub to check on SJL and a man she knew SJL to be with, viz. JC.

Now that makes zero sense to me. It's inventing a lot of narrative that is just not supported by any evidence. So we can only take it as a theory that is based on conjecture and trying to make some sort of case for JC to have been involved.

SJL made her arrangement to go to the pub right before she left her office, although it is unclear whether that final call was to KH or CV (CV says it was to him). So for this theory to be right, she would have had to meet with JC, tell him, and he then told "Sarah" since according to this theory, "Sarah" knew that SJL was with JC and that SJL planned to go to the pub. But if this is the case, then (1) why didn't "Sarah" know that the appointment to go to the pub was at 6pm, according to CV (our only witness to this timing)? Why did she phone up so early asking if SJL had been already?

(2) If SJL met with JC at 12:40, how and when did JC inform "Sarah" of the pub story?

(3) If Sarah was told by JC that SJL and he were planning to go to the pub to collect her stuff--remember CV says that "Sarah" was talking about the stuff--why would she need to call the pub to check up on her? Surely, it would make more sense for "Sarah" to call Sturgis and ask them to get SJL to call her if it was that urgent.

(4) "Sarah" must have known SJL rather well to know all this and be so concerned for her to call, and so, given in this implausible narrative she is a friend of JC, she must have been terrified when CV came out with his evidence saying she had called, since "Sarah" knew that she had given CV her number, making her very easy to trace, and hence JC would have been revealed as well. Yet CV has no issues having this story of a potential link with very dangerous people (even though he couldn't have known specifically about JC, he might assume that "Sarah" and her friend, the abductor, were very dangerous). If you were "Sarah" and a mate of JC who you now know abducted and killed SJL, would you not be scared witless that CV gave the phone number you so eagerly gave him to the police? Might you not want to get him to change his story? You definitely wouldn't want him to suddenly recall all this a year later?

To be honest, a main reason for the "Sarah" phone call asking if SJL had "already been" could be to establish that SJL had NOT already been to the pub--if in fact she had already been and something had happened. It's a way of trying to provide a sort of alibi for SJL not having been there yet, because someone phoned up looking for her--thus also showing others knew of these mysterious plans--and CV is able to say that she hasn't been there.

 

[Terryb808]

I read the relevant bits in the Berry Dee book about CV.

First, most of what Berry Dee writes about SJL's movements before her disappearance etc seem to be lifted from the AS book, and so does what he writes about CV, he effectively is quoting AS without attribution.

I find Berry Dee's comment on the phone calls CV alleges were made to him to be illogical. Berry Dee claims, and he attributes this to "officers investigating the SJL case", that "Sarah" was phoning the pub to check on SJL and a man she knew SJL to be with, viz. JC.

Now that makes zero sense to me. It's inventing a lot of narrative that is just not supported by any evidence. So we can only take it as a theory that is based on conjecture and trying to make some sort of case for JC to have been involved.

SJL made her arrangement to go to the pub right before she left her office, although it is unclear whether that final call was to KH or CV (CV says it was to him). So for this theory to be right, she would have had to meet with JC, tell him, and he then told "Sarah" since according to this theory, "Sarah" knew that SJL was with JC and that SJL planned to go to the pub. But if this is the case, then (1) why didn't "Sarah" know that the appointment to go to the pub was at 6pm, according to CV (our only witness to this timing)? Why did she phone up so early asking if SJL had been already?

(2) If SJL met with JC at 12:40, how and when did JC inform "Sarah" of the pub story?

(3) If Sarah was told by JC that SJL and he were planning to go to the pub to collect her stuff--remember CV says that "Sarah" was talking about the stuff--why would she need to call the pub to check up on her? Surely, it would make more sense for "Sarah" to call Sturgis and ask them to get SJL to call her if it was that urgent.

(4) "Sarah" must have known SJL rather well to know all this and be so concerned for her to call, and so, given in this implausible narrative she is a friend of JC, she must have been terrified when CV came out with his evidence saying she had called, since "Sarah" knew that she had given CV her number, making her very easy to trace, and hence JC would have been revealed as well. Yet CV has no issues having this story of a potential link with very dangerous people (even though he couldn't have known specifically about JC, he might assume that "Sarah" and her friend, the abductor, were very dangerous). If you were "Sarah" and a mate of JC who you now know abducted and killed SJL, would you not be scared witless that CV gave the phone number you so eagerly gave him to the police? Might you not want to get him to change his story? You definitely wouldn't want him to suddenly recall all this a year later?

To be honest, a main reason for the "Sarah" phone call asking if SJL had "already been" could be to establish that SJL had NOT already been to the pub--if in fact she had already been and something had happened. It's a way of trying to provide a sort of alibi for SJL not having been there yet, because someone phoned up looking for her--thus also showing others knew of these mysterious plans--and CV is able to say that she hasn't been there.

I only read CBD’s book Prime Suspect to get a handle on what JC was really like. I personally don’t rate the book for any of its other content.
CBD had already written another book claiming that another well known criminal was responsible for the disappearance of SJL.
This is why his book is called Prime Suspect, on the other hand DV spent a lot of time & money writing a book that actually makes sence and not one that borrowed from others.
In conclusion Prime Suspect shows JC to be more than capable of the crime, but offers no evidence to show he did commit it.

 

[Konstantin]

I only read CBD’s book Prime Suspect to get a handle on what JC was really like. I personally don’t rate the book for any of its other content.
CBD had already written another book claiming that another well known criminal was responsible for the disappearance of SJL.
This is why his book is called Prime Suspect, on the other hand DV spent a lot of time & money writing a book that actually makes sence and not one that borrowed from others.
In conclusion Prime Suspect shows JC to be more than capable of the crime, but offers no evidence to show he did commit it.

I read this book too, and agree with your assessment.

DV started from what evidence was out there and followed that to see where it led, he didn't try to fit facts around a narrative.

 

[Terryb808]

Fwd to 2.01 (2 hours and 1 min) into video for some pics of PoW in 80s, plus details of floor levels etc, etc!

This video was more interesting than I thought it was going to be. I skipped to 2.01 as suggested, but continued to watch to the end.
She highlights some coincidences at the end related to , Me Kipper, Herring, SR, the 6.00pm appointment and it’s proximity to Stevenage Road.
I tend to agree with Criminologist David Wilson when he said “when it comes to crime, I don’t believe in coincidences”
I’m aware that the police checked this out and eliminated Herring as a suspect, but given their track record so far that’s no recommendation.
It’s a coincidence that these things have tenuous links, but this case it littered with coincidences that link tenuously together.

 

[WestLondoner]

Wardo, Waldemar and Stevenage are all quite close together, but I am not sure that is much of a coincidence. Given that these are streets in Fulham and SJL was a Fulham estate agent, how far apart could they really be?

 

[Terryb808]

Wardo, Waldemar and Stevenage are all quite close together, but I am not sure that is much of a coincidence. Given that these are streets in Fulham and SJL was a Fulham estate agent, how far apart could they really be?

Isn’t Herring linked to all 3?

 

[WestLondoner]

What's the Stevenage link?

 

[Terryb808]

What's the Stevenage link?

Didn’t Herring live in 2 locations and SJL’s car was abandoned in the third.
You could put this entirely down to SJL, she would have known Herring lived in both locations and that came to mind when she put Mr Kipper in her desk diary.
It’s a bit of a coincidence that her car was abandoned 1/2 mile from her 6.00pm appointment, especially when you consider the perpetrator had no knowledge of her appointments.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV suggests the Mr Kipper name came from the fact that Herring, nicknamed Kipper, was associated in SJL's mind both with the road already at the top of her diary page, and also Shorrolds, which he suggests she used for a fake appointment because it was a new instruction, fresh in her mind. As for Stevenage, well, as I say she was a Fulham estate agent; and thus, anywhere she was likely to go was near anywhere else she was likely to go.

It's probably correct to be suspicious of coincidences, but OTOH, the entire police case against JC relies on them. The only coincidence the police don't seem to have established was a coincidence whereby JC was actually, definitely in Fulham that day.

DV's thinking on all this seems to me to be very clear-headed. To work out what happened to her, you ask yourself where she might have gone. You then search and eliminate them. The police had decided within a few hours that the only place she could have gone was to a viewing, or home. So they searched those places but they saw no reason to search the pub where she might also have been going.