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

[WestLondoner]

Not sure. From DV's book, AL knew about the lost chequebook but now thinks it was lost on Friday. SF vaguely remembered SJL mentioning it.

It is an interesting point. If two other people knew about it, it suggests she had mentioned this in the office. When she went - in DV's sequence of events - to fetch it, she had to cover up what she was doing, hence the fake diary entry.

It is CV nowadays who suggests that the police were round the same day for it. This is remarkably fast and efficient work by the plod, who in 1986 were otherwise unimpressive. But of course, on day 1, they didn't yet have their Mr Kipper fixation in place, which by the next day they did.

So this supports the possibility, floated above somewhere, that CV's present account is actually accurate. The police possibly didn't turn up until the next day, by which time their Mr Kipper fixation was taking hold - and so nobody thought to search the pub. The goal was to retrieve the diary, in case it identified an abductor.

This timeline would also allow the calls from the unknown woman and the supposed police officer to have actually happened, largely as CV outlined.

Searching the pub would resolve this...! But if the pub (and the railway embankment) are both clear, well, we are back to square one. To square zero, really, with all known destinations that day for SJL ruled out.

It still doesn't put JC in the frame. A good point made above but one not often picked up is that JC was an inept criminal, and is basically a very dim bulb indeed. I mean with the Shirley Banks murder, the fool had her car keys in his briefcase, her car in his garage and her fingerprints on paperwork in his flat. He then went out to rape someone, taking along his briefcase that c0ntained evidence which incriminated him in another serious crime. If his car had been stopped just for having a defective brake light, and been searched, he'd have been in deep trouble. How dim is that? In his dating video he refers to "Macchu Poocchu", and he doesn't know what "sedimentary" means. He seems to have got caught pretty well every time he offended. He's pointed to as a suspect in the Sandra McCourt murder, but he presumably has the hostel curfew as his alibi, so it doesn't look like he did that. If so, the only crimes he committed are the ones he was caught for, and he got caught for all of them. So how did he get so good at avoiding detection in 1986, only to become rubbish again by 1987?

 

[Konstantin]

So this supports the possibility, floated above somewhere, that CV's present account is actually accurate. The police possibly didn't turn up until the next day, by which time their Mr Kipper fixation was taking hold - and so nobody thought to search the pub. The goal was to retrieve the diary, in case it identified an abductor.

AS says that two police officers were sent around to the pub the day after she went missing i.e. on the Tuesday morning, to get the diary and the chequebook. Let's assume that AS is accurate, since he was presumably taking this info from police records so why would this be fabricated. CV/the pub was not a suspect/crime scene etc. This was as you say before the Kipper hypothesis took hold as the only scenario.

So they found out really fast that she had lost her stuff and it was at that specific location meaning someone told them (1) SJL had lost a diary that could contain personal info and (2) it was located at the PoW, meaning whoever told the police KNEW about the PoW. Who could they have got that info from so fast?

This means that SJL MUST have told someone else about the stuff being in the PoW but she couldn't have known that until the bank called her on MOnday morning and told her that the pub had the stuff, at least, this is the version of events we've been led to believe happened right?

So if SJL lost the stuff on Friday then she might have been fussing about it all weekend, told Adam, BUT she didn't talk to him on Monday did she? So he could not have been the source who told the cops. Adam was busy all day Monday as per his alibi whcih was checked and his last call with SJL according to him was the Sunday night. So she did not tell him about the PoW

So the only other scenarios that make sense to me are;

-- SJL called her mum on Monday morning and told HER about it. Except DL didn't mention the PoW or any phone call with SJL to MG when he called her plus DL never told the police or media that SJL called her on Monday so that can't be the source.

-- SJL called a friend, Sarah and told her-- but she can't be the source as the police could not trace a Sarah who called the pub, and she didn't tell her friend Sarah Puff Hough. So Sarah Puff isn't the source.

-- SJL told someone in Sturgis about this and they told the police about it. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. SJL found out about this on Monday morning while she was physically located at Sturgis. The police went there and talked to the staff, then immediately after--on the Tuesday morning--two officers are sent to pop to the PoW to pick up the stuff and get a statement from CV.

So the question I have is, if someone at Sturgis told them --
WHO?
And why did MG act as if he did not know about the diary when DV interviewed him? The diary is a big deal. It's a possible location SJL went to that day, we know she didn't turn up (well, the official narrative says she didn't) but she could really have headed that way. I know it sounds far fetched but were Sturgis sort of covering for SJL thinking they didn't want the bosses to know she was going about on personal errands at lunch with the managers there knowing? And then things just sort of got too late to put the record straight? Is MG and co just really scatty? He went to Shorrolds looking for her not the PoW but then Shorrolds is nearer. If he knew about the diary why did he not just call the pub see if she had been there?
Could this be the source of CV's weird Sarah story-- it was someone from Sturgis (maybe he heard Sturgis as Sarah... given that he has hearing issues, maybe he had them back then too) who called the pub since the office KNEW SJL had left her diary there (since someone knew as someone told the police that same day or maximum the morning after, first thing).
Honestly I think this is a possibility. Someone from Sturgis called the PoW after SJL had told them this story. And the police never documented this or if they did it's not made it into the public domain e.g. AS didn't deem this interesting enough to put into his book, the media never cottoned on and tried to interview CV, the police didn't seem to think the pub was of interest AT ALL...

 

[Terryb808]

AS says that two police officers were sent around to the pub the day after she went missing i.e. on the Tuesday morning, to get the diary and the chequebook. Let's assume that AS is accurate, since he was presumably taking this info from police records so why would this be fabricated. CV/the pub was not a suspect/crime scene etc. This was as you say before the Kipper hypothesis took hold as the only scenario.

So they found out really fast that she had lost her stuff and it was at that specific location meaning someone told them (1) SJL had lost a diary that could contain personal info and (2) it was located at the PoW, meaning whoever told the police KNEW about the PoW. Who could they have got that info from so fast?

This means that SJL MUST have told someone else about the stuff being in the PoW but she couldn't have known that until the bank called her on MOnday morning and told her that the pub had the stuff, at least, this is the version of events we've been led to believe happened right?

So if SJL lost the stuff on Friday then she might have been fussing about it all weekend, told Adam, BUT she didn't talk to him on Monday did she? So he could not have been the source who told the cops. Adam was busy all day Monday as per his alibi whcih was checked and his last call with SJL according to him was the Sunday night. So she did not tell him about the PoW

So the only other scenarios that make sense to me are;

-- SJL called her mum on Monday morning and told HER about it. Except DL didn't mention the PoW or any phone call with SJL to MG when he called her plus DL never told the police or media that SJL called her on Monday so that can't be the source.

-- SJL called a friend, Sarah and told her-- but she can't be the source as the police could not trace a Sarah who called the pub, and she didn't tell her friend Sarah Puff Hough. So Sarah Puff isn't the source.

-- SJL told someone in Sturgis about this and they told the police about it. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. SJL found out about this on Monday morning while she was physically located at Sturgis. The police went there and talked to the staff, then immediately after--on the Tuesday morning--two officers are sent to pop to the PoW to pick up the stuff and get a statement from CV.

So the question I have is, if someone at Sturgis told them --
WHO?
And why did MG act as if he did not know about the diary when DV interviewed him? The diary is a big deal. It's a possible location SJL went to that day, we know she didn't turn up (well, the official narrative says she didn't) but she could really have headed that way. I know it sounds far fetched but were Sturgis sort of covering for SJL thinking they didn't want the bosses to know she was going about on personal errands at lunch with the managers there knowing? And then things just sort of got too late to put the record straight? Is MG and co just really scatty? He went to Shorrolds looking for her not the PoW but then Shorrolds is nearer. If he knew about the diary why did he not just call the pub see if she had been there?
Could this be the source of CV's weird Sarah story-- it was someone from Sturgis (maybe he heard Sturgis as Sarah... given that he has hearing issues, maybe he had them back then too) who called the pub since the office KNEW SJL had left her diary there (since someone knew as someone told the police that same day or maximum the morning after, first thing).
Honestly I think this is a possibility. Someone from Sturgis called the PoW after SJL had told them this story. And the police never documented this or if they did it's not made it into the public domain e.g. AS didn't deem this interesting enough to put into his book, the media never cottoned on and tried to interview CV, the police didn't seem to think the pub was of interest AT ALL...

It makes perfect sense to mw, if DL had been aware of the PoW possibility she would have (in all likelihood) made the police take a more serious look and even search the pub.
Whoever told the police about the diary must have been a member of the Sturgis staff, given MG went to SR on Monday, that whoever person must have told the police on the Tuesday.
What is odd is that the police searched her flat & SR on Tuesday, but ignored the PoW pub, they went to collect her things, questioned CV and believed him explicitly when he said she hadn't been in to collect her things.
As WestLondoner said if the PoW & the embankment are searched and nothing found, we are back to square zero, also I agree with the conclusions that JC is a very inept criminal. However, having said that the chain of events that fits JC did it are:

• JC stalks SJL on Monday and (as he has done in the past) car jacks her in Whitingstall Road.
• He has already arranged a safe place to take her, which he does.
• JC dumps her car in Stevenage Road.
• Returns to his safe place.
• By Wednesday afternoon SJL's disappearance is all over the press & TV
• JC panics and kills SJL.
• Thursday morning (5.00am) JC dumps SJL's body in the canal at Gallows Bridge

Because of the time that has elapsed its not possible to prove this, his car partner (the cook) has passed away, the witness that is supposed to have seen him dump a large bag of some kind in the canal has also passed away and his account can't be traced via any official police records.
It's not surprising that the canal witness account was found by JD, this makes me suspicious as as far as I know his knowledge of the case is poor and he's not as diligent as DV when it comes to research.
I generally feel JC didn't have anything to do with SJL's disappearance, but if the PoW is clear and JC didn't do it we're left with a lot more suspects and all with a lot of conjecture, none of which can be proved.

 

[Konstantin]

Whoever told the police about the diary must have been a member of the Sturgis staff, given MG went to SR on Monday, that whoever person must have told the police on the Tuesday.

Yes I agree. We know someone told them and it can really only have been Sturgis. And yes probably Tuesday morning or at a push late on the Monday since MG only phoned the police later on didn't he? So the other staff might have gone home by then? SF vaguely recalls SJL talking about a chequebook but can't remember if it was the same Monday, if she'd have told the police you'd think she'd recall that. I do tend to think probably it was MG and he's being a bit cagey about it for some reason.

 

[WestLondoner]

The window for SJL to mention this to anyone other than Sturgis was actually pretty short.

If we figure the bank opened at 9.30, which back then they did, then the PoW phones the bank after then. The bank works out where to reach SJL and does so. SJL then calls the PoW, so probably not much before 10.30 given that she's working and she has to catch someonenot involved in the stocktake. She asks them what time they open (pubs then closed in the afternoon and reopened around 6). She arranges to go there at 6.

Shortly after, the 6pm viewing gets requested. She books this because it means money. She now has to rearrange her 6pm PoW visit. She can't slip out in the afternoon because the PoW will be closed. It has to be at lunchtime.

All that has to happen between 9.30 and 12.30, around her and the OoW's busy morning.

I don't see how she has time to tell anyone outside the office. She's too busy and it doesn't merit a special call - who needs to know except the pub?

Hence it must be from colleagues that the police heard about the pub.

 

[Konstantin]

I'm kind of gobsmacked by this tbh.
SJL's colleagues, or at least one of them, had to have known her diary and chequebook had been lost in the pub because there is no other way the police found that out so fast--less than 24 hours after she went missing. They knew because she told them, meaning the PoW was an obvious place she could have gone to given the fishy nature of the Mr Kipper appointment. MG even thought she might have been off down Putney for some shopping. SJL might even have planned to grab her tennis stuff after she'd nipped by the pub as it was close to her flat. Wasn't her tennis stuff out on display in her flat, suggesting she might have put it out to take with her and forgot?

Soooo if her colleagues knew she had lost property at the pub and SJL didn't return and people were off looking for her... wouldn't the pub be, oh I don't know, a place you would think to call to see if she had popped around? And wouldn't you tell the guy who answered who said she hadn't been, well if she turns up tell her to call me?

I'd assume that you'd also say you were calling from her office but maybe there was a reason for not saying that.

I don't know. In this light I'd believe CV about the phone calls. The police might have called him but on the Tuesday, given that calling a pub in the evening when it was busy and noisy with customers wasn't the best time to have a chat. At the very least it offers an explanation for the calls. How come the police didn't think that's what it could have been?

 

[Terryb808]

The window for SJL to mention this to anyone other than Sturgis was actually pretty short.

If we figure the bank opened at 9.30, which back then they did, then the PoW phones the bank after then. The bank works out where to reach SJL and does so. SJL then calls the PoW, so probably not much before 10.30 given that she's working and she has to catch someonenot involved in the stocktake. She asks them what time they open (pubs then closed in the afternoon and reopened around 6). She arranges to go there at 6.

Shortly after, the 6pm viewing gets requested. She books this because it means money. She now has to rearrange her 6pm PoW visit. She can't slip out in the afternoon because the PoW will be closed. It has to be at lunchtime.

All that has to happen between 9.30 and 12.30, around her and the OoW's busy morning.

I don't see how she has time to tell anyone outside the office. She's too busy and it doesn't merit a special call - who needs to know except the pub?

Hence it must be from colleagues that the police heard about the pub.

Again perfect logic. SJL gets the new 6.00pm appointment for the viewing and most likely a sale. She'd arranged to go to the PoW at the same time, so she calls them back and asks if she can call in at around 1.00pm, CV says okay.
I'm sure DV has worked this out, it is the most likely sequence of events once you reject the mysterious Mr Kipper, and the one the police should have looked at back then and most certainly (if they are seriously interested in solving the case) should do so now.

Unfortunately I don't think they will.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Again perfect logic. SJL gets the new 6.00pm appointment for the viewing and most likely a sale. She'd arranged to go to the PoW at the same time, so she calls them back and asks if she can call in at around 1.00pm, CV says okay.
I'm sure DV has worked this out, it is the most likely sequence of events once you reject the mysterious Mr Kipper, and the one the police should have looked at back then and most certainly (if they are seriously interested in solving the case) should do so now.

Unfortunately I don't think they will.

all very good points but there is another possibility, she did arrange the POW for 6pm then the legit 6pm viewing comes in. Isn’t it just as likely she went the POW without telling anyone (inc the pub) and surprised CV and an “incident” occurred because she surprised him. Why bother to tell anyone inc the POW she probably thought it wouldn’t matter

 

[WestLondoner]

@TimFisher1965

She was apparently speaking to the PoW - for the second time that morning - while getting up to go. So it looks like the visit was rearranged.

There does seem to be a possibility that CV's account is partly correct. The problems with it are that nobody from Sturgis recalls making that call, no police officer made the second call, and there cannot have been a call from Sturgis and a call from a police officer on the same day. They would have to be on consecutive days.

 

[TimFisher1965]

@TimFisher1965

She was apparently speaking to the PoW - for the second time that morning - while getting up to go. So it looks like the visit was rearranged.

that account comes from AS book doesn’t it? So reliant on second hand account at best but I acknowledge it may be true. IF it’s true then CV was expecting her asap so two points if he had a plan to do something he would be ready and secondly he lied about these events when interviewed by everyone

There does seem to be a possibility that CV's account is partly correct. The problems with it are that nobody from Sturgis recalls making that call, no police officer made the second call, and there cannot have been a call from Sturgis and a call from a police officer on the same day. They would have to be on consecutive days.

 

[Terryb808]

all very good points but there is another possibility, she did arrange the POW for 6pm then the legit 6pm viewing comes in. Isn’t it just as likely she went the POW without telling anyone (inc the pub) and surprised CV and an “incident” occurred because she surprised him. Why bother to tell anyone inc the POW she probably thought it wouldn’t matter

Going to the PoW without telling anyone would mean she didn’t know it was closed for the stock taking exercise. Or when she called to arrange her 6.00pm collection she was told that the pub would open as soon as the stock take had been completed.
I’m not up on the routine for pubs now or back then, but I’d have thought it cleaner to open early evening, rather than a random time which depends on the stock take.
We still have the question related to how the police knew so quickly that the PoW had her lost items. If she told no one that she was going to the PoW then how did the police turn up on Tuesday to collect her diary?
To be fair they could have called her bank and that’s how they learned about her lost items, this is a possibility because DL didn’t know, and colleagues at Sturgis would know she’d had a call from her bank.

I still think it makes perfect sense that she went to the PoW when the possibility of a sale clashed at 6.00pm. Also, if she planned to play tennis (I believe at about 7.00pm) this reinforces this conclusion.
We can be sure she didn’t collect her tennis kit as it was still in her flat, so logically she went to the PoW and never left.

Sadly if she never made it home or to the PoW we’re lost in the many other possibilities which have no evidence at all.

 

[WestLondoner]

I think to accept CV's version of events as correct, we have to assume that he's recalled the general drift correctly, but has misremembered the details.

Essentially he says that SJL called as she was leaving to see she'd be round later, but with no time specified. A woman called Sarah then rang to say Has "us Susan" been there yet, keep here there, and a man rang from Chelsea police asking the same. Later the actual police turned up, and he claimed in 1987 to have related all the above to them in 1986.

So let's see. Pulling together what people have suggested above, can we outline a sequence of events in which all of that is roughly, but not exactly what happened?

See you later from SJL could actually have been See you in a bit. So that's plausible in a call at 12.40 on Monday; she meant, see you in 10 minutes. Roughly right.

A woman called Sarah then rang to say keep here there. But did the caller really say Keep her there? How was CV supposed to do that? Don't know, but as suggested above, the fact of a call is plausible if made by a Sturgis workmate trying to track her down. That has to be Monday, because obviously nobody was still expecting her to keep any PoW appointment by the next day. Roughly right.

A policeman from Chelsea calls. This can't have been on the Monday afternoon, because the police weren't yet involved. But perhaps, instead of asking CV Has she been for the diary, his question was Did she come for the diary? Because next day, the Sturgis person who rang the pub on Monday told the police about the pub visit. The police - from Fulham, not Chelsea - ring the pub that next day to ask, Did she ever come for that stuff? And when told no, that's when the police go over there - the police call and visit happened on Tuesday. There, CV tells them what happened the day before. A year later, with imperfect recall, he's confused and repeats his account in a way that suggests two people rang looking for her on Monday before she was reported missing. Roughly right.

So there could have been two calls, but they were on different days, neither was from any Sarah and neither was from the Chelsea police. But a woman and the police may indeed have called. 35 years on, nobody at Sturgis can remember who mentioned the PoW to the police - but somebody did otherwise how did they know to go there. All it takes is for that mention of the PoW to have been the next day; for CV's rambling account to fail to make this clear, or for him to have forgotten; and for the police who went to the pub to have been as effective as the rest of the police involved so they failed to take proper notes of what they did.

So CV's account is actually possible if we accept it's off in the details.

 

[Terryb808]

What we should consider in CV’s recount of events is that:

• At the time it’s a missing person and the arrangement to collect her things may not have been that important to him.
• He’s not local, so Chelsea / Fulham police would be easy to mix up.
• Almost 12 months on CV’s not going to be any clearer regarding what happened that day.
• Move on 30 plus years and he’s going to be even more confused.

What is surprising is the amount of detail he gave DV when interviewed.
I certainly wouldn’t be able to do this unless the event was so important it’s permanent in your memory.

 

[Terryb808]

I wondered if DV might get together with either Netflix or Amazon and turn his book into a documentary. Having just watched the latest Monroe documentary I can see Netflix wanting a lot of background to produce a biography of the victim.
This is where the problems start, the true SJL biography (if we believe all the conjecture) would certainly not be something the Lamplugh family would want to see on the small screen.
A documentary would certainly provide the funding for a forensic look at the PoW, that's if the TV team can get access in the first place.

 

[Crusader21]

Some really great reasoning guys that could offer a credible explanation as to who actually rang the PoW, at what time and why. Well done ...

Could well mean that CV has absolutely nothing to do with SL's disappearance!

So CV's account is actually possible if we accept it's off in the details.

So even though she was heading to the PoW, SL never actually reached the pub?

She would have had to have been intercepted then en route at 12.40 ish.
(a 'interception' possibly with person(s) known to SL, with no struggle as SL initially did not realise she was in any danger, therefore no notable scenes to witness and report to police)

As has been said before this is the 'worst case senario'. SL driven away by 'friend(s)' never to be seen or heard of again. Where do you start with that?!

That senario also possibly means BW's 2.30 sighting may be correct, of SL (with male passenger) heading Hammersmith direction along the Fulham Palace Rd.

We're also in the vicinity for the fiesta to be abandoned around 3pm, on Steveage Rd .....

 

[Crusader21]

I wondered if DV might get together with either Netflix or Amazon and turn his book into a documentary.

I think for that to work a 'name' would need to be involved. A Sir Trevor McDonald type person.

But which high profiler would be brave to discount the long-standing, much defended police version of events? Also putting them at odds with the Lamplugh family ....

 

[Crusader21]

Also re a new tv documentary (based on DVs work), a simple google search on Suzy Lamplugh discussion throws up this forum.

I'm sure DV regularly lurks on these pages, he may even post from time to time.

Any serious researcher who doesn't wish to parrot the official / police line, would get real food for thought scanning through these pages.

Is there a hunger out there for the truth? Or is it OK still to rehash the old stuff that's led to absolutely nothing in the past?

Or is the 35 plus years now a deciding factor in never being able to unlock the Suzy Lamplugh Mystery?

 

[WestLondoner]

Could well mean that CV has absolutely nothing to do with SL's disappearance!

Yes, it could. From an initial read of DV's book, you'd not conclude that CV had anything to do with it. DV is all about finding out if CV's memory could be that selectively good. It's only when you finish that you work out that, if she really is under that floor, CV's the only person DV meets who could have put her there.

A search of the pub and rail embankment that found she isn't in either place would exonerate him. If she is it incriminates him because it proves she went there that day and nobody else but him had the access to hide her there.

So even though she was heading to the PoW, SL never actually reached the pub?

She would have had to have been intercepted then en route at 12.40 ish.
(a 'interception' possibly with person(s) known to SL, with no struggle as SL initially did not realise she was in any danger, therefore no notable scenes to witness and report to police)

As has been said before this is the 'worst case senario'. SL driven away by 'friend(s)' never to be seen or heard of again. Where do you start with that?!

That senario also possibly means BW's 2.30 sighting may be correct, of SL (with male passenger) heading Hammersmith direction along the Fulham Palace Rd.

We're also in the vicinity for the fiesta to be abandoned around 3pm, on Steveage Rd .....

Yes - all of that follows. If she was heading there but never arrived, then she was intercepted either a/ as she was leaving Sturgis, or b/ as she arrived at the PoW, or c/ at home to pick up her tennis stuff (whichever errand she ran first). There are some major questions, if that's what happened, about how she then disappears unnoticed, how her car ends up at Stevenage, and why Mrs CV threw such a wobbly when DV tried to speak to her. But this alternative version of events does allow some of the other sightings and accounts to be accurate after all, and does fit with a different reading of the timeline.

Is there a hunger out there for the truth? Or is it OK still to rehash the old stuff that's led to absolutely nothing in the past?

Or is the 35 plus years now a deciding factor in never being able to unlock the Suzy Lamplugh Mystery?

There's a hunger for viewers, I guess, to keep the billy bunters paying their Netflix subs. Every TV docu about this that I have seen has plunged headfirst, however, into the rabbit hole of making it fit it JC. That's always the starting point. None goes back to first principles, none considers everything we know, and none ever interrogates the very poor quality of the "evidence" and case against JC, nor the reasons why the police might want to frame him.

Until DV came along, nobody since AS has mentioned the PoW at all (I don't count CBD's efforts, as he rehashes AS, and then decides Fred West's brother dunnit).

As a result, these TV rehashings are all the same and all present the same flimsy non-case the CPS rejected 22 years ago.

 

[WestLondoner]

This is where the problems start, the true SJL biography (if we believe all the conjecture) would certainly not be something the Lamplugh family would want to see on the small screen.

The huge irony is that SJL's enviably busy sex life was, probably, never relevant anyway. The three reasons CV might assault - and, deliberately or accidentally, kill - SJL would be a grudge, or lust, or money. I really can't think of any others.

Unless he somehow wanted to get her to the PoW for someone else to settle their grudge, we can probably rule that one out, as there's no evidence he knew her or knew who she was.

Lust: well, if as seems likely he didn't know her, then for him to have assaulted her, he would have had to take one look as she showed up, instantly thought "yes please" and attacked her. And he'd have to kill her, because he can't rape her and then send her on her way; he can easily be found. So before she arrives he also has to know already where he will hide her if she's victim material.

Or, as the police suppose, she'd have had to have thrilled him with her diary so much that he attacked her. Well, really....I am not persuaded SJL, or many women generally, would record sexual exploits in a personal diary in such a way that anyone who got hold of it could work it out. From what we know of her, SJL played her cards pretty close, so she seems particularly unlikely to do this. The police have seen this diary and evidently don't think it contains anything 'salacious' enough to amount to a motive. And in any case, it all seems like a tall order for CV to do all that, off the cuff.

That leaves money, and I do wonder if that's what was going on. She might not list her sexual conquests in her diary - but what if she listed her bonuses? £3k due in that week's pay cheque? What if a flick-through and a tot-up showed she was making £35,000 a year, while CV's getting by on £8k a year all found, plus all the porky scratchings he can eat? Did he think he could demand a reward of £1,000 for the return of her stuff and there's then a row?

If so, it would solve some other niggling problems with any CV-did-it theory. If CV's a rapist he would need to be alone in the pub when SJL arrived. He's not going to risk getting interrupted mid-rape by his partner. But if he's a blackmailer, well, KF could have been there, either innocently elsewhere in the building while CV quietly demands cash, or involved. It's impossible to imagine KF colluding in a sexual assault, but good-looking airhead yuppie cow making £35k a year? And we've got her cheque book right here? We'll have some of that. But SJL ends up dead and KF is aghast and she splits up with CV and years later she reacts bizarrely when SJL's name has never even been mentioned. What explains that other than some degree of knowledge or involvement? Likewise why is CV so enraged? Do they each think the other has informed on them after all this time?

Of course, even finding her there now doesn't tell us what happened, only where it happened.

 

[Konstantin]

So there could have been two calls, but they were on different days, neither was from any Sarah and neither was from the Chelsea police. But a woman and the police may indeed have called. 35 years on, nobody at Sturgis can remember who mentioned the PoW to the police - but somebody did otherwise how did they know to go there.

If someone from Sturgis knew that SJL had important lost property at the PoW, then when discussing where she might have gone, that person would probably have mentioned this. We don't know if it was a Sturgis colleague who told the police but this seems the most likely to me, since her bank branch (who would have been the ones that CV called--chequebooks say which branch you use or used to, it would be a local one most likely) would not have known that SJL had gone missing. And if a Sturgis colleague knew the bank called her the only way for them to know is for her to tell them. Outside chance the bank called, got a colleague not SJL, told them it's her branch calling, and the colleague told the police she had a call from her bank. But I think that's less likely. SJL had a smoke break that morning with her colleagues, during which she could well have chatted about her missing cheque book etc being at the bank.

So it is possible that MG heard about this and when the police spoke with him asking where SJL might have gone to he mentioned this and the police just rang the pub and asked if she'd been in. I mean, the police DID go to Shorrolds Road that day (according to AS) and then later they also went to her flat. The police could NOT have called either of those venues to see if SJL was there or maybe they tried calling her flat first and when there was no answer they went round to see she was not lying there ill or dead. I think there is a very simple explanation for the CV calls and that was that someone in Sturgis pretty much HAD to have known SJL had a connection with the pub, meaning she was talkative that day about her stuff being there. Meaning if she made up an appointment to go there, she would be aware it was a flimsy cover story because her colleagues knew she had a reason to go somewhere else. Meaning also that the police could just have called the pub that day, it's a very reasonable thing to do actually. They certainly knew about it by Tuesday morning. We just have no real knowledge of what happened when or why these details got missed tbh

It also provides an explanation for why MG thought she might have gone to Putney "shopping" that lunchtime.

What is scandalous is that given all this was going on the only hypothesis that was followed was Shorrolds and Kipper. Why did MG not push more with the idea she very plausibly could have headed elsewhere?

However none of this means CV is involved of course, SJL could have arranged to meet someone else that lunchtime, or have come across someone else on her way to the pub and her flat. Her car being at Stevenage Rd driven by someone taller than her is a fact.