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

[WestLondoner]

There are two big problems for me with SJL being under the floor of that pub. One is this point about there being continual access to it by pest control people, and possibly plumbers and electricians. There is even an actual access hatch set into the cellar wall to enable this. As we also know this floor was later lowered, this calls into question how undisturbed this location has really been.

The other problem is that CV's account of what happened could be misremembered, but essentially correct. So the Chelsea police officer who inexplicably phoned on the Monday afternoon to ask if she'd been for her stuff yet could simply have been a Fulham police officer who phoned on Tuesday to ask if she ever did come for her stuff. Told it was still there, the officer then came and fetched it.

The woman who called asking for "Susan" is puzzling, but in a way, it tends to support CV's account. SJL's neighbour did actually refer to her as "Susan" in a later newspaper piece, while her family called her "Suze" and her mates "Susannah". If he made this caller up, then knowing only what the media were calling SJL, CV would surely have made up someone calling for "Suzy". That he did not somewhat suggests there actually was a call from someone who knew her.

I still think the PoW needs to be searched to rule it out, but if it comes up empty, then by elimination we are left only with the abduction-by-an-acquaintance possibility. It would be the only one left standing that still makes sense, but unfortunately there are no witnesses at all.

 

[Terryb808]

There are two big problems for me with SJL being under the floor of that pub. One is this point about there being continual access to it by pest control people, and possibly plumbers and electricians. There is even an actual access hatch set into the cellar wall to enable this. As we also know this floor was later lowered, this calls into question how undisturbed this location has really been.

The other problem is that CV's account of what happened could be misremembered, but essentially correct. So the Chelsea police officer who inexplicably phoned on the Monday afternoon to ask if she'd been for her stuff yet could simply have been a Fulham police officer who phoned on Tuesday to ask if she ever did come for her stuff. Told it was still there, the officer then came and fetched it.

The woman who called asking for "Susan" is puzzling, but in a way, it tends to support CV's account. SJL's neighbour did actually refer to her as "Susan" in a later newspaper piece, while her family called her "Suze" and her mates "Susannah". If he made this caller up, then knowing only what the media were calling SJL, CV would surely have made up someone calling for "Suzy". That he did not somewhat suggests there actually was a call from someone who knew her.

I still think the PoW needs to be searched to rule it out, but if it comes up empty, then by elimination we are left only with the abduction-by-an-acquaintance possibility. It would be the only one left standing that still makes sense, but unfortunately there are no witnesses at all.

Regarding the floor, unless I have this wrong I thought the floor was raised first, prior to SJL’s disappearance and then lowered back to it’s original level after SJL disappeared.
If this is the case then it’s unlikely the original floor was ever taken up.
The pest control, plumbers & electricians are a good call.

 

[WestLondoner]

@ terryb808

You're right:

At first glance, the hatch in the wall appeared nothing more than an opening about a metre up from the cellar floor. A fairly large concrete slab served as a step up to look inside. The hole, about two or three feet square, provided access to the underside of the suspended wooden floor of the dining room on the ground floor above; it looked like an inspection hatch...

(p. 203)

In 2007, during a purely cosmetic makeover, the stage area had been lowered from above, and the floor put back to its original height, before being tiled over again. But the pile of rubbish remained untouched beneath the floor; the now vintage Harp can and the odd-shaped pile of rubbish left undisturbed.

(p. 220).

But as to the bit in bold...how does DV know this? I am not sure.

The thing is, though, he still makes a good circumstantial case. She needed to go to the pub; she couldn't go that evening; at lunchtime it was likely empty except for CV; it has a huge cellar; there is a hiding place that may be undisturbed since 1986; in that hiding place there is something that could be a body under builders' rubbish; it has never been searched. The only way you wouldn't search it is if, when saying you will leave "no stone unturned", what you mean is you'll leave no stone unturned trying to frame JC.

 

[Terryb808]

From DV's point of view he spent a lot of time & money putting together his book, during his time researching (and we don't know exactly when) he gained access to the PoW cellar.
It looked like there just maybe a body in the cellar void area, if at this point he confirms this and calls in the plod his book is not going to make any money, so he leaves it and the Plod are happy to leave it also.
I can understand him needing to get his money back, that was the point of the book (to make money and solve SJL's disappearance), unfortunately now that the PoW has changed hands access to the cellar void area is only going to be possible if plod make it happen.
And this is as likely as the PM not being a party animal.

 

[Konstantin]

But as to the bit in bold...how does DV know this? I am not sure.

IIRC his argument is that the pile of rubbish he saw comprised some items that he believed dated to the mid 80s meaning that this indicated the rubbish was put there then and never moved.

The other problem is that CV's account of what happened could be misremembered, but essentially correct. So the Chelsea police officer who inexplicably phoned on the Monday afternoon to ask if she'd been for her stuff yet could simply have been a Fulham police officer who phoned on Tuesday to ask if she ever did come for her stuff. Told it was still there, the officer then came and fetched it.

Well there might be a simple explanation for this actually.

According to AS the police went around to the pub on the Tuesday morning to collect the items from there and it seems at the time they did do some sort of interview with CV.

So they already knew of the items being in the pub very soon after her disappearance was reported on the Monday evening. So it makes absolute sense to me that an officer would have phoned the pub to ask whether SJL had turned up there. I mean, she had said this was a place she was going so even though she didn't return to work she could have been perfectly find and gone AWOL for some reason her office weren't aware of and gone to the pub blissfully unaware that everyone was out looking for her. I mean think about it. It's Monday evening, you have a report of a missing young woman, you know she wrote an appointment to attend an address on SR, and you know that she was planning that day to attend a pub near her home to retrieve a missing diary and chequebook and that she'd called the pub to discuss this. You can't phone SR to check as it's empty, so you go on foot (they did do this according to AS) and you can easily phone the POW to ask if she turned up there so you do that (AS does not record this for some reason, possibly because there are no police records saying someone called, possibly because it's not that interesting as he saw it). So a call was logically made, and CV wasn't local, he might have misremembered it as Chelsea police. It's not that sinister tbh.

Given the timing of the police attending the pub the next morning it is more logical for them to have phoned the evening before--since we can assume they knew about the diary being there--than for them not to phone to see if she showed there. But the thinking during all this is, something happened as SR.

I think the phone calls to CV could have simply been a result of the fact that someone at Sturgis was well aware of the fact that SJL was supposed to go there, since she told someone that at the time, which is why the police were aware of this so soon after she was reported missing. Since Sturgis already knew and were in a panic about where she'd gone, someone there could easily have called him and asked is Suzannah there (no one called her Suzy did they? And he might have remembered or misheard Susannah as Susan, it's not very difficult to do and he didn't know her after all). So who at Sturgis knew? SF?

The police came around to interview him (not as a suspect because he was not one), he might have mentioned that people phoned him looking for her but since they already knew that-- since they were made aware of the pub by people who knew she'd left her stuff there--they didn't really think much of this. I mean in this context there is nothing sinister here is there.

What is weird is that AS makes a big deal of these phone calls, as apparently the police think this is odd, a year later when CV is reinterviewed. But this could be simply that there was so much going on initially that these loose ends of who knew what and who told who what and when were just not recorded.

Honestly it seems more and more to me like the initial interviews with Sturgis were not done properly or not recorded properly possibly because of different people being involved at the time.

There are so many things missing from the timeline of how information was learned, when, by whom. For example how did HR get involved (did MG knock on his door to ask if he saw SJL?) and what leading questions about whether he saw SJL and a client did MG ask him (e.g. did you see a blonde girl of this height at this time with a male client?" That would colour his testimony since we know he was a terrible witness, who made stuff up about seeing her bundled into a car, which he later retracted... yet his testimony and efit were to completely guide the investigation when it seems no one knows who SJL told about her movements regarding the pub.

 

[WestLondoner]

The reason the PoW situation sets off alarm bells is, I think, is threefold.

The first issue is that, as nobody saw SJL being harmed or abducted off the street - and if even if you buy the 37SR stuff, there's still no such happening witnessed - she must have come to harm out of general sight inside a building. The disposal or concealment of her body likewise somehow went entirely unnoticed. So right away one is interested in addresses to which she might have gone. The PoW is the only one we know of that's not been searched.

The second relates to the fact that there cannot have been any arrangement for SJL to go to the PoW at 6, because she had a more pressing engagement elsewhere at that time. Yet nobody at the PoW seems to accept that if such an arrangement was made, it was then changed to lunchtime.

The third issue is that it wasn't until he was reinterviewed a year later that CV mentioned to the police the phone calls about SJL made to the pub. At that time, he further claimed not only to have done so previously, but to have provided them with the names and phone numbers the year before.

This updated account given is then quite hard to fathom. It makes no sense for the police to have called about SJL's missing cheque-book in the middle of Monday afternoon, as CV claims, but they could have called about SJL herself on Monday night, and turned up the next day. Likewise, it makes no sense for anyone on Monday to call, ask the pub to keep her there, and then make no further contact. The only female staff member at Sturgis was SF, and not only does she barely remember any cheque book or diary, but for this to be her CV would have to got wrong both her name and the name by which she called SJL.

If, however, CV met the plod on Tuesday morning it's conceivable he never mentioned a call from the police because perhaps he was actually speaking to the officer who'd made it. He then forgets to mention any call from the woman, but a year later he forgets that he forgot, and thinks he did. This is not actually impossible at all. Many times have I been absolutely sure I told somebody to do something, and later they swore I never did. Things can be in your head and never make it to your lips. CV comes across verbatim as a bit incoherent so it's quite possible when he spoke to police in 1986 that he answered the wrong question.

The trouble is that to explain the sequence of events at the pub, and the statements about it, you have to make a lot of handwavey assumptions about what was probably meant or what probably happened. An equally valid set of assumptions might be that CV done it, hid the body, moved the car and then lied. Nothing conclusively supports either view of CV at the PoW. In a murder investigation, you're supposed to bottom these points out, not just assume it's all fine. And the one action that would conclusively determine this either way, i.e. whether CV's a bit scatty or has concealed a death, would be to search the pub for dead bodies.

I mean, FGS, there could be more than one...!

 

[Crusader21]

From DV's point of view he spent a lot of time & money putting together his book, during his time researching (and we don't know exactly when) he gained access to the PoW cellar.
It looked like there just maybe a body in the cellar void area, if at this point he confirms this and calls in the plod his book is not going to make any money, so he leaves it and the Plod are happy to leave it also.
I can understand him needing to get his money back, that was the point of the book (to make money and solve SJL's disappearance), unfortunately now that the PoW has changed hands access to the cellar void area is only going to be possible if plod make it happen.
And this is as likely as the PM not being a party animal.

I think DV is convinced he has located the remains of SL. Hence the book title 'Finding Suzy'

If you remember, DV was conducting his own research and popping up now again with intriguing and sensational public claims. 'Suzy did not have the keys to no37 SR', 'There was no Mr Kipper' and 'There is no evidence against JC'

More importantly, he was trying (for over a year) to convince the Met to search the PoW. He supplied them with a dossier of all the evidence he uncovered.

If the Met had of searched the PoW and located SL, then obviously DVs story would have sold even more. With the tv special following quickly on it's heels .....

The fact that the Met rejected DV's dossier, then resisted calls to search the PoW when DV's book did come out has completely baffled me. Especially in the light of the multiple digs they've conducted in many parts of the country.

A few questions, Is there an animosity in the police towards DV? Or has a 'face-saving' decision beeen taken higher up to 'protect' the Mets reputation - JC is or man, case closed?

 

[Terryb808]

So if the PoW turns up blank, and JC didn’t do, we’re left with a jealous boyfriend or something far more complex.

AL’s comments to DV rings of disappointment because he knows something and feels DV should have gone digging into it without him needing to open up.

Am I on my own in thinking “you’ll never find her, nobody will” is a very odd think to say?

 

[Crusader21]

AL’s comments to DV rings of disappointment because he knows something and feels DV should have gone digging into it without him needing to open up.

Am I on my own in thinking “you’ll never find her, nobody will” is a very odd think to say?

This goes back to what was being talked about before. Properly questioning of SLs close friends and acquintances, without the Shorolds Rd / Mr Kipper / JC angle.

Does AL know something that the police aren't even aware of / have dismissed?

It was rumoured that SL's fate may have been sealed through her being involved (probably unwittingly), in some property dealing(s) with criminal elements. Perhaps SL became aware of illegal dealings, and had to be silenced to protect the gang?

In that case, I'd imagine she was out the mercy of seasoned criminals that Monday lunchtime. Perhaps they followed her up to the PoW and then she was abducted there.

Though that does raise the question of why was her car not just left at the PoW? What would be the reasoning on taking it to Stevenage Rd to abandon it there?

 

[Konstantin]

Am I on my own in thinking “you’ll never find her, nobody will” is a very odd think to say?

DV presents it as being odd, but we don't know what he told AL to get him to come to the interview. If AL came believing for whatever reason that DV had made a breakthrough in the case, then his first gambit is to ask him about the missing diary, AL might have thought, oh so I came all this way for nothing since this guy hasn't got a clue.

But AL just lost it and stormed out without asking about why DV was banging on about the diary. If I were him and I trusted DV enough to attend the interview, then I would want to ask him why on earth he is interested in this particular thread of the story.

I am curious why AL was saying initially that he and SJL did attend the POW on the Friday (apparently he said this in a documentary) and to DV he said it never happened that SJL lost her stuff there (she clearly did) and that they never went there. But one aspect of this case I think is that people think that all the people involved kind of know everything that happened. Imagine you are AL. He must have found out later that SJL lost her stuff most likely on the Sunday not the Friday, but we don't know when he found that out. We don't know what she told him she was doing on the Sunday night. We don't know what happened between them that weekend, from his perspective. We don't know when he found out that SJL had some stuff left at the POW. Before she went missing? Or after? I assume after, but we don't know that for a fact.

We don't know if DL asked him to come to the press conference and play the steady boyfriend, he must have been worried sick about SJL but he likely was aware she was about to dump him or already had. Since AS knew that, the police must have found that out too, but AL never actually admitted that, did he? I mean, he had an alibi so he's clear of course, but he was clearly keen to keep up the idea that SJL and he were a steady item. And now he's asked by some random guy writing a book about the sensitive topic of how did your girlfriend's items end up at a pub?

He might think, that's such a left field random question, this guy doesn't know jack about what happened to her, he's barking up this tree, he's never going to find her, I came here, brought this distressing incident and time to the front of my memory again, and for what? Some guy banging on about her lost diary that is irrelevant. So yeah on the surface it seems odd but this is a guy who lost his girlfriend, she clearly meant more to him than he did to her, but it must have been a very weird, very emotionally tough time. So I get his reaction if that's why. But we don't know why he acted like that.

 

[Terryb808]

This goes back to what was being talked about before. Properly questioning of SLs close friends and acquintances, without the Shorolds Rd / Mr Kipper / JC angle.

Does AL know something that the police aren't even aware of / have dismissed?

It was rumoured that SL's fate may have been sealed through her being involved (probably unwittingly), in some property dealing(s) with criminal elements. Perhaps SL became aware of illegal dealings, and had to be silenced to protect the gang?

In that case, I'd imagine she was out the mercy of seasoned criminals that Monday lunchtime. Perhaps they followed her up to the PoW and then she was abducted there.

Though that does raise the question of why was her car not just left at the PoW? What would be the reasoning on taking it to Stevenage Rd to abandon it there?

Hi Crusader21, we’ve briefly discussed the gang theory off this public thread. There are possible links between SJL and illegal activities which took place very soon after she disappeared.
The calls CV said he received fits with this. But as there’s no real links or evidence you can make a lot of theories fit.
That’s the big problem, if the PoW is negative and this one is then possible, as AL said “you’ll never find her, no one will”.
That’s why him saying this makes me so interested, what does he know?

Marriages Jun 1983 ​
Bell	James	Russell	Colchester	9	2420	bviola

 

[Terryb808]

Hi Crusader21, we’ve briefly discussed the gang theory off this public thread. There are possible links between SJL and illegal activities which took place very soon after she disappeared.
The calls CV said he received fits with this. But as there’s no real links or evidence you can make a lot of theories fit.
That’s the big problem, if the PoW is negative and this one is then possible, as AL said “you’ll never find her, no one will”.
That’s why him saying this makes me so interested, what does he know?

Marriages Jun 1983​
Bell	James	Russell	Colchester	9	2420	bviola

Ignore James Bell, it just found its way in all by itself.

 

[TimFisher1965]

DV presents it as being odd, but we don't know what he told AL to get him to come to the interview. If AL came believing for whatever reason that DV had made a breakthrough in the case, then his first gambit is to ask him about the missing diary, AL might have thought, oh so I came all this way for nothing since this guy hasn't got a clue.

But AL just lost it and stormed out without asking about why DV was banging on about the diary. If I were him and I trusted DV enough to attend the interview, then I would want to ask him why on earth he is interested in this particular thread of the story.

I am curious why AL was saying initially that he and SJL did attend the POW on the Friday (apparently he said this in a documentary) and to DV he said it never happened that SJL lost her stuff there (she clearly did) and that they never went there. But one aspect of this case I think is that people think that all the people involved kind of know everything that happened. Imagine you are AL. He must have found out later that SJL lost her stuff most likely on the Sunday not the Friday, but we don't know when he found that out. We don't know what she told him she was doing on the Sunday night. We don't know what happened between them that weekend, from his perspective. We don't know when he found out that SJL had some stuff left at the POW. Before she went missing? Or after? I assume after, but we don't know that for a fact.

We don't know if DL asked him to come to the press conference and play the steady boyfriend, he must have been worried sick about SJL but he likely was aware she was about to dump him or already had. Since AS knew that, the police must have found that out too, but AL never actually admitted that, did he? I mean, he had an alibi so he's clear of course, but he was clearly keen to keep up the idea that SJL and he were a steady item. And now he's asked by some random guy writing a book about the sensitive topic of how did your girlfriend's items end up at a pub?

He might think, that's such a left field random question, this guy doesn't know jack about what happened to her, he's barking up this tree, he's never going to find her, I came here, brought this distressing incident and time to the front of my memory again, and for what? Some guy banging on about her lost diary that is irrelevant. So yeah on the surface it seems odd but this is a guy who lost his girlfriend, she clearly meant more to him than he did to her, but it must have been a very weird, very emotionally tough time. So I get his reaction if that's why. But we don't know why he acted like that.

I think it's strange because DV said he and AL had several phone calls before that so AL must have had a measure of where DV was coming from prior to meeting him? DV must have touched a nerve about something? but what exactly was it?

His words you will never find anything out and you will never find her are very strange and a tad sinister, what exactly did he mean?

There are lots of people to talk to that could still tie up some loose ends, the question is who could do this? I am still amazed that DV does not get the credit for finding out all that he has. Setting aside the POW cellar he found out about the stock check and that the permeant landlord was away but tracked them all down and discovered the facts. Stephanie Flowers and Hindle in a relationship, the office row on Monday, Keith Perry around on the day, one set of keys etc etc this fills in so many gaps to the timeline. But there is more than can be done.

I have always believed that SL lost her stuff on the Sunday night and said so before DV's book came out.
My reasons are that IF SL did call AL it does not seem to have been from her parents or her own flat so as the POW was 200M from her door this makes sense (if we accept it happened, we only have AL word for this right) that she phoned from here and dropped the stuff at this point. Any scenario that CV somehow nicked it seems very unlikely. How did he know her? how would he get away with it? I think CV story about the time and the place seems very plausible.

Her possessions being found by CV at around the same time match this likely scenario as the phone box was 20 feet from the door right by the tables CV said he found the stuff. He would have seen them the moment he stepped outside. The fact he found them suggests to me that they had been dropped moments before. He may had literally missed seeing SL by a minute or two any longer and someone would have handed them in or nicked them.

SL had seen AL on Friday, worked on Sat am, went to a party on Sat with friends, windsurfing on Sunday again with friends and to her parents later until around 9pm we believe. NOBODY on record has at any time said SL mentioned her possessions were lost to anyone over the weekend why? because she had not lost them yet. Even her flatmate Nick Bryant did not mention it and he saw SL briefly on Monday morning.

What does this all mean? it means that its very probable that SL did not realise her stuff was gone until she sorted to go to work. BUT here is my point, we could still ask Nick Bryant, James Calvert, Sarah Hough (who drove her on sat and Sunday) and anyone who was at the party or windsurfing if she mentioned losing her stuff. Zero people saying it does not prove it but as we have so little to go on we need to take each point to as near a certainty as is possible and see what remains as "very likely" or "probable". I believe a zero recollection of SL mentioning her stuff gone plus CV account makes it almost certain.

I am completely baffled as to why AL said one thing on a documentary then something completely different to DV? I suspect as others have said here he was presenting very much the image that DL wanted, maybe he thought those details did not matter? 36 years later its only the details that can probably piece it together apart of course from a search of the POW.

I read in AS book that a 28 year old policewoman was in charge of reading both SL work diary and her "salacious" personal diary to check the names in it for interviews. I wonder if she could be found and interviewed?

Last thing a couple of SL documentaries one which contained the interview with AL seem to have vanished from YouTube, anyone know where these can still be seen?

 

[Konstantin]

I think it's strange because DV said he and AL had several phone calls before that so AL must have had a measure of where DV was coming from prior to meeting him? DV must have touched a nerve about something? but what exactly was it?

His words you will never find anything out and you will never find her are very strange and a tad sinister, what exactly did he mean?

There are lots of people to talk to that could still tie up some loose ends, the question is who could do this? I am still amazed that DV does not get the credit for finding out all that he has. Setting aside the POW cellar he found out about the stock check and that the permeant landlord was away but tracked them all down and discovered the facts. Stephanie Flowers and Hindle in a relationship, the office row on Monday, Keith Perry around on the day, one set of keys etc etc this fills in so many gaps to the timeline. But there is more than can be done.

I have always believed that SL lost her stuff on the Sunday night and said so before DV's book came out.
My reasons are that IF SL did call AL it does not seem to have been from her parents or her own flat so as the POW was 200M from her door this makes sense (if we accept it happened, we only have AL word for this right) that she phoned from here and dropped the stuff at this point. Any scenario that CV somehow nicked it seems very unlikely. How did he know her? how would he get away with it? I think CV story about the time and the place seems very plausible.

Her possessions being found by CV at around the same time match this likely scenario as the phone box was 20 feet from the door right by the tables CV said he found the stuff. He would have seen them the moment he stepped outside. The fact he found them suggests to me that they had been dropped moments before. He may had literally missed seeing SL by a minute or two any longer and someone would have handed them in or nicked them.

SL had seen AL on Friday, worked on Sat am, went to a party on Sat with friends, windsurfing on Sunday again with friends and to her parents later until around 9pm we believe. NOBODY on record has at any time said SL mentioned her possessions were lost to anyone over the weekend why? because she had not lost them yet. Even her flatmate Nick Bryant did not mention it and he saw SL briefly on Monday morning.

What does this all mean? it means that its very probable that SL did not realise her stuff was gone until she sorted to go to work. BUT here is my point, we could still ask Nick Bryant, James Calvert, Sarah Hough (who drove her on sat and Sunday) and anyone who was at the party or windsurfing if she mentioned losing her stuff. Zero people saying it does not prove it but as we have so little to go on we need to take each point to as near a certainty as is possible and see what remains as "very likely" or "probable". I believe a zero recollection of SL mentioning her stuff gone plus CV account makes it almost certain.

I am completely baffled as to why AL said one thing on a documentary then something completely different to DV? I suspect as others have said here he was presenting very much the image that DL wanted, maybe he thought those details did not matter? 36 years later its only the details that can probably piece it together apart of course from a search of the POW.

I read in AS book that a 28 year old policewoman was in charge of reading both SL work diary and her "salacious" personal diary to check the names in it for interviews. I wonder if she could be found and interviewed?

Last thing a couple of SL documentaries one which contained the interview with AL seem to have vanished from YouTube, anyone know where these can still be seen?

I doubt if CV and his partner were even there on the Friday night were they?

Why would they come to London three days before they had to start work? THe pub would not be able to pay them for three days extra work and they were not running pubs for a hobby. I imagine they would have come down to London the day before they were supposed to start their cover i.e. on the Sunday. So if CV found her stuff and I have no doubt he did, then he must have found them on the Sunday.

I am surprised the police were so sloppy at tracking her movements in the days prior to her abduction and murder. Her movements on those days could be crucial in explaining what happened to her on the Monday if she was not taken by an opportunist stranger, which given her disappearance was a broad daylight lunchtime in a busy city does seem less likely.

Also according to AS the police DID go to Shorrolds and check that property on the Monday evening after she was reported as missing. So how did they enter it on the Monday? They either forced the lock (which might not have produced much damage but most likely woudl be visible), used a key, or didn't go inside (which makes the visit pointless).

I don't believe that MG is that ditzy that he didn't realise there was something amiss with keys. DId he really say he recalled her coming to get the key from behind his desk? Or did the police or crimewatch just add in random details to their storyline?

If she phoned AL or he phoned her is crucial to knowing her whereabouts on the Sunday night, this is not a coincidental detail. DId he keep trying her flat? Did he call her parents looking for her? Did he just wait til she phoned him? Where from? He would have been asked that by police and he must remember it as it's the last time he spoke to her, and he would have been grilled about it (unless this is another example of sloppy questioning, which surely can't be the case).

See, it's just all so sloppy.

 

[TimFisher1965]

I doubt if CV and his partner were even there on the Friday night were they?

Why would they come to London three days before they had to start work? THe pub would not be able to pay them for three days extra work and they were not running pubs for a hobby. I imagine they would have come down to London the day before they were supposed to start their cover i.e. on the Sunday. So if CV found her stuff and I have no doubt he did, then he must have found them on the Sunday.

I am surprised the police were so sloppy at tracking her movements in the days prior to her abduction and murder. Her movements on those days could be crucial in explaining what happened to her on the Monday if she was not taken by an opportunist stranger, which given her disappearance was a broad daylight lunchtime in a busy city does seem less likely.

Also according to AS the police DID go to Shorrolds and check that property on the Monday evening after she was reported as missing. So how did they enter it on the Monday? They either forced the lock (which might not have produced much damage but most likely woudl be visible), used a key, or didn't go inside (which makes the visit pointless).

I don't believe that MG is that ditzy that he didn't realise there was something amiss with keys. DId he really say he recalled her coming to get the key from behind his desk? Or did the police or crimewatch just add in random details to their storyline?

If she phoned AL or he phoned her is crucial to knowing her whereabouts on the Sunday night, this is not a coincidental detail. DId he keep trying her flat? Did he call her parents looking for her? Did he just wait til she phoned him? Where from? He would have been asked that by police and he must remember it as it's the last time he spoke to her, and he would have been grilled about it (unless this is another example of sloppy questioning, which surely can't be the case).

See, it's just all so sloppy.

Yes agree with all above. If the police had taken this line more seriously they should have asked CV and his wife exactly what time they arrived at the pub and worked out a timeline. As you say this would have eliminated the possibility of the stuff being found on Friday.
Also I wonder if the police even knew CV and KF were the temporary landlords? Which would explain why they never chased up the permanent landlords.

I read AS and it says Guerdon went to Shorrolds Road twice and looked “inside and out” it doesn’t say when he went inside so we can assume that he had keys at some point on the Monday and should have realised then that something didn’t add up.

 

[Konstantin]

Also I wonder if the police even knew CV and KF were the temporary landlords? Which would explain why they never chased up the permanent landlords.

I think this is the case yes.

When they went back to the pub to interview CV a year later when they were doing a review of the case (as per AS) they were surprised that he had gone back up north. I don't think that whoever interviewed him the first time around took much notice of his statement, whatever it was and in whatever capacity it was given. I think that they were probably rushed, and just went round to grab the stuff and left. So if CV did tell them about the phone calls (which I do think had an innocent explanation and CV just got the name wrong of who ever called him, in the year between him recalling this again to the cops who interviewed him, and him having a call that at the time probably meant nothing to him) they probably just dismissed them as yeah that would have been someone looking for her plus us calling you, no need to report it.

I read AS and it says Guerdon went to Shorrolds Road twice and looked “inside and out” it doesn’t say when he went inside so we can assume that he had keys at some point on the Monday and should have realised then that something didn’t add up.

Yes that was noticeable and in fact makes sense because if you think your colleague attended a place and might have come to harm in it, however innocently, banging on the door ain't going to really cut it, you want to get inside and look in the loo, the kitchen, everywhere. SHe might be unconscious. I'd be breaking the door down to get in myself.

How did he look inside with no key? The house is a multi storey house he could not have seen upstairs through the window or letterbox. Either he went inside, with a key, or he didn't in which case he had not searched that place at all and she could be lying hurt or dead inside. We know she wasn't but he didn't. Unless he believed the HR that SJL had come out with a male and HR later that day (did MG go back and talk to him again, or did he get his number and call up again? How did MG know this) changed his story to say she'd been bundled into a car.

THe initial part of the investigation was done very sloppily.

 

[WestLondoner]

AL's remark is pretty much what I would say if somebody told me they were doing a freelance investigation into JC in order to solve the SJL disappearance. The one does not lead to the other; you are just rehashing and turning over all the same old ground; your approach will absolutely not produce an answer; etc.

AL was one of a number of people - her parents, her work colleagues, and so on - who knew SJL but who, after her disappearance, found that actually, they did not know her. In fact, this possibly describes most of her social circle. AS says that SJL was four-timing AL; this would have left him thunderstruck. He realised he was clearly just a small corner of her life, and perhaps thought, Well, whatever has happened, it's probably something to do with the 99% of her life I never imagined.

Meanwhile, over the years, a number of bumbling amateurs - starting with the police - have pestered him for his time and insights and it's always round in the same circles; JC, Fred West's brother, whoever. DV perhaps just came across as yet another anorak who wants to talk about someone AL can barely remember and never did know.

 

[WestLondoner]

So if CV did tell them about the phone calls (which I do think had an innocent explanation and CV just got the name wrong of who ever called him, in the year between him recalling this again to the cops who interviewed him, and him having a call that at the time probably meant nothing to him) they probably just dismissed them as yeah that would have been someone looking for her plus us calling you, no need to report it.

I am with you up to here on this being a plausible reading of CV's rambling account. What strikes me as a bit odd is that a week or 2 weeks later SJL's still in the news, the regular landlord came back from his holiday, the obvious question to CV is "anything happen? what did I miss?" and CV apparently never said a word.

 

[TimFisher1965]

I am with you up to here on this being a plausible reading of CV's rambling account. What strikes me as a bit odd is that a week or 2 weeks later SJL's still in the news, the regular landlord came back from his holiday, the obvious question to CV is "anything happen? what did I miss?" and CV apparently never said a word.

Yes it's extremely hard to believe he did not mention it at all. The question is why didn't he say anything? it smacks of concealment because on the face of it if he had nothing to do with it he had done nothing wrong. If he was innocent he simply was the guy who found some lost possessions. To not mention it at all suggests he wanted it to go away which says involvement. To say he thought it was not something he thought about would be madness because it was all over the press on front pages of newspapers and on the TV. Also he must have known that the police could come back at any time and ask about the possessions which begs the question why mention the phone calls about a year later? he is either evasive and has a guilty conscience or is very lucky and quite thick. Anita Brookner said in her notes about AS book that the killing IF planned was meticulously planned OR the killer was so lucky as to not leave any clues to incriminate himself.

 

[Konstantin]

I am with you up to here on this being a plausible reading of CV's rambling account. What strikes me as a bit odd is that a week or 2 weeks later SJL's still in the news, the regular landlord came back from his holiday, the obvious question to CV is "anything happen? what did I miss?" and CV apparently never said a word.

Yes this is odd. If it were me I would have wanted to make a report to my boss, i.e. the real landlord, because it was likely that the police would have come back for more questions and the landlord was around when the stuff was found, so if this was suddenly jumped on him by some police officers or worse still by some media reports, I would have expected him to be p***ed off and not hire me again.

I would also want to go into it with him, I would want to know if maybe he saw SJL that night since she was probably in the pub. It's a fascinating story, a local drama that CV was a part of.