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

[asyousay]

And, of course also on page 6:

The estate agent manager remembered Susannah coming behind his desk to pick up the keys.

At the time of recollection (prior to 1988) MG states that he was in the office when SL picked up the keys prior to leaving at 12.40pm.

This is so specific that it holds a lot more water than a memory 30+ years after the fact IMO

 

[shadwell]

He inferred it from MG's account. MG said he searched 37SR and this is why the police didn't until next day - it had already been checked. DV then asked how he and later the police got in, if SJL really went there with the keys, given there's no sign of the door being forced. They forced her own door open but they didn't force 37SR.

It could only mean 1/ she didn't take the keys or 2/ there were 2 sets kept separate, which MG and KP thought was extremely unlikely as it would mean remembering which properties they had two sets of keys for and keeping track of both. If they lost one they'd have to pay to replace all the locks.

But the police *did* search 37SR on the evening of the 28th. AS (page 10) details the sequence of events following the police’s 6.55pm call back to MS:

Within ten minutes established police procedures slid into gear. …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.

 

[shadwell]

On page 12 AS, describes police entering SL’s flat:

There, in time-honoured police fashion, one of them broke open the door with his shoulder.

IMO (assuming they didn’t go in through the back - it’s difficult to work out the property layout) they did exactly the same thing at 37SR. Prior to October 2015 (at the earliest) the only lock on the front door of 37SR was a single Yale (cf Streetview and Crimewatch reconstruction) - so a couple of decent shoulder barges could easily have knocked the latch plate (held on by two screws) off the back of the frame to open the door.

Thereafter, effecting a repair could be as simple as pushing a couple of matchsticks into the holes in the frame and reinserting the screws, leaving little obvious sign of damage.

 

[asyousay]

That’s interesting so the Police did search the flat the first night?


Because more times the police won’t do anything for first 24 hours as she was a young woman who could of ditched work and turned up later that night.

 

[WestLondoner]

I'd be very surprised if the front door was "secured" by one Yale lock. I moved to London in 1988 and then as now, if you didn't have a five-lever deadlock on every exterior door, you could forget about being able to get contents insurance.

 

[Cluesleuth]

That’s interesting so the Police did search the flat the first night?


Because more times the police won’t do anything for first 24 hours as she was a young woman who could of ditched work and turned up later that night.

Dont forget PL was a solicitor

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is so specific that it holds a lot more water than a memory 30+ years after the fact IMO

I wouldnt discount that the two accounts could be correct.

You have MG at lunch and DC another negotiater on holiday.
With 4 fee earning negotiators in the office all with their own diaries and clients. If a negotiator was on holiday its common practice for the manager to either cover his viewings or allocate his viewings (and his own viewings if he was at lunch or in a meeting) to someone else.
We know JC the office junior did viewings borrowing other negotiators cars to do so. He had borrowed the car that morning.
So was there another viewing that had to be covered and was another set of keys and a set of particulars of another property taken also.
Could someone have left the office with SJL that day car sharing to viewings?
It would be interesting to know what other viewings were undertaken that day by the office as a whole.

 

[WestLondoner]

I still don't buy that the police actually searched 37SR that day if the source is AS. Don't forget AS also repeats the myth that SJL walked into a Sturgis branch and was instantly hired. This is not true. KP relates that she interviewed for a job at head office, he decided she would do well in residential sales, and he assigned her to Fulham. Probably the flattering myth was made up by DL, or made up by SJL and repeated by DL, like all the others. The claim that she was put at a window desk so men would look at her was made by SJL in her diary but is quite unsubstantiated. If you look at the desk layout in the reconstruction, pretty well all of them are by a window.

Even if the plod did search 37SR, we still have the question of how they got in if it is true that she took the keys. You don't secure an empty house in London with two screws. She had the only keys. How did they get in?

This is an example of what I suggested a few pages back - some apparently reliable bit of witnessery being completely undermined by common sense or by another witness.

If it is true that MG was still in the office when she left, then she didn't need to fabricate any Mr Kipper as an excuse to leave. MG was still there, so was NH, so the office was fully manned as required - bar the guy who was on holiday. So that's that. She just asks him if she can go for her lunch now. What's all the Mr Kipper charade about, if all three negotiators were still in the office at 12.40?

Unless, of course, it was a bit embarrassing for MG, KP et al to admit they were all out on the lash when a female employee was allowed to go to a viewing unaccompanied.

 

[asyousay]

It’s so frustrating that things were not checked more throughly at the time.


Stories should of been checked and made sure they matched up.


If we take what we know at face value Suzy took the keys and went to a viewing and nobody came forward to say it they was the person she was meeting so that person/persons are involved.


Are we really meant to believe the police didn’t check how many pairs of keys that property had or believe somebody who is trying to sell a book and their theory?

 

[WestLondoner]

If you read the Michael Bilton book about the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, there is no level of incompetence to which the police won't sink. The number of occasions when they've solved a murder from scratch, whether IRA pub bombings or sex killers, hovers around zero. Their actual, usual approach is to fit someone up, whether that's the locally weirdo or someone like JC who handily rocks up after the fact.

 

[Pinkizzy]

DV suggested that SL turned right instead of left as she left Sturgis - towards Putney

According to the Independent, a witness from 1986 was not interviewed by the police but gave an account to DV

 

[Terryb808]

On page 12 AS, describes police entering SL’s flat:

There, in time-honoured police fashion, one of them broke open the door with his shoulder.

IMO (assuming they didn’t go in through the back - it’s difficult to work out the property layout) they did exactly the same thing at 37SR. Prior to October 2015 (at the earliest) the only lock on the front door of 37SR was a single Yale (cf Streetview and Crimewatch reconstruction) - so a couple of decent shoulder barges could easily have knocked the latch plate (held on by two screws) off the back of the frame to open the door.

Thereafter, effecting a repair could be as simple as pushing a couple of matchsticks into the holes in the frame and reinserting the screws, leaving little obvious sign of damage.

Anyone with a basic understanding of this type of lock could open the door without any damage and leave no trace.
So it doesn’t follow the police had the keys, as you say the could have just forced it and had a minor repair carried out later.

 

[Terryb808]

That’s interesting so the Police did search the flat the first night?


Because more times the police won’t do anything for first 24 hours as she was a young woman who could of ditched work and turned up later that night.

Yes very interesting, CV said the same thing (re:24 hours), HR suddenly saying he say SJL taken away in car or van may have prompted this.
IMO HR may have been coached by DL.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Yes very interesting, CV said the same thing (re:24 hours), HR suddenly saying he say SJL taken away in car or van may have prompted this.
IMO HR may have been coached by DL.

I agree, he was probably coached by DL and MG played no part in the exaggeration

I guess DL called the PoW at some stage too

 

[Terryb808]

Suzy Lamplugh - What Happened

I can’t help but think the simplest approach to working out what happened the day Suzy Lamplugh disappeared has to be the best.

Others have pointed out that on the day she disappeared the office circumstances played a big part, and by this I mean the need for the fictional Mr Kipper appointment.

Why Mr Kipper?

Again as pointed out by others if MG and her other colleagues were still in the office SJL wouldn’t have needed the Mr Kipper appointment to go to lunch. So i think we’re safe in assuming they were out to lunch and SJL needed a good reason to go out.

The reasons for choosing Mr Kipper are well documented, so I’ll skip them, its so obvious that it’s a fictitious appointment it unbelievable that the police swallowed it hock, line and sinker.

Where did she go?

We know she lost her chequebook, postcard and diary (almost certainly on Sunday evening), also that her personal diary was important to her and she wanted it back. It not unreasonable to assume that was the reason she needed to be out of the office.

I think we can also assume that a lunchtime collection was arranged because she had a 6.00pm second viewing and a tennis match at 7.00pm. When she left the office she only took her purse and car / flat keys, on this basis we can assume she only intended to be out for a short time.

IMO her plan was:

• Collect her lost things from the PoW.
• Get her tennis kit from her flat.
• Grab a sandwich for lunch.
• Get back to the office.

I base this on the fact that she didn’t take her handbag for example, and I don’t think its unreasonable to assume if she was meeting someone she’d have taken her handbag with her.

What Happened?

If we look at this logically we can workout places she never made it too.

• Her Flat

SJL’s tennis kit was still in the flat, we’re safe assuming she never got there.

So in the sequence above what could have resulted in SJL not reaching her flat.

• She was abducted when she reached her car parked in Whittingstall Road.
• She reached the PoW pub, and never left.

IMO these are the most likely two scenarios of what happened the day SJL disappeared, and its unbelievable that the police haven’t reached the same conclusion and followed up on the one location that’s never been properly searched.

What Doesn’t Fit?

The simple sequence of events above results in the Mr Kipper scenario being completely wrong, all the witnesses in SR being redundant because SJL never went there. Its means that BW’s sighting at 2.30 /2.45pm is also wrong, plus any sighting of SJL’s car in Stevenage Road prior to 3.00pm.


Key People

• James Galway Man
• CV
• CV’s Partner

The account given by CV at the time, then 12 months later and again when interviewed by DV are suspicious. Also the reaction of his then partner when approached by DV appears to be one of absolute panic. What generates this sort of reaction, fear, fear of the consequences of what might be revealed. If you have nothing to hide, why react like this.

 

[Terryb808]

Suzy Lamplugh - What Happened

I can’t help but think the simplest approach to working out what happened the day Suzy Lamplugh disappeared has to be the best.

Others have pointed out that on the day she disappeared the office circumstances played a big part, and by this I mean the need for the fictional Mr Kipper appointment.

Why Mr Kipper?

Again as pointed out by others if MG and her other colleagues were still in the office SJL wouldn’t have needed the Mr Kipper appointment to go to lunch. So i think we’re safe in assuming they were out to lunch and SJL needed a good reason to go out.

The reasons for choosing Mr Kipper are well documented, so I’ll skip them, its so obvious that it’s a fictitious appointment it unbelievable that the police swallowed it hock, line and sinker.

Where did she go?

We know she lost her chequebook, postcard and diary (almost certainly on Sunday evening), also that her personal diary was important to her and she wanted it back. It not unreasonable to assume that was the reason she needed to be out of the office.

I think we can also assume that a lunchtime collection was arranged because she had a 6.00pm second viewing and a tennis match at 7.00pm. When she left the office she only took her purse and car / flat keys, on this basis we can assume she only intended to be out for a short time.

IMO her plan was:

• Collect her lost things from the PoW.
• Get her tennis kit from her flat.
• Grab a sandwich for lunch.
• Get back to the office.

I base this on the fact that she didn’t take her handbag for example, and I don’t think its unreasonable to assume if she was meeting someone she’d have taken her handbag with her.

What Happened?

If we look at this logically we can workout places she never made it too.

• Her Flat

SJL’s tennis kit was still in the flat, we’re safe assuming she never got there.

So in the sequence above what could have resulted in SJL not reaching her flat.

• She was abducted when she reached her car parked in Whittingstall Road.
• She reached the PoW pub, and never left.

IMO these are the most likely two scenarios of what happened the day SJL disappeared, and its unbelievable that the police haven’t reached the same conclusion and followed up on the one location that’s never been properly searched.

What Doesn’t Fit?

The simple sequence of events above results in the Mr Kipper scenario being completely wrong, all the witnesses in SR being redundant because SJL never went there. Its means that BW’s sighting at 2.30 /2.45pm is also wrong, plus any sighting of SJL’s car in Stevenage Road prior to 3.00pm.


Key People

• James Galway Man
• CV
• CV’s Partner

The account given by CV at the time, then 12 months later and again when interviewed by DV are suspicious. Also the reaction of his then partner when approached by DV appears to be one of absolute panic. What generates this sort of reaction, fear, fear of the consequences of what might be revealed. If you have nothing to hide, why react like this.

 

[Terryb808]

Sorry about the double post, my browser had a breakdown with all the adds of the page, just couldn't process the post properly.

 

[Pinkizzy]

It looks like DL spoke to several people before they were interviewed by the police -

MG
HR
Owner of the Stevenage Rd property
SLs next door neighbour in Putney
PoW landlord by phone and maybe in person

 

[asyousay]

I am not prepared to rule out that she did not have a viewing that day considering we don’t know enough to say that it was a fake appointment and LE certainly believe she did.


If she was going on a viewing she didn’t need much to hand so I don’t understand how that proves she wasn’t on a viewing because she only took her purse?!

 

[Cluesleuth]

Suzy Lamplugh - What Happened

I can’t help but think the simplest approach to working out what happened the day Suzy Lamplugh disappeared has to be the best.

Others have pointed out that on the day she disappeared the office circumstances played a big part, and by this I mean the need for the fictional Mr Kipper appointment.

Why Mr Kipper?

Again as pointed out by others if MG and her other colleagues were still in the office SJL wouldn’t have needed the Mr Kipper appointment to go to lunch. So i think we’re safe in assuming they were out to lunch and SJL needed a good reason to go out.

The reasons for choosing Mr Kipper are well documented, so I’ll skip them, its so obvious that it’s a fictitious appointment it unbelievable that the police swallowed it hock, line and sinker.

Where did she go?

We know she lost her chequebook, postcard and diary (almost certainly on Sunday evening), also that her personal diary was important to her and she wanted it back. It not unreasonable to assume that was the reason she needed to be out of the office.

I think we can also assume that a lunchtime collection was arranged because she had a 6.00pm second viewing and a tennis match at 7.00pm. When she left the office she only took her purse and car / flat keys, on this basis we can assume she only intended to be out for a short time.

IMO her plan was:

• Collect her lost things from the PoW.
• Get her tennis kit from her flat.
• Grab a sandwich for lunch.
• Get back to the office.

I base this on the fact that she didn’t take her handbag for example, and I don’t think its unreasonable to assume if she was meeting someone she’d have taken her handbag with her.

What Happened?

If we look at this logically we can workout places she never made it too.

• Her Flat

SJL’s tennis kit was still in the flat, we’re safe assuming she never got there.

So in the sequence above what could have resulted in SJL not reaching her flat.

• She was abducted when she reached her car parked in Whittingstall Road.
• She reached the PoW pub, and never left.

IMO these are the most likely two scenarios of what happened the day SJL disappeared, and its unbelievable that the police haven’t reached the same conclusion and followed up on the one location that’s never been properly searched.

What Doesn’t Fit?

The simple sequence of events above results in the Mr Kipper scenario being completely wrong, all the witnesses in SR being redundant because SJL never went there. Its means that BW’s sighting at 2.30 /2.45pm is also wrong, plus any sighting of SJL’s car in Stevenage Road prior to 3.00pm.


Key People

• James Galway Man
• CV
• CV’s Partner

The account given by CV at the time, then 12 months later and again when interviewed by DV are suspicious. Also the reaction of his then partner when approached by DV appears to be one of absolute panic. What generates this sort of reaction, fear, fear of the consequences of what might be revealed. If you have nothing to hide, why react like this.

Assume Nothing, Believe Nobody, Challenge everything.

I think the best way forward is try to get confirmation about the key to Shorrolds Rd and the Diary, Chq book and postcard from the police then we can at least all know for sure.

re reaction of the then partner of the landord of the POW
I think we should give some thought as to how this may have looked from her point of view.
A female you dont know is knocking your door and when you answer the door a male appears after being called from around the side of the house I would think that that would put any woman on her guard. When repeatedly telling the male she rather not speak about the subject ending the conversation and closing the door. The female who accompanied the male returns to the house again. The woman had quite rightly phoned her husband who over the phone so spoke to the female
Its just my opinion but in an age of doorstep crime and that the crime being investigated was that of kidnap and possible stalking. Turning up without on the doorstep without contacting that person first is not the way you should go about introducing yourself. Personal safety and privacy should be respected, a letter of introduction would in my view be the right approach
IMO