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

[Cluesleuth]

HWL 507N (p124 'Ladykiller' by Berry-Dee and Odell)

Also 'The driver's door did not function properly and Shirley used the door on the passenger side to get in and out of the car.'

Can I query that with you?
A shutterstock photo shows a mini with the reg you mention but says Its a mini clubman Car similar to the one driven by misssing woman SB

Mini Clubman Car Similar One Driven Editorial Stock Photo - Stock Image | Shutterstock Editorial

Find the editorial stock photo of Mini Clubman Car Similar One Driven, and more photos in the Shutterstock collection of editorial photography. 1000s of new photos added daily.

www.shutterstock.com

​

 

[Konstantin]

Where in that timeline does she have an opportunity to do all that, plus phone up other people about her ever-changing plans to go to the PoW - people who have never come forward to say they are Sarah or whoever? Nobody at work can even remember knowing about the lost property, so we don't know how the police knew where it was. This makes much of what else they reckon they remember a bit suspect.

Yes. There is zero evidence that SJL was making personal chatty calls telling her mum and others that she had to run an errand to a pub. She was at work, where personal calls would have been frowned on--you are at work to work not chat to your mum to inform her of every detail of your unfolding day. Making the call to the pub to reschedule would have probably have been a marginal thing as it was a personal matter not a business matter. The pub calling her was OK as it was not her fault and how else could they reach her. Although I am surprised the bank gave out her number-- i suppose privacy then was not what it now is.

I don't think there is any evidence that DL called witnesses either. That is just speculation. We actually have no idea what happened, there are clues in AS book to suggest that there was probably more than one convo between MG and HR and that the two spoke in person when MG went to Shorrolds to see if he could find SJL.

 

[Cluesleuth]

yes, leslie skipper. he was a friend of suzy, and worked for the BBC.

It seems odd that the name alone would place him so prominently on the incident room whiteboard for just that reason. Did he resemble the phofit of KIPPER? I noticed a MR 'L' Under one of the photofits would this relate to him as well.

 

[Konstantin]

He has been told he has to bring evidence to the table. He has literally zero evidence and he won’t start a crowd funder and won’t do anything to prove he isn’t somebody trying to make a name and money off the back of this case.

So yes it’s entirety down to him to prove he just hasn’t made up a ton of crap to sell a book. The Police and the family won’t listen to him and that speaks volumes. He has nothing but a theory and he hasn’t done anything since his chat in December to move his theory forward - the question is why?

He has come up with a theory for an alternative and plausible on the face of it--unless the police do have other pieces of evidence that they have not released and that is a possibility we should not ignore--suggestion as to where SJL might have been heading that day.

That's all he has, it is a theory based in some facts--that SJL did have reason to go there, and she could not have gone there at 6pm. From there he makes a leap that SJL DID go there, she was killed there (or had an accident that was covered up as if it was a murder. I really find that hard to believe). Is that worth looking in to? Again on the face of it, it seems to be because those are facts, and all other avenues have not really worked out. THe Mr Kipper angle appears to be a bit of a dead end. No one could identify him and no one saw him on the street where the car was abandoned. There is nothing to link this figure to someone in SJL's life. So yes it seems it is worth exploring even just to rule it out if it hasn't been ruled out already. Assuming something didn't happen without checking it is not a good way to investigate.

The other bits that DV puts around the above theory are conjecture, and can't really be proven from the bits and pieces we have to work with. The keys story sounds plausible but also, there is no evidence really she didn't take them with her. And if she was making up a fake viewing to get out of the office, why not take the keys to make it look real? What would she have said when she got back, sans keys, and with no real ability to enter a fake client into the system they were supposed to use? You'd just take the flipping keys!

The other presentation of CV and his ex "acting suspiciously" I think are him editorializng and presenting this material to achieve a certain effect. AL being upset could be for a million reasons maybe he is convinced JC did it and isn't open to any other theories.

 

[Cluesleuth]

He has come up with a theory for an alternative and plausible on the face of it--unless the police do have other pieces of evidence that they have not released and that is a possibility we should not ignore--suggestion as to where SJL might have been heading that day.

That's all he has, it is a theory based in some facts--that SJL did have reason to go there, and she could not have gone there at 6pm. From there he makes a leap that SJL DID go there, she was killed there (or had an accident that was covered up as if it was a murder. I really find that hard to believe). Is that worth looking in to? Again on the face of it, it seems to be because those are facts, and all other avenues have not really worked out. THe Mr Kipper angle appears to be a bit of a dead end. No one could identify him and no one saw him on the street where the car was abandoned. There is nothing to link this figure to someone in SJL's life. So yes it seems it is worth exploring even just to rule it out if it hasn't been ruled out already. Assuming something didn't happen without checking it is not a good way to investigate.

The other bits that DV puts around the above theory are conjecture, and can't really be proven from the bits and pieces we have to work with. The keys story sounds plausible but also, there is no evidence really she didn't take them with her. And if she was making up a fake viewing to get out of the office, why not take the keys to make it look real? What would she have said when she got back, sans keys, and with no real ability to enter a fake client into the system they were supposed to use? You'd just take the flipping keys!

The other presentation of CV and his ex "acting suspiciously" I think are him editorializng and presenting this material to achieve a certain effect. AL being upset could be for a million reasons maybe he is convinced JC did it and isn't open to any other theories.

I agree.
It would be interesting to hear AL, CV and his ex side of how their interviews with DV went and how they were represented in the book.
In my opinion the well educated AL clocked on to how DV was attempting to skew the narrative and he was having none of it.

MOO

 

[asyousay]

How do posters know that LE have nothing on JC?

Just because we are not privy to every little detail doesn’t mean they have nothing. The family and LE seem convinced it’s him and the family I just don’t believe they want somebody fitted up for the murder.

Even a few years ago they did a dig at his parents house so they are obviously still getting tips and working the case.

MOO

 

[asyousay]

He has come up with a theory for an alternative and plausible on the face of it--unless the police do have other pieces of evidence that they have not released and that is a possibility we should not ignore--suggestion as to where SJL might have been heading that day.

That's all he has, it is a theory based in some facts--that SJL did have reason to go there, and she could not have gone there at 6pm. From there he makes a leap that SJL DID go there, she was killed there (or had an accident that was covered up as if it was a murder. I really find that hard to believe). Is that worth looking in to? Again on the face of it, it seems to be because those are facts, and all other avenues have not really worked out. THe Mr Kipper angle appears to be a bit of a dead end. No one could identify him and no one saw him on the street where the car was abandoned. There is nothing to link this figure to someone in SJL's life. So yes it seems it is worth exploring even just to rule it out if it hasn't been ruled out already. Assuming something didn't happen without checking it is not a good way to investigate.

The other bits that DV puts around the above theory are conjecture, and can't really be proven from the bits and pieces we have to work with. The keys story sounds plausible but also, there is no evidence really she didn't take them with her. And if she was making up a fake viewing to get out of the office, why not take the keys to make it look real? What would she have said when she got back, sans keys, and with no real ability to enter a fake client into the system they were supposed to use? You'd just take the flipping keys!

The other presentation of CV and his ex "acting suspiciously" I think are him editorializng and presenting this material to achieve a certain effect. AL being upset could be for a million reasons maybe he is convinced JC did it and isn't open to any other theories.

Yes and why does nobody on here talk about the ex wife’s weird reaction?

Her behavior was a lot stranger than her husbands.


If anything she comes off more suspicious- yet nobody thinks she has anything to do with this oddly.


MOO

 

[asyousay]

Another weird thing about CV’s theory - he was the only one who knew what was said to Suzy on the phone. She has vanished so if he had murdered her why even mention she was dropping into the pub that night?


Nobody knew her plans as she had vanished off the face of the planet. If CV was guilty he would of made up a lot better story as he could of met her somehow away from the pub as she was a super busy girl and he was being helpful.

By saying she was coming to the pub he puts himself in the frame unless of course he was completely innocent and just told the truth and that was the plans and he had zero reason to lie.

 

[Crusader21]

On DVs facebook page, the former wife of MS (Chillenden Murderer) claims that he is likely reponsible for SLs murder?!

That's a new one!

 

[Cluesleuth]

Sian Morris

Im just rewatching tv Docu The Vanishing of Suzy Lamplugh a detective on the programme does confirm the reg plate as being HWL 507N as you advised so thank you for that.
I think the Shutterstock photo and the description as similiar related to the car being shown as the same make and model but not the colour as original car colour was orange

 

[asyousay]

On DVs facebook page, the former wife of MS (Chillenden Murderer) claims that he is likely reponsible for SLs murder?!

That's a new one!

Looking at Wiki I think he could of been in jail during the time she vanished.

 

[rls11]

How do posters know that LE have nothing on JC?

Just because we are not privy to every little detail doesn’t mean they have nothing. The family and LE seem convinced it’s him and the family I just don’t believe they want somebody fitted up for the murder.

Even a few years ago they did a dig at his parents house so they are obviously still getting tips and working the case.

MOO

I guess the truth is that none of us know what LE have on JC. But the CPS have never felt they have enough...

 

[asyousay]

I guess the truth is that none of us know what LE have on JC. But the CPS have never felt they have enough...

That makes sense


The problem is unless it is CV and it is the POW then realistically this is just never going to be solved I don’t think which is super frustrating.


It’s so frustrating to think a woman can simply vanish off the streets of London and nobody saw a thing. It would be like if this happened in any major city you just expect with so many people walking around they would of seen something.


ETA - I forgot to add At Lunch time as well - so even more people out and about

 

[WestLondoner]

He has been told he has to bring evidence to the table. He has literally zero evidence and he won’t start a crowd funder and won’t do anything to prove he isn’t somebody trying to make a name and money off the back of this case.

So yes it’s entirety down to him to prove he just hasn’t made up a ton of crap to sell a book. The Police and the family won’t listen to him and that speaks volumes. He has nothing but a theory and he hasn’t done anything since his chat in December to move his theory forward - the question is why?

If he has zero evidence then he's in the same boat as the Met with their JC fit-up. They have zero evidence for that, too.

It is, moreover, a particularly cynical demand for the police to make. The evidence that SJL actually went to the PoW should have been but was not gathered by the police themselves in July 1986. What is not in doubt is that SJL intended to go to the PoW to retrieve her cheque book and diary. Even the police have to own up to that, because they actually went there and retrieved it. But they never searched the PoW, or questioned the staff, or indicated to the public in their information appeals that it was a place she may have gone, or asked if anyone had seen her car being driven there, or in particular had seen it being driven away (perhaps by a male who looked like James Galway). That was the opportunity they missed to gather evidence. Instead they just asserted, quite falsely, that SJL had been seen at 37SR, and they did so the very next day. They had no witness for this at all. Not even HR said he had seen her; he just said he had seen a woman and the police made no attempt to consider who else that might have been.

They are now essentially saying that because they failed to seek evidence at the time they won't consider the PoW now, unless DV can somehow alter the past so that in fact the police did seek that evidence.

 

[Crusader21]

This site is good for those interested in the locations etc relevant to the SL disappearance ...

In Detail: Suzy Lamplugh #1

Suzy Lamplugh has not been seen since she left her office in Fulham at lunchtime on 28th July 1986. It seems highly unlikely now that she went to meet a buyer at 37 Shorrolds Road.

www.crimeguy.com

and a few good downloads here -

Suzy Lamplugh Dossier

You can download PDFs containing a cast of characters and a timeline relating to the unsolved disappearance of British estate agent Suzy Lamplugh in 1986.

www.crimeguy.com

 

[WestLondoner]

That makes sense


The problem is unless it is CV and it is the POW then realistically this is just never going to be solved I don’t think which is super frustrating.


It’s so frustrating to think a woman can simply vanish off the streets of London and nobody saw a thing. It would be like if this happened in any major city you just expect with so many people walking around they would of seen something.


ETA - I forgot to add At Lunch time as well - so even more people out and about

I think we do know what they have on JC, roughly:

- They think he looks like HR's artist's impression of MG
- Shirley Banks' number plate looks a bit like a reference to her
- Fourteen years later somebody remembered seeing him in 1986 driving the car he didn't have until 1987
- After the press decided he was Mr Kipper other prisoners started calling him that, so that proves he must have been Mr Kipper previously
- All sex offenders use their prison nickname as an alias, to give the police a fair chance of catching them
- He was 4.5 miles from Fulham so he might have gone there a lot
- SJL worked in Fulham so he might have met her
- They deliberately failed to check his alibi so that eventually he wouldn't have one
- He's a wrong 'un

That's the police case, basically. Two of those require JC to own a time machine that a car will fit into, so he can drive his car a year before acquiring it.

There is no evidence he ever went to Fulham, no evidence he ever met SJL, not a thing.

 

[WestLondoner]

Another weird thing about CV’s theory - he was the only one who knew what was said to Suzy on the phone. She has vanished so if he had murdered her why even mention she was dropping into the pub that night?


Nobody knew her plans as she had vanished off the face of the planet. If CV was guilty he would of made up a lot better story as he could of met her somehow away from the pub as she was a super busy girl and he was being helpful.

By saying she was coming to the pub he puts himself in the frame unless of course he was completely innocent and just told the truth and that was the plans and he had zero reason to lie.

Other people knew she was coming to the pub. Someone in the pub rang her bank and possibly others spoke to her to arrange the visit. Then there would be any of her work colleagues who were told or overheard where she was headed. It would be impossible for CV or anyone else to say she had no intention of coming there. So the next best thing to do would be to say she planned to, but never showed up (and for all we know that's what did happen).

The thing that is tricky about CV's account is that in July 1986 he claimed SJL wasn't coming over till after work, but never showed, because of course she disappeared at 12.40. The 6pm viewing in her desk diary proves she cannot have been intending to come after work, however, so the question is who knew she was coming at 12.40 and why was this not mentioned to the police?

 

[Pimlipo]

On DVs facebook page, the former wife of MS (Chillenden Murderer) claims that he is likely reponsible for SLs murder?!

That's a new one!

That person is some sort of unhinged conspiracy theorist and not to be taken at all seriously. Had said mental things about the bedsit murders (before Fuller was arrested and charged) only to be proven empathically wrong. Amongst a host of other things, I don’t think she’s well.

 

[Cluesleuth]

That makes sense


The problem is unless it is CV and it is the POW then realistically this is just never going to be solved I don’t think which is super frustrating.


It’s so frustrating to think a woman can simply vanish off the streets of London and nobody saw a thing. It would be like if this happened in any major city you just expect with so many people walking around they would of seen something.


ETA - I forgot to add At Lunch time as well - so even more people out and about

I think it is solvable.
I think there are a lot of good clues its just a matter of unraveling it all.

 

[asyousay]

Other people knew she was coming to the pub. Someone in the pub rang her bank and possibly others spoke to her to arrange the visit. Then there would be any of her work colleagues who were told or overheard where she was headed. It would be impossible for CV or anyone else to say she had no intention of coming there. So the next best thing to do would be to say she planned to, but never showed up (and for all we know that's what did happen).

The thing that is tricky about CV's account is that in July 1986 he claimed SJL wasn't coming over till after work, but never showed, because of course she disappeared at 12.40. The 6pm viewing in her desk diary proves she cannot have been intending to come after work, however, so the question is who knew she was coming at 12.40 and why was this not mentioned to the police?

So who else confirmed she was heading to the pub besides CV?


I thought he was the only source of that information