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

[WestLondoner]

Tbf shell suits were the height of fashion at the time…

View attachment 350718

Given that Jimmy Savile was a known sex offender who also doesn't have an alibi, I'm amazed the police never tried to fit him up with this one. It fits JS as well as it fits JC. HR would certainly have agreed JS was the man he saw outside 37SR. There he is in an expensive suit. HR never said 'business suit', he just said suit. And that is a shell suit.

Intriguing.

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is a thought provoker, it certainly would be interesting if SJL’s car was parked here.
No one is like to see you meet up, and leave in your car.

Its possible.
But its also possible she left in her car alone, and someone left the Crocodile Tears by the back entrance because he had parked his car there.

There are just too many people working in Sturgis office that day with inconsistant accounts.

MG I felt was always holding back.

Its possible that some events of that day were carried out secretively but have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.
Its just one big puzzle its just which bit goes where to make up bigger picture.

MOO

 

[Cluesleuth]

So honest opinion time and I hope everybody will take part with their own suggestions on what it means.

What are your opinions on a year later CV claiming there was two mystery phone calls that were asking for Suzy.


1) Did it happen?
2) did CV give the detectives a piece of paper at the time with the details on?
3) who would of made the phone calls if they did happen?
4) why if it’s BS would CV make up stories like this?
5) could it of been Suzy herself hoping that somebody would understand that she needed help?



ETA - I’m baffled by these so called phone calls and nothing I can think of makes sense. I do t understand why CV would lie over something like this as it just puts him under suspicion and it’s such a weird thing to lie about.
But at the same time who knew she was heading to the POW as well that day .

It’s a head scratcher

1. Proof is everything . It was different back in 1986 but personally I wouldnt hand anything over to anyone without photograghing or copying it first.
2. I have no reason to disbelieve him others will say they have no reason to believe him its this proof thing again. An account of this may be sitting on one of the 26,000 case index cards if they still exist.
3. Its my opinion that it was a female friend of SJL of the same name and the male calling as a policeman was a friend of the friend.- equally the dynamics in the office that day is suspicious to me so I cant discount they may have come from there.
4. As this stage I dont think CV made it up, but my mind is open and there is I think things still to be revealed so I would just put a question mark over it for that reason.
5. XXXXXXXXXX

Yep your right it messes with your head

 

[Pinkizzy]

Its possible.
But its also possible she left in her car alone, and someone left the Crocodile Tears by the back entrance because he had parked his car there.

There are just too many people working in Sturgis office that day with inconsistant accounts.

MG I felt was always holding back.

Its possible that some events of that day were carried out secretively but have nothing to do with the eventual outcome.
Its just one big puzzle its just which bit goes where to make up bigger picture.

MOO

I agree, MG looks a bit sus

 

[TimFisher1965]

IMO it’s time to say where the car was parked if not in Whittingstall Road.
Ignore for one moment the idea it was a deliberate lie, again, if it wasn’t a lie how does it influence the timeline on the day.

Ok I have been out since before 6am this morning and just got back and read the posts a little clarification required here I think.

I have spoken to both PSS (who cannot be named) and the office junior JC (everyone knows who he is right?) how many other people on here have actually tracked down and got anyone who was a first hand witness to speak? its easy to see the documentaries and read the books lots of which contain many errors not because people lied but because they assumed a lot or could not remember but the fact remains that there is lots of false info woven seemingly permanently into the narrative and this is very unhelpful. Look at the crime watch reconstruction??

I went out and found two people and spoke to them and I did not rely on the written word I went to the people who were there, no disrespect to anyone but if people want to criticize then go find witnesses and do better than I have.

More people have walked on the moon than were in the office on July 28th 1986 and I have an open line of communication with a person who not only was there all day but was first into the office followed by SL so they spoke alone before anyone else got there. I asked him dozens of questions and he answered them all.

Some questions he was 100% certain of facts like where he parked her car I pressed him on this and he was 100% CERTAIN. I asked him for more details and he described the road and its location to the office so i sent him a google map of the office and surrounding roads. The road he named and described was exactly on the map where he said it was in relation to the office.

He also said he was pretty sure but not 100% SL did not park in Whittingstall road when she arrived but was not 100% certain of this. He did name the road he thought it was and also said that he was sure the police had stated that Whittingstall road was the road named by the police in their report but he cannot remember why.

I asked him about Suzy's possessions, when they were lost, Suzy's mood, how she found out where they were at the POW, the diary entry, all about the keys, the argument between NH and SL, KP and MG at lunch, what time MG went to Shorrolds and if anyone female went with him and much more. he answered every question and gave me lots of info that I think nobody knew before.

He confirmed lots of info that backs up almost exactly what DV worked out and researched (sorry DV haters he was right about almost everything).

He said on a few points he did not know but was happy to talk about what people thought and kick it around which confirmed many theories including confirming what the diary entries above Mr Kipper meant.

Some things when he did not know he simply said I am not sure and did not guess or speculate, he only said what he knew for certain.

I now know for sure some things that were until now "probably right" and I got some confirmations for some very important pieces of info that helps build a much clearer picture of the events of that morning.

I just got a message from JC who said he cannot remember if he worked that Sat morning 26th he said he worked most of them but could not remember if he worked that one which suggests to me nothing memorable happened. he also said he took no calls for Suzy on the Monday. he said she made some calls but did not know to who, he asked me if anyone checked the phone logs which ironically was my first question when I started looking into this case.

I was pretty fed up with the responses to the posts they were quite rude I thought. I have a lot of info but I am not going to share what I found out and this is the last thing I am going to say on it.

If people want to know what I found out they can do the spade work like I did.

 

[shadwell]

I agree, MG looks a bit sus

NGL I have been minded that way previously and could envisage a Shorrolds RT ‘multi car’ scenario to fit. He had the ‘Kipper look’ about him per the portrait, but it falls down on HR apparently having spoken to him later in the day with no hint of recognition.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I agree, MG looks a bit sus

If I remember correctly in the DV book when DV got to speak with the secretary SF he learnt that MG had already spoken to her.
It made me wonder why he felt the need to ring her and what was said.
In DVs book when speaking to MS he went through the office staff and their work duties MS said that the the office junior and the secretary were expected to man the phones as they were always busy , but they never did face to face viewings.

In the AS bookpage 28
It says at about 9.45 JC borrowed SJL's car to take a client to Foskett Road.
It goes on to say SJL remained in the Office for the rest of morning Soon after midday SJL, NH & SF went to the back section of the office where SJL shared her cigarettes with them. SF then left to show a house to a client.
So now we have an office junior and a secretary out doing viewings.

Was the smoke break initated by SJL to ask NH & SF to cover her viewings as SJL wanted to leave the office for an extended length of time, NH and SF were having a relationship and lunched together however this day would have been particularly difficult to do that as MG was on a business lunch and one negotiator was on holiday did SJL hope to persuade the 2 to cover viewings leaving enough time to have lunch together.
We know that NH and SJL had a heated argument in the office that morning supposedly over a sale. Strangely when DV met NH & DV together DV NH mentioned that morning was no ordinary morning as NH & SJL had been going at each other in a big argument DV said he couldnt remember that. That struck he as odd surely he would have heard. Perhaps he wasnt in the office and he had left the office well before lunch.
Was the agrument over who was covering whose viewings that day, did SJL find a solution later which suited her NH & SF.

I think it would have caused a considerable problem when SJL vanished.
To try to explain that office policy went out the window that day big time no one was where they should have been.
If MG wasnt aware of this at the time you can image what he must have thought even more you can image what MS would have to say.

It might be why accounts of that days vary so much

Im just thinking of a possible senario.
MOO

 

[Pinkizzy]

NGL I have been minded that way previously and could envisage a Shorrolds RT ‘multi car’ scenario to fit. He had the ‘Kipper look’ about him per the portrait, but it falls down on HR apparently having spoken to him later in the day with no hint of recognition.

He looks guilty on Crimewatch but he's probably nervous answering questions on tv

 

[shadwell]

He looks guilty on Crimewatch but he's probably nervous answering questions on tv

Yes could be - a lot of lip licking IIRC. MG and BW are the two memorable interviews there for me. BW because I wondered whether she did in fact get a look at the male passenger but didn’t want to say (or had been told not to say) - which is why I asked previously whether she knew SJL socially (ie would she have been able to recognise any of SJL’s male friends by sight).

 

[Cluesleuth]

Yes could be - a lot of lip licking IIRC. MG and BW are the two memorable interviews there for me. BW because I wondered whether she did in fact get a look at the male passenger but didn’t want to say (or had been told not to say) - which is why I asked previously whether she knew SJL socially (ie would she have been able to recognise any of SJL’s male friends by sight).

She was a property finder so she could well have recognised KP if she had got a better look or angle. Depends if he had the sun visor down though

 

[shadwell]

She was a property finder so she could well have recognised KP if she had got a better look or angle. Depends if he had the sun visor down though

Likewise other work colleagues if she’d been to the office, I would guess - she clearly saw enough to know it was a male passenger, so what was/were the identifying features which established that for her?

 

[shadwell]

She did, however apparently notice the straw hat in the back, which seems counter-intuitive for someone riding a bike in the opposite direction - though there does seem to be some confusion as to where exactly she saw the car and whether she was riding her bike or waiting at the gate of Fulham cemetery at the time (which would put the car too far north to turn onto Kenyon and then Stevenage in the direction it was found parked up).

Similarly, witness MJ in Stevenage Road also noted the straw hat in an apparently incongruous way, given that she apparently had no means to connect the woman she saw waiting outside no 123 with the car. Additionally, she describes what appears to be a different man to the one seen at Shorrolds (dark/suntanned complexion, 40-50 years old with short, dark brown hair) - though both were described as ‘very good looking.’

 

[shadwell]

And at this point the champagne has been replaced with a briefcase and, as at Shorrolds, the woman is seen waiting - which seems inconsistent with the idea that she had given him a lift to this location.

Also of possible note here - unlike Shorrolds, 123 Stevenage was occupied, so any viewing would need to be by arrangement with BJ/WJ. Was WJ still out at Fulham Cross at this point?

 

[Crusader21]

If people want to know what I found out they can do the spade work like I did.

Thank you for that reply. Personally, I don't have the time nor inclination to track down individuals and pursue a line of questioning with them. As I said though, I do admire those who do.

I've followed this case from the first day it hit the national headlines, but have become increasingly frustrated with it.

With endless possibilities, scenarios and conundrums, do we know anything really for sure?

Perhaps as JC prepares to meet his maker, it may be a good time to step back from following this case so closely.

Maybe it is indeed true that, we are 'never going to find her, and never going to find anything out!'

 

[asyousay]

Thank you for that reply. Personally, I don't have the time nor inclination to track down individuals and pursue a line of questioning with them. As I said though, I do admire those who do.

I've followed this case from the first day it hit the national headlines, but have become increasingly frustrated with it.

With endless possibilities, scenarios and conundrums, do we know anything really for sure?

Perhaps as JC prepares to meet his maker, it may be a good time to step back from following this case so closely.

Maybe it is indeed true that, we are 'never going to find her, and never going to find anything out!'

Yes I think at this stage it’s unsolvable- unless a cold case is opened up at some point but who realistically is gonna do that?

It’s a shame there isn’t more interest in getting the case looked at again as clearly the case was botched and many over sights imo

 

[asyousay]

So here are a few questions for old timers on this thread.

How many witnesses did not come forward?

In such a massive publicized case why did people not come forward to help more along the case if they was completely innocent. It certainly wasn’t down to lack of news coverage as it was everywhere.

 

[rls11]

So here are a few questions for old timers on this thread.

How many witnesses did not come forward?

In such a massive publicized case why did people not come forward to help more along the case if they was completely innocent. It certainly wasn’t down to lack of news coverage as it was everywhere.

Sadly I think there will be a number of witnesses who did not come forward. Why? Some people just don't trust the police and have nothing to do with them, others may think their information would be unimportant, some may have started to doubt what they saw, others may believe someone else would have already told the police the same thing etc etc.

It's very frustrating, though, because there could be one gem of information missing...

 

[Cluesleuth]

And at this point the champagne has been replaced with a briefcase and, as at Shorrolds, the woman is seen waiting - which seems inconsistent with the idea that she had given him a lift to this location.

Also of possible note here - unlike Shorrolds, 123 Stevenage was occupied, so any viewing would need to be by arrangement with BJ/WJ. Was WJ still out at Fulham Cross at this point?

How Im seeing it as NH and SF were working these viewings while SJL was else where.
It suited them as they wanted to spend their lunchtimes together as usual. So that accounts for a female and a male being seen at these locations.
NH had just had a birthday turning 23 so the bottle of Champagne could be something he either bought with him or SF given him on the day.
I think the sighting of a couple in the park drinking champagne is most likely them.
MOO

 

[Pinkizzy]

Sadly I think there will be a number of witnesses who did not come forward. Why? Some people just don't trust the police and have nothing to do with them, others may think their information would be unimportant, some may have started to doubt what they saw, others may believe someone else would have already told the police the same thing etc etc.

It's very frustrating, though, because there could be one gem of information missing...

The police followed a specific narrative (Shorrolds Rd) and any other possible sightings of SL were dimissed. I guess everything is on a database somewhere

 

[asyousay]

How Im seeing it as NH and SF were working these viewings while SJL was else where.
It suited them as they wanted to spend their lunchtimes together as usual. So that accounts for a female and a male being seen at these locations.
NH had just had a birthday turning 23 so the bottle of Champagne could be something he either bought with him or SF given him on the day.
I think the sighting of a couple in the park drinking champagne is most likely them.
MOO

Did they come forward and confirm it was them?