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

[WestLondoner]

Where does this narrative about a second viewing come from?

The police now believe it, but nobody's sure where it originated. WJ never dealt with SJL, only with MG, and even if a viewing of 123 Stevenage had been due, it would not have involved SJL.

In 2000 the Lamplughs complained about the police investigation and part of their complaint was that there had been a second viewing, in Stevenage Road.

When DV met JD he said the car had been found "just outside one of the addresses that they’d viewed." DV goes on, "While it had been lightly suggested as a possibility in the newspapers, because of a ‘For Sale’ sign in Stevenage Road, there was never any actual evidence of it."

It makes more sense for SJL's car to have been dumped there by someone involved in her disappearance after the event, to distance the car from where the disappearance or something else happened. Wherever that was, some time must have elapsed between SJL going missing/coming to harm and the car being removed from the scene and dumped so I can't believe that this occurred very soon after she left her office, and I think that the witness testimony of the lady living in Stevenage road is just mistaken.

Exactly.

If SJL allowed someone else to drive her car to Stevenage road with her inside it, then there were people around who would have seen her especially if she was forced out under duress, and no right minded kidnapper is going to do that with BT road workers right in front of him.

Exactly.

It's more likely SJL drove somewhere, went inside somewhere, something happened to her there.

Yes. Any scenario in which she disappears off the street without attracting attention requires an acquaintance to have done it. Or, it wasn't off any street that she "disappeared".

I don't believe in a complicated conspiracy of someone luring her to the POW or somewhere else, and CV caught up in it

It's a low probability I think. Not nil, because we know of one person who might well have had an issue with her. But a simpler explanation is possible.

it's more likely SJL went there, something happened and he covered it up then a year later tried to put the police off the scent of thinking that SJL ever attended/muddy the waters about what happened to her by suggesting that mysterious people were phoning him about her.

Yes. At the time he just said "Yeah, we were expecting her at 6 but she never turned up." Nice and simple. A year later he knew two things he did not know the day she died. First, he now knew the police had gone off down the garden path after the non-existent Mr Kipper, so he needed to emphasise that he'd been at the pub all day, and was not - for example - the 'James Galway' man sighted in the vicinity of the dumped car. Second, he had probably seen the photos of the diary page that showed she had a 6pm viewing appointment - so there was no way she can have been coming to the PoW at that time, as the police had been fooled into thinking. To deal with both of these he fabricates claims that she was expected - by others as well - all day.

I don't believe two trusted officers forgot his testimony a year before and lost a piece of paper with vital evidence on it. Either he's a bit of a mess and very muddled in his mind, or he's a liar trying to distance himself from events.

Yep. Note how complete his memory suddenly is when interviewed. DV doesn't say it but it's almost as though he remembers the story he has to stick to rather than what actually happened - about which everyone else is pretty vague.

DV's thinking is just basic common sense really. Where could she have gone?
1. Home. Searched. Not there.
2. Shorrolds. Searched. Not there.
3. 123 Stevenage Road. Searched. Not there.
4. The PoW. Not searched. The bloke who was there on his own that afternoon said she never turned up, so no need.

What!?!!!??

Do police detectives actually go to any sort of Detective School?

 

[Terryb808]

Where does this narrative about a second viewing come from?

Who is saying there was a second viewing? What is that idea based on, evidentially? There can't be a house viewing without keys unless (a) the owner of the house is inside it and lets you in, which wasn't the case here or (b) the potential buyer just wants to look at the outside of a house which doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense for SJL's car to have been dumped there by someone involved in her disappearance after the event, to distance the car from where the disappearance or something else happened. Wherever that was, some time must have elapsed between SJL going missing/coming to harm and the car being removed from the scene and dumped so I can't believe that this occurred very soon after she left her office, and I think that the witness testimony of the lady living in Stevenage road is just mistaken.

If SJL allowed someone else to drive her car to Stevenage road with her inside it, then there were people around who would have seen her especially if she was forced out under duress, and no right minded kidnapper is going to do that with BT road workers right in front of him. Or in plain view of houses in broad daylight. It's more likely SJL drove somewhere, went inside somewhere, something happened to her there.

I don't believe in a complicated conspiracy of someone luring her to the POW or somewhere else, and CV caught up in it, if he is involved it's more likely SJL went there, something happened and he covered it up then a year later tried to put the police off the scent of thinking that SJL ever attended/muddy the waters about what happened to her by suggesting that mysterious people were phoning him about her. I don't believe two trusted officers forgot his testimony a year before and lost a piece of paper with vital evidence on it. Either he's a bit of a mess and very muddled in his mind, or he's a liar trying to distance himself from events.

Yes, seems a lot of us think the same way, the case was high profile at the time and a vital lead like the phone number would have been jumped on.
It’s the simple explanation that often holds the key, but the Met won’t look at this now because they’ve already played their cards and said JC did it and they’re not looking for anyone else.
To now go and find SJL in the PoW or more likely the railway embankment would show how badly they handled the case 36 years again.
So unless someone else goes and finds SJL (and this is really up to DV) then this will remain unsolved.
Not being negative, just realistic.

 

[Konstantin]

Second, he had probably seen the photos of the diary page that showed she had a 6pm viewing appointment - so there was no way she can have been coming to the PoW at that time, as the police had been fooled into thinking. To deal with both of these he fabricates claims that she was expected - by others as well - all day.

In the AS book, AS notes that the last phone call SJL made was to the POW just before she headed out. Was this fact reported in the press? *If* it was then there is more reason for CV to want to distance himself from any possibility that SJL might have come to the pub after she left her office.

If CV is involved--and while I think the POW should be considered as a possible destination for SJL and searched--whatever happened must have been a spur of the moment thing since I can't believe in a complicated conspiracy that involves SJL being lured to the pub through a complex plot of having CV call her bank. That's just not plausible to me at all. If he was involved then it's more likely something just happened on the spur of the moment when SJL showed up there. I think that is what DV is hinting at as well.

Yes, seems a lot of us think the same way, the case was high profile at the time and a vital lead like the phone number would have been jumped on

Exactly this, it would have been a very exciting lead indeed, a breakthrough in the case even.
In that case, I can see why the police just dismissed CV's claim as him being muddled in the head, they didn't attach any sinister motive to him coming up with this rather complex and convoluted story of two (three?) phone calls and two police officers missing a vital lead. They just assumed given the passage of time--a year--he'd got mixed up with days and other events. But this is not the sort of thing that someone would forget at the time is it? Phone calls involving a disappearance like that? why would he not have remembered them to tell the police the previous year? why did he not mention them to anyone else? why did he not go to the press to talk to them about this very bizarre and -- if it were really true-- vital series of events?

 

[Terryb808]

This is what makes him a suspect, others at the time where in the spotlight of the press & TV, AS said he had an uneasy feeling about him, and DV said he wondered what he'd been up to in the meantime.
If I'm not mistaken the Met officers that interviewed him were also uneasy and thought he should be looked at, but no one listened to them, they were still looking and Mr Kipper and then JC came into the frame.
I just can't see the logic in not looking into DV's narrative and taking a preliminary (not that expensive look) at the PoW and the embankment. I've said before trained dogs are a brilliant resource and can get into the thickest of undergrowth (I know, my Irish Terrier disappears into it ofter enough).

 

[WestLondoner]

Re dogs, I was wondering that; surely this would be a cheap way of finding out if there's anything there. DV has said that the trouble with dogs is you don't know what they're alerting at, but if they don't alert at all that would be informative in itself, surely.

In the AS book, AS notes that the last phone call SJL made was to the POW just before she headed out. Was this fact reported in the press?

Doubt it. I for one had never heard of any visit to the PoW until I read about it in AS' book.

If CV is involved--and while I think the POW should be considered as a possible destination for SJL and searched--whatever happened must have been a spur of the moment thing since I can't believe in a complicated conspiracy that involves SJL being lured to the pub through a complex plot of having CV call her bank. That's just not plausible to me at all. If he was involved then it's more likely something just happened on the spur of the moment when SJL showed up there. I think that is what DV is hinting at as well.

Agree this is more likely than a complex conspiracy. The reason there is a tendency to want to involve TS and PSS is that until pretty recently, they were the only people in all this who were a bit mysterious. Then CV comes along, and he's a lot more mysterious. So they could all be in cahoots but they surely needn't be; they don't need to feature further in any hypotheses.

They just assumed given the passage of time--a year--he'd got mixed up with days and other events. But this is not the sort of thing that someone would forget at the time is it?

You're right, it's not; rather than assuming he was confused, they should have assumed he was clearly lying either before or now, and then asked themselves where that train of thought led them.

why did he not go to the press to talk to them about this very bizarre and -- if it were really true-- vital series of events?

Excellent point I completely hadn't considered. I've long wondered why PSS didn't want to milk this association, but it's equally surprising that CV didn't want to either. Why didn't he want to be famous for a day by relating how he was The Last Person To Speak To Suzy? The Sun exclusive headline practically writes itself. Perhaps because he was, but the last conversation took place not on the phone, but in the pub cellar just before she died?

 

[Terryb808]

Re dogs, I was wondering that; surely this would be a cheap way of finding out if there's anything there. DV has said that the trouble with dogs is you don't know what they're alerting at, but if they don't alert at all that would be informative in itself, surely.

Well trained dogs do not disturb what they find, and in the case of the embankment would be essential because it's not been disturbed in what looks like over 30 years. IMO they would allow you to search a fairly large area in a relatively short period of time. This is important because its on Network Rail land and you have the Health & Safety aspect to consider, the rear looks a long way from the actual railway line, but to search it may required trains to be stopped.
I think this is the biggest issue with searching this area, logically if DV's theory is correct then SJL would have been initially hidden in the PoW cellar, if evidence could be found that this was the case, getting Network Rail to cooperate would be much easier for the Met.

Regarding the conspiracy between TS, PSS & CV, this is a none starter IMO, I don't this the couple would have associated themselves with CV, they certainly wouldn't have needed to lure SJL to the PoW, she would have trusted them so no need.

 

[WestLondoner]

Phone calls involving a disappearance like that? why would he not have remembered them to tell the police the previous year? why did he not mention them to anyone else?

Rereading DV this morning, not only did CV not mention these calls to the police at the time, he didn't even mention the police interest re SJL to the permanent landlord when he got back from his week's holiday!!

The first the latter knew there had been an arrangement for SJL to come to the PoW that day was when the police contacted him a year later, trying to get hold of CV (who'd by then moved on). Even though when MH, the permanent landlord, returned, at a time when SJL was still big current news, CV never mentioned to him that SJL had been intending to come to the pub, that he'd spoken to the police about it, and that they'd taken her stuff away.

How weird is that? Wouldn't the first question from MH have been "Anything happen while we were away?" and wouldn't you expect CV's reply to be "Yes, I was the last person who spoke to that pretty estate agent who's disappeared, to arrange a visit here, and I was interviewed by the police the same day"?! How could CV not mention that!?

 

[Terryb808]

Rereading DV this morning, not only did CV not mention these calls to the police at the time, he didn't even mention the police interest re SJL to the permanent landlord when he got back from his week's holiday!!

The first the latter knew there had been an arrangement for SJL to come to the PoW that day was when the police contacted him a year later, trying to get hold of CV (who'd by then moved on). Even though when MH, the permanent landlord, returned, at a time when SJL was still big current news, CV never mentioned to him that SJL had been intending to come to the pub, that he'd spoken to the police about it, and that they'd taken her stuff away.

How weird is that? Wouldn't the first question from MH have been "Anything happen while we were away?" and wouldn't you expect CV's reply to be "Yes, I was the last person who spoke to that pretty estate agent who's disappeared, to arrange a visit here, and I was interviewed by the police the same day"?! How could CV not mention that!?

Yes it’s very frustrating that CV has more circumstantial evidence that justifies the Met looking into him than the JC did it narrative they follow.
Apart from the none existent Mr Kipper and his basic MO, JC has nothing against him.

 

[Konstantin]

Yes it’s very frustrating that CV has more circumstantial evidence that justifies the Met looking into him than the JC did it narrative they follow.
Apart from the none existent Mr Kipper and his basic MO, JC has nothing against him.

I don't even think the Mr Kipper story is close to JC's MO.

Let's play devils advocate for a minute and assume that Mr Kipper was a clever ruse to lure SJL to an empty house to kidnap her or assault her in some way (and I don't think the Mr Kipper viewing was a real viewing at all, I think there is enough to suggest that SJL made it up as cover to go out of the office that lunchtime). But let's play.

1. The Mr Kipper figure must have had local knowledge to know that SJL existed, where she worked, that she was an estate agent who did viewings, and that there was a new house on the market at SR that was empty i.e. the seller didn't live there.

2. Mr Kipper can't have physically attended Sturgis to book his fake appointment because then, even if he came there on Saturday, he ran the risk of someone seeing him when he booked the appointment, and knowing that he was Mr Kipper. So when he attacked or kidnapped SJL others would know what he looked like. So for his plan to work his only recourse would have been to call the office. And he can't have been known to SJL or she might well have recognised his voice.

3. When he called the office, Mr Kipper managed to persuade SJL to book a lunchtime viewing of the new SR property without him providing any other details about himself including his first name, and his phone number. We can infer this because there was no client form filled out for him (highly unusual), no phone number or first name listed on SJL's diary entry. If SJL had to cancel the appointment, she could not have contacted her client. SJL never mentioned the appointment to anyone, never mentioned the weird client's last name, the fact he didn't give a first name or a phone number.

4. None of that makes sense. The only way for the Mr Kipper viewing to make sense as a viewing is if SJL wanted to show the house to a person she knew, but for some reason he or she did not want Sturgis to know she was doing that. I can't see a scenario where that would be plausible.

Also, think about it, if you wanted to kidnap someone--this is a terrible MO. You run the risk of being seen or caught out--by a neighbour, by one of SJL's colleagues, by passers by on the street. It's literally the middle of the day, broad daylight, a fairly busy street with people walking up and down it. As a time and place to work the kidnap of a strange woman, this has to be one of the worst plans I could imagine. Also, this was not JC's MO at all, he was an opportunist not someone who came up with complex, yet very stupid, plans to kidnap someone this way.

ALso again, let's say that JC really did kidnap SJL (spoiler- he didn't), he would not have got her to call the pub where--in this scenario where SJL met Mr Kipper aka JC at lunchtime, she wasn't even expected to attend until much later that day. There is zero reason for her or anyone to call the pub. If anything, SJL would have been made to call her office with some reason why she wasn't back in. CV's story makes less and less sense to me. Either he is someone who is very seriously muddled in the head (in which case how on earth did he manage to run pubs? I'd expect you have to be fairly sharp to manage a business like that?) or he's someone who likes to tell weird lies, or he's doing it for some other reason.

 

[Terryb808]

I don't even think the Mr Kipper story is close to JC's MO.

Let's play devils advocate for a minute and assume that Mr Kipper was a clever ruse to lure SJL to an empty house to kidnap her or assault her in some way (and I don't think the Mr Kipper viewing was a real viewing at all, I think there is enough to suggest that SJL made it up as cover to go out of the office that lunchtime). But let's play.

1. The Mr Kipper figure must have had local knowledge to know that SJL existed, where she worked, that she was an estate agent who did viewings, and that there was a new house on the market at SR that was empty i.e. the seller didn't live there.

2. Mr Kipper can't have physically attended Sturgis to book his fake appointment because then, even if he came there on Saturday, he ran the risk of someone seeing him when he booked the appointment, and knowing that he was Mr Kipper. So when he attacked or kidnapped SJL others would know what he looked like. So for his plan to work his only recourse would have been to call the office. And he can't have been known to SJL or she might well have recognised his voice.

3. When he called the office, Mr Kipper managed to persuade SJL to book a lunchtime viewing of the new SR property without him providing any other details about himself including his first name, and his phone number. We can infer this because there was no client form filled out for him (highly unusual), no phone number or first name listed on SJL's diary entry. If SJL had to cancel the appointment, she could not have contacted her client. SJL never mentioned the appointment to anyone, never mentioned the weird client's last name, the fact he didn't give a first name or a phone number.

4. None of that makes sense. The only way for the Mr Kipper viewing to make sense as a viewing is if SJL wanted to show the house to a person she knew, but for some reason he or she did not want Sturgis to know she was doing that. I can't see a scenario where that would be plausible.

Also, think about it, if you wanted to kidnap someone--this is a terrible MO. You run the risk of being seen or caught out--by a neighbour, by one of SJL's colleagues, by passers by on the street. It's literally the middle of the day, broad daylight, a fairly busy street with people walking up and down it. As a time and place to work the kidnap of a strange woman, this has to be one of the worst plans I could imagine. Also, this was not JC's MO at all, he was an opportunist not someone who came up with complex, yet very stupid, plans to kidnap someone this way.

ALso again, let's say that JC really did kidnap SJL (spoiler- he didn't), he would not have got her to call the pub where--in this scenario where SJL met Mr Kipper aka JC at lunchtime, she wasn't even expected to attend until much later that day. There is zero reason for her or anyone to call the pub. If anything, SJL would have been made to call her office with some reason why she wasn't back in. CV's story makes less and less sense to me. Either he is someone who is very seriously muddled in the head (in which case how on earth did he manage to run pubs? I'd expect you have to be fairly sharp to manage a business like that?) or he's someone who likes to tell weird lies, or he's doing it for some other reason.

I agree, JC is not the brightest spanner in the toolbox. Exactly why I can’t understand why the Met persists with the stance that JC is the one & only suspect in the SJL disappearance.

The only thing going for the Met is that JC tried it on (again as an opportunistic crime) when he randomly knocked on the door of a house for sale.

Luckily the ladies husband was home and he beat a hasty retreat. As far as I can see this and his tendency to car jack his victims are the only things the Met have.

In SJL’s case the car jacking is the only one that is remotely possible.

 

[WestLondoner]

Luckily the ladies husband was home and he beat a hasty retreat.

Interestingly, according to DV this supposed 1986 event only came out in 2000 following a police appeal for evidence to incriminate JC, along with the claimed 1986 sighting of JC looking through Sturgis' window. That this was JC at all must thus be considered very doubtful after 14 years.

 

[Terryb808]

Interestingly, according to DV this supposed 1986 event only came out in 2000 following a police appeal for evidence to incriminate JC, along with the claimed 1986 sighting of JC looking through Sturgis' window. That this was JC at all must thus be considered very doubtful after 14 years.

This is outlined in CBD's book "Prime Suspect" and happened prior to his first 8 year (5 served) sentence. The book covers JC's life of crime and also outlines one that he was questioned about, which later turned out to have been committed by someone else. JC just happened to be walking past the block of flats when it was committed, the crime was solved using more up to date forensics, so definitely not JC.
But its does show that being in the wrong place at the wrong time can be costly.

 

[Konstantin]

In SJL’s case the car jacking is the only one that is remotely possible.

See, the thing is, that if this was JC and he did car jack SJL, this doesn't really fit with either his previous MO--AFAIK he did rape or attempt to rape a woman who had gone to sit in her car very late at night after a fight with her partner.

If JC car jacked SJL this would either mean that:

-- JC was Mr Kipper and planned the entire thing to car jack SJL, meaning (on top of what I wrote in the above post) he had planned his crime to such an extent, within the confines of his day release conditions at the time, that he knew that SJL attended house viewing appointments of fairly nearby properties in a car alone, and that she would do so on the day that he had made an appointment in advance to lure her out, not to the SR house, but so that she would be in her car when she either (a) arrived at SR for the viewing OR (b) when she left her office and got into her car to drive to the SR appointment that he had set up in advance. Meaning that JC knew where the car that SJL would use to attend the appointment was. Which is something that SJL herself didn't know as she had to ask a colleague where it was parked.

or, even more unlikely,

-- JC was NOT Mr Kipper. Mr Kipper was a real appointment, and SJL never showed up because JC just so happened to be in the vicinity that was nowhere near where he was supposed to be, to chance to walk past SJL's car in broad daylight on a busy road just as she got into it, or just after she got into it, and he got in alongside her. The real Mr Kipper never called Sturgis to complain SJL didn't show, and he never reads papers so he never learned SJL had vanished.

or, and this is also pushing credulity

-- JC was not Mr Kipper. Mr Kipper didn't exist and was made up by SJL so she could do something else that lunchtime, but she never made it because JC happened to walk past SJL's car in broad daylight on a busy road just as she got into it, or just after she got into it, or on Stevenage Road where SJL had driven instead from her office, for reasons we don't know about, and got in alongside her. The other thing that SJL wanted to do didn't involve anyone else so no one reported she was a no show.

 

[Terryb808]

See, the thing is, that if this was JC and he did car jack SJL, this doesn't really fit with either his previous MO--AFAIK he did rape or attempt to rape a woman who had gone to sit in her car very late at night after a fight with her partner.

If JC car jacked SJL this would either mean that:

-- JC was Mr Kipper and planned the entire thing to car jack SJL, meaning (on top of what I wrote in the above post) he had planned his crime to such an extent, within the confines of his day release conditions at the time, that he knew that SJL attended house viewing appointments of fairly nearby properties in a car alone, and that she would do so on the day that he had made an appointment in advance to lure her out, not to the SR house, but so that she would be in her car when she either (a) arrived at SR for the viewing OR (b) when she left her office and got into her car to drive to the SR appointment that he had set up in advance. Meaning that JC knew where the car that SJL would use to attend the appointment was. Which is something that SJL herself didn't know as she had to ask a colleague where it was parked.

or, even more unlikely,

-- JC was NOT Mr Kipper. Mr Kipper was a real appointment, and SJL never showed up because JC just so happened to be in the vicinity that was nowhere near where he was supposed to be, to chance to walk past SJL's car in broad daylight on a busy road just as she got into it, or just after she got into it, and he got in alongside her. The real Mr Kipper never called Sturgis to complain SJL didn't show, and he never reads papers so he never learned SJL had vanished.

or, and this is also pushing credulity

-- JC was not Mr Kipper. Mr Kipper didn't exist and was made up by SJL so she could do something else that lunchtime, but she never made it because JC happened to walk past SJL's car in broad daylight on a busy road just as she got into it, or just after she got into it, or on Stevenage Road where SJL had driven instead from her office, for reasons we don't know about, and got in alongside her. The other thing that SJL wanted to do didn't involve anyone else so no one reported she was a no show.

I’m not a JC did it advocate, far from it. Your summary above highlights exactly why (unless the Met have more) the Mets insistence that it was JC and no one else is so floored.
The Met have become blinkered to reality by JC’s MO (if the CBD book is correct), he prior to his initial arrest and conviction (8 year sentence) was alleged to have car jacked & raped females in broad daylight.
I don’t think he is responsible for SJL’s disappearance, but it’s factors like this that keep the Mets focus on him.
Any reviews they’ve carried out have focused on ether proving it wasn’t JC or it was JC. They’ve never reviewed the case as DV has with a completely open mind.

 

[Konstantin]

The Met have become blinkered to reality by JC’s MO (if the CBD book is correct), he prior to his initial arrest and conviction (8 year sentence) was alleged to have car jacked & raped females in broad daylight.

Then even this doesn't really make much sense to me. Because if JC did car jack and murder SJL in broad daylight, it must have been an incredible set of coincidences that led him to a road where SJL's car was parked as she was on her way to an appointment either with Mr Kipper or whoever she faked that for.

I just cannot believe that JC on this occasion set up a car jacking with SJL because of all the reasons I set out above. That would make it a planned crime, planned days in advance, with lots of prior knowledge he would have had to have had of SJL and her movements, lifestyle, etc. That does not hold water. Also if this were the case, it would be more relevant to seek witnesses around places SJL's car was known to be parked, which is where her colleague left it. We then must believe that JC forced SJL to drive somewhere, did the deed, disposed of her, cleaned the car up meticulously, drove it to Stevenage road and abandoned it in a slapdash way, all within the space of an afternoon.

 

[Terryb808]

Then even this doesn't really make much sense to me. Because if JC did car jack and murder SJL in broad daylight, it must have been an incredible set of coincidences that led him to a road where SJL's car was parked as she was on her way to an appointment either with Mr Kipper or whoever she faked that for.

I just cannot believe that JC on this occasion set up a car jacking with SJL because of all the reasons I set out above. That would make it a planned crime, planned days in advance, with lots of prior knowledge he would have had to have had of SJL and her movements, lifestyle, etc. That does not hold water. Also if this were the case, it would be more relevant to seek witnesses around places SJL's car was known to be parked, which is where her colleague left it. We then must believe that JC forced SJL to drive somewhere, did the deed, disposed of her, cleaned the car up meticulously, drove it to Stevenage road and abandoned it in a slapdash way, all within the space of an afternoon.

I don’t believe JC had anything to do with the Mr Kipper appointment, SJL put this in her desk diary on the Monday so she could collect her tennis kit and at the same time call into the PoW for her diary, chequebook & postcard.
The Met IMO now know this is the most likely chain of events, but will still not let go of the JC did it.
This Met assumption is backed up by one of the experienced detectives that interviewed JC, he firmly believes JC is guilty.
The body language analysis of these JC interviews supports the detectives conclusions.
But at the end of the day it’s the most unlikely thing to have happened to SJL.
JC is an opportunist and I can’t see him waiting outside the Sturgis office on the off chance SJL will leave for a viewing.
For JC to be guilty he would need to have been one of SJL’s secret boyfriends and most think this unlikely, he just doesn’t fit in with her elite circle.

 

[Konstantin]

For JC to be guilty he would need to have been one of SJL’s secret boyfriends and most think this unlikely, he just doesn’t fit in with her elite circle.

Yes I don't see how this could have been the case.
JC wasn't one of her circle, and if you read the AS book it seems that SJL was very much climbing higher in that set and actively seeking to do so, moving in to more and more elite crowds. How would she have had time for a secret boyfriend that didn't fit into that set at all, even if he tried to pretend, how far could he have got especially given his personal circumstances at the time. He would have had to work quite an extensive elaborate ruse to get close to SJL.
Given that there is no evidence whatsoever to point to JC as a suspect and the circumstantial evidence is also non existent--it amounts to little more than wishful thinking and has no basis--I think this theory should be dropped.

Didn't JC have a curfew at the time of SJL's disappearance? How could he have had the time to dispose of a body? Where would he have kept it and what would he have transported it in (he didn't use SJL's car).

 

[WestLondoner]

I would be interested to know when the 6pm viewing appointment appeared in her diary.

My guess would be that she spoke to the pub - either the regular landlord or CV's partner - early to arrange a 6pm pickup of her stuff. The 6pm viewing then gets requested and she now has a clash. She rebooks to go to the PoW earlier, but it's now 12.30pm. The regular landlord and his wife have gone, the stocktaker has gone, we don't know exactly where CV's partner is, and the pub is possibly closed as you can't be stocktaking and selling stock at the same time. Only she and CV knew the arrangement had been changed.

It seems clear that SJL could have headed to an empty pub except for CV, who could later say she was going there at 6pm as per the original arrangement, but never showed. If nobody but CV knew that she had called the pub again to bring her errand forward, this account of what was planned is one that CV's partner, and whoever took SJL's initial call, would actually have backed up.

The implication is that CV suddenly saw an opportunity to get SJL on her own without anyone knowing this was happening, and seized on it. He then kills her, disposes of her and acts normal.

 

[Terryb808]

I would be interested to know when the 6pm viewing appointment appeared in her diary.

My guess would be that she spoke to the pub - either the regular landlord or CV's partner - early to arrange a 6pm pickup of her stuff. The 6pm viewing then gets requested and she now has a clash. She rebooks to go to the PoW earlier, but it's now 12.30pm. The regular landlord and his wife have gone, the stocktaker has gone, we don't know exactly where CV's partner is, and the pub is possibly closed as you can't be stocktaking and selling stock at the same time. Only she and CV knew the arrangement had been changed.

It seems clear that SJL could have headed to an empty pub except for CV, who could later say she was going there at 6pm as per the original arrangement, but never showed. If nobody but CV knew that she had called the pub again to bring her errand forward, this account of what was planned is one that CV's partner, and whoever took SJL's initial call, would actually have backed up.

The implication is that CV suddenly saw an opportunity to get SJL on her own without anyone knowing this was happening, and seized on it. He then kills her, disposes of her and acts normal.

Perfect logic, pity the Met have no detectives who have a good base knowledge of the case as it was in 1986 and can see the errors in the police thinking at the time.
To me (and you) it looks like the answer to SJL’s disappearance is right in front of everyone, the Met just need to accept they got it wrong.

 

[WestLondoner]

The police have assumed the pub was busy and therefore she can't have gone there unnoticed or died there. As DV observes, however, everything the police think they know about the PoW they got from CV. They didn't speak to the permanent landlord, or to CV's partner either. They have no idea whether it was busy or closed and there are good reasons to think the latter.

You'd think they'd recognise this is a serious problem for their Mr Kipper hypothesis, but when DV put this to SR, the latter's reaction is "well in that case, how did her car end up where she showed Mr Kipper a house?" - because he apparently thinks there was a viewing there as well.

It's very unimpressive by the police, really. Anything that points away from JC is reflexively disbelieved, because JC did it and that's that.