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

[WestLondoner]

DV is silent on the question of motive for anyone at the pub to kill SJL, which the police also seize on as somehow undermining of his idea. He is quite vague about CV too, in the sense that there is a chapter where he gets advice on how accurate CV's recall may be after 34 years. So my initial impression of his book was bemusement - he suggests that SJL is hidden at the pub but he does not appear to ID any suspect. By elimination there is CV, but CV is presented as simply an interesting if inarticulate witness whose recall may be doubtful.

The police also suggest that DV would have to prove there was something salacious in the missing diary. They've seen it, so they could do so, but they aren't helping.

When you read AS' book as well as DV's, an important missing piece falls into place, which is that SJL was four-timing AL when she disappeared. If this and other adventurous stuff was mentioned in the missing diary, then this is the salacious content that provides the motive. SJL arrives at the pub, CV says hello, you're four-timing your blokes - make it five and I'll let you have your diary back.

He is expecting sexual favours from SJL who then leaves. When his partner - who presumably has gone out - returns and asks about the diary, CV just says oh yes, she came for it. He's betting that SJL will be too humiliated to come back and make a scene. This is what he's going to get away with, and how he ensures nobody finds out.

It didn't work out that way. But the police view that DV has not found a motive is incorrect based on what AS tells us about what might have been in that diary.

 

[Terryb808]

The Met are hoping/ wishing after 36 years this case will just go away.
They have a fall guy in JC, and in order to get attention he’s been playing along.
The current team have a poor level of detailed knowledge and I’d think that anyone who try’s to think outside of the sandbox of JC did it is firmly put in his place.

 

[WestLondoner]

Ironically the wild card in this could be JC, who obviously wants to get out of jail in 2022.

As matters stand, the police are probably going to try to keep him in prison, on the grounds that he probably killed SJL. His lawyers, if they are up to scratch, should be pointing out that there's no evidence against him, that the CPS don't buy the police case, and that there's a much more persuasive case for someone else being responsible. There is a named suspect and a very small and specific area to search for a body that the police flat-out refuse to investigate.

There is simply no way, the argument would go, that a Parole Board can just assume JC's guilt when nobody but the police asserts it, and when the police have done nothing that risks undermining their pet theory nor made any serious effort to consider ither hypotheses. They never checked JC's alibi; they never put him on an identity parade; they never established that SJL was ever at 37SR; they never searched the PoW. The claim that JC had anything to do with this is no better founded than that.

If he gets out, the press uproar about "Suzy killer to be released scandal" could rapidly morph into "Police idiotically fail to protect public". Then suddenly they've got another Wayne Couzens / John Worboys / Robert Napper scandal on their hands, where they ignored an obvious criminal, focused on fitting up someone else left the public at risk or - as here - all of the above.

It's not a good look, and if they were thinking straight, they'd be out in front of it now. Instead it seems highly likely that this will be another police ineptitude scandal that blows up in 2022.

 

[Terryb808]

Ironically the wild card in this could be JC, who obviously wants to get out of jail in 2022.

As matters stand, the police are probably going to try to keep him in prison, on the grounds that he probably killed SJL. His lawyers, if they are up to scratch, should be pointing out that there's no evidence against him, that the CPS don't buy the police case, and that there's a much more persuasive case for someone else being responsible. There is a named suspect and a very small and specific area to search for a body that the police flat-out refuse to investigate.

There is simply no way, the argument would go, that a Parole Board can just assume JC's guilt when nobody but the police asserts it, and when the police have done nothing that risks undermining their pet theory nor made any serious effort to consider ither hypotheses. They never checked JC's alibi; they never put him on an identity parade; they never established that SJL was ever at 37SR; they never searched the PoW. The claim that JC had anything to do with this is no better founded than that.

If he gets out, the press uproar about "Suzy killer to be released scandal" could rapidly morph into "Police idiotically fail to protect public". Then suddenly they've got another Wayne Couzens / John Worboys / Robert Napper scandal on their hands, where they ignored an obvious criminal, focused on fitting up someone else left the public at risk or - as here - all of the above.

It's not a good look, and if they were thinking straight, they'd be out in front of it now. Instead it seems highly likely that this will be another police ineptitude scandal that blows up in 2022.

I couldn’t agree more, the legal profession is very single minded, they get paid to defend or prosecute someone and it’s up to the other side to prove them wrong.
They’re not really interested in who is guilty, in this case a smart JC legal team could effectively have a field day with the Met.
While I’m not a JC fan he’s served his time and the Met should either prove his guilt or move on to actually solving SJL’s disappearance instead of having a hidden agenda to keep JC in prison.
From our discussions the answer to her disappearance is potentially right in front of them.

 

[Konstantin]

Unless the police have additional evidence that they have not made public--which could be possible--that points to JC then there is no reason not to explore other lines of enquiry assuming that the case is not on ice indefinitely.

However, given that the CPS refused to prosecute this suggests that even if there is additional evidence against him it was not enough for the CPS to be confident that JC would be convicted if it came to trial. After all this time it is unlikely for anything else to emerge against JC. The evidence such as it is that has been released into the public domain is as many people have said, very flimsy and much of it seems to rely on witness statements taken years and years after the event. If you went outside on a busy street in the past few days, try to remember the faces of people you walked past. Now try to remember where you were ten years ago today and recall the faces of people you saw--assuming that 10 years ago today was another normal day for you. It's not possible, and the CPS presumably thought this evidence would just get crushed in court, as it should.

JC is a vile excuse for a human being but so is the person who murdered SJL and I don't think they are one and the same person.

 

[WestLondoner]

A fun thought experiment you can do is to ask yourself why Mr Kipper is not Prince Andrew. If JC could be, so could PA.

1/ PA looks like the artist's impression of Mr Kipper.

2/ PA was in the area until a few days previously, then left to go on honeymoon- or so he says

3/ He had access to a BMW. Probably

4/ PA is the right height for where the seat of SJL's car was pushed back to

5/ PA has a lot of dodgy mates in the property business

6/ It's the kind of thing he'd do.

So the evidence that persuades the police JC did it is about the same as the evidence Prince Andrew did it.

Why aren't they trying to frame PA? It wouldn't be any stupider...!

 

[Terryb808]

Unless the police have additional evidence that they have not made public--which could be possible--that points to JC then there is no reason not to explore other lines of enquiry assuming that the case is not on ice indefinitely.

However, given that the CPS refused to prosecute this suggests that even if there is additional evidence against him it was not enough for the CPS to be confident that JC would be convicted if it came to trial. After all this time it is unlikely for anything else to emerge against JC. The evidence such as it is that has been released into the public domain is as many people have said, very flimsy and much of it seems to rely on witness statements taken years and years after the event. If you went outside on a busy street in the past few days, try to remember the faces of people you walked past. Now try to remember where you were ten years ago today and recall the faces of people you saw--assuming that 10 years ago today was another normal day for you. It's not possible, and the CPS presumably thought this evidence would just get crushed in court, as it should.

JC is a vile excuse for a human being but so is the person who murdered SJL and I don't think they are one and the same person.

Precisely, JC is as you say a vile human being, however, the Met using this as a reason for not looking at other more credible alternatives is just unacceptable.

 

[Terryb808]

A fun thought experiment you can do is to ask yourself why Mr Kipper is not Prince Andrew. If JC could be, so could PA.

1/ PA looks like the artist's impression of Mr Kipper.

2/ PA was in the area until a few days previously, then left to go on honeymoon- or so he says

3/ He had access to a BMW. Probably

4/ PA is the right height for where the seat of SJL's car was pushed back to

5/ PA has a lot of dodgy mates in the property business

6/ It's the kind of thing he'd do.

So the evidence that persuades the police JC did it is about the same as the evidence Prince Andrew did it.

Why aren't they trying to frame PA? It wouldn't be any stupider...!

You omitted his links to the Prince of Wales

 

[Terryb808]

On the point of identifying people you saw yesterday, last week, last year or ten years ago, it’s virtually impossible.
A few people have a photographic memory and almost total recall.
Sadly they’re never in the right place at the right time.
DV interviewing people 30 years plus after the event is limited in value. I’d say it’s only likely to highlight the guilty, but not provide tangible evidence from 36 years ago.
This is why CV is such an interesting possibility, his reaction and recall is very suspicious, as is his partner of the time.

 

[WestLondoner]

DV interviewing people 30 years plus after the event is limited in value. I’d say it’s only likely to highlight the guilty, but not provide tangible evidence from 36 years ago.
This is why CV is such an interesting possibility, his reaction and recall is very suspicious, as is his partner of the time.

In a way quite a lot of DV's book - the conversations with other witnesses - is beside the ultimate point. His theory doesn't really rely on any new witness recollections and where he does bring any in, it's purely to debunk the police narrative. So the disclosure that SJL did not take the keys, that she was never IDed at the property, that the "reconstruction" was no such thing, etc - those are all new. But they are secondary to and unimportant for his main point, which is quite simple: where else might SJL have gone?

The place the police never considered was the pub, because they just assumed in 1986 that SJL was expected there at 6pm and never turned up. This is even though CV was apparently telling them she was expected earlier but never showed. The police just assumed he was wrong, like they assumed WJ was wrong when she said no viewing had been arranged at her own house (which they searched anyway).

Of course any assumption that SJL was expected at the PoW at 6pm should have been overturned in 1986 by the desk diary that shows a more important appointment at that time.

So DV discusses CV's account and remarkable recall with a professor of criminal investigation:

We talked about the phone calls to the pub the day Suzy had gone missing, and Professor Bull had remarked: ‘So Suzy called the pub, and at the end of your first meeting with him, CV finally admitted to you that he did speak to her on the phone.… And then he says some other person, which he later says is a woman, allegedly phoned up and the gist of it was “keep her there”. And crucially, one of the queries I have about his story...He would have had to have asked that person for her phone number in order to call her back...But he didn’t volunteer, “I took her number.”...
A professor of criminal investigation, Professor Bull had even rounded off one of our meetings by asking, ‘Why haven’t you dug up the pub yet?’​

Between the lines, the professor is saying that the obvious thing CV would have done would be to take the caller's number. But although he supposedly remembers the content of the call, he doesn't remember to mention the obvious thing he would then also have done. I infer that CV's recall is so good because he's recalling not what happened, but the story he needs to stick to - hence the professor's point.

 

[Terryb808]

In a way quite a lot of DV's book - the conversations with other witnesses - is beside the ultimate point. His theory doesn't really rely on any new witness recollections and where he does bring any in, it's purely to debunk the police narrative. So the disclosure that SJL did not take the keys, that she was never IDed at the property, that the "reconstruction" was no such thing, etc - those are all new. But they are secondary to and unimportant for his main point, which is quite simple: where else might SJL have gone?

The place the police never considered was the pub, because they just assumed in 1986 that SJL was expected there at 6pm and never turned up. This is even though CV was apparently telling them she was expected earlier but never showed. The police just assumed he was wrong, like they assumed WJ was wrong when she said no viewing had been arranged at her own house (which they searched anyway).

Of course any assumption that SJL was expected at the PoW at 6pm should have been overturned in 1986 by the desk diary that shows a more important appointment at that time.

So DV discusses CV's account and remarkable recall with a professor of criminal investigation:

We talked about the phone calls to the pub the day Suzy had gone missing, and Professor Bull had remarked: ‘So Suzy called the pub, and at the end of your first meeting with him, CV finally admitted to you that he did speak to her on the phone.… And then he says some other person, which he later says is a woman, allegedly phoned up and the gist of it was “keep her there”. And crucially, one of the queries I have about his story...He would have had to have asked that person for her phone number in order to call her back...But he didn’t volunteer, “I took her number.”...
A professor of criminal investigation, Professor Bull had even rounded off one of our meetings by asking, ‘Why haven’t you dug up the pub yet?’​

Between the lines, the professor is saying that the obvious thing CV would have done would be to take the caller's number. But although he supposedly remembers the content of the call, he doesn't remember to mention the obvious thing he would then also have done. I infer that CV's recall is so good because he's recalling not what happened, but the story he needs to stick to - hence the professor's point.

I feel anyone who takes the time to read through our thread would conclude that within it we have all the answers to SJL’s disappearance.
You can extract a narrative that explains exactly what happened 36 years ago and this narrative stands up scrutiny much better than the Mets “JC did it”.
This is what is so frustrating, the answer is there and it’s the best chance available that would bring closure to the Lamplugh’s family.
The Met have already failed SJL’s mother and father, I’d like to think they’ll get their act together and not fail SJL’s brother (who is a really nice guy).

 

[WestLondoner]

I wonder if the way forward here is to write to whomever is standing in for Cressida Dick as head of the Met, copied to that person's boss, i.e. the Mayor of London. Maybe also to Priti Patel?

A letter along these sort of lines perhaps:

Dear Commander Plod,

I’m writing to you to bring to your attention a matter that may have escaped your notice, but one with potential to embarrass the Metropolitan Police. I am just a member of the public but also a strong supporter of our police, and in the wake of recent unfortunate and highly-public errors, I would consider any further harm to public confidence in the police to be extremely regrettable. I would therefore be grateful if you would consider taking some action on this issue.

The matter in question is the still-unsolved disappearance in July 1986 of Suzy Lamplugh, a 25-year-old Fulham estate agent. You are probably familiar with the broad outlines of the case, but to recapitulate briefly, she left her office one lunchtime and has never been seen again. The police were alerted the same day, and were quickly persuaded that Suzy had been showing a house to a "Mr Kipper" and had been abducted. Their aim was to identify “Mr Kipper”. Despite a long inquiry, no trace of her or any “Mr Kipper” was ever found. Her fate remains unknown.

In 1989 a criminal called John Cannan, currently imprisoned for rape and murder, began to be associated with Suzy Lamplugh’s disappearance. This idea originated essentially with the press and with Miss Lamplugh’s family. Its basis was that to some, he resembled the artist’s impression of “Mr Kipper”, and also that he was a sex offender, released from prison nearby three days before her disappearance. Despite repeated and ongoing police attempts to find evidence against Cannan, none has surfaced, nor has he ever been charged. Indeed in 2000 the CPS, on Counsel’s review of the police case, declined to prosecute him, despite which the police went on to name him as their only suspect in 2002.

In August last year a former Metropolitan Police anti-terror investigator, writing as "David Videcette" (pseudonym: anagram of “detective”), published a book outlining the results of his self-funded reinvestigation of the case from scratch. His main conclusion is that the police were aware of four places Suzy Lamplugh might have gone that lunchtime. She may have gone to the supposed viewing; she may have gone to the location where her car was found abandoned; she may have gone home; or she may have gone to the Prince of Wales pub in Upper Richmond Road, where her mislaid diary had been found and which she had arranged to collect that day. The police investigated and searched the first three locations, but they never searched the fourth, the pub. The temporary landlord working there told them she had never arrived to collect her diary, and the police accepted this.

Mr. Videcette’s point is that this was a serious and illogical omission. That morning the pub had been stocktaking, and thus may have been closed. As a result, if Suzy Lamplugh actually went to the Prince of Wales pub to collect her pocket diary - with a made-up client viewing in her desk diary, to cover her tracks back at the office - then she and the temporary landlord would have been the only people there; and she never left. Underneath the pub’s dining room is a large void that contains rubbish dateable to 1987, so it has not been disturbed since. In the opinion of the pub’s current manager, it would make a good hiding place for a body.

Mr. Videcette has put his case to the police, which includes the location of her body, and the name and current address of the only plausible suspect who could have killed and hidden her there. The police essentially dismiss it, on the basis that John Cannan is Mr Kipper, and he did it; therefore there is no need to search the pub now. In fact, there is much evidence that there never was a house viewing, nor any Mr Kipper. No witness has ever identified her at the property she was supposedly showing, and the keys to it never left the office - they were used later by the police to gain entry.

The reason this matter assumes importance now is that although John Cannan is in prison, he becomes eligible for release this year. The police are likely to oppose this, inter alia on the basis that he probably killed Suzy Lamplugh. This is something the Parole Board can take into account on the mere balance of probabilities. In rebuttal of this allegation, Cannan’s lawyers must be highly likely to cite the above explanation of what really happened to Suzy Lamplugh. Such a rebuttal will be highly effective not only because it comes from an experienced detective, but because the police will be unable to refute it. Failure either to produce any evidence that implicates Cannan, or to search the pub to establish at least that she is not there, are likely to undermine the police position in a very public way. In consequence, Cannan may very well be released.

The accusatory newspaper headlines about police failure to follow an easily-explored lead then write themselves. In the wake of previous wrong-man errors around Rachel Nickell and Jill Dando, and with the Sarah Everard matter fresh in the public’s minds, the very last thing the police need right now is to have an obvious omission exposed. It need not be. You could instruct your officers to conduct an initial search of this small and very specific area. They may thereby solve probably the most notorious missing person case of the last fifty years.

If Suzy Lamplugh was killed at that pub, it may now be embarrassing to the officers previously assigned to the case who have insisted on the evidentially-baseless John Cannan narrative. I urge you to consider how much more embarrassing it would be if impatient, crowdsource-funded amateurs search the pub instead, find Mr Videcette was right all along, but in finding her contaminate the site’s forensics and make a prosecution impossible.

It is not too late. Someone can still be charged and the public made safer thereby. Please consider the public perception of the police and give this suggestion some thought. Thank you.

If it's any longer, nobody will read it; if it's any shorter, it doesn't convey enough. The thing to lay on thick, both to the Mayor and the police honcho, are "think how stupid you'll look if someone else solves this and your clueless subordinates have got yet another one wrong".....

 

[Konstantin]

Between the lines, the professor is saying that the obvious thing CV would have done would be to take the caller's number. But although he supposedly remembers the content of the call, he doesn't remember to mention the obvious thing he would then also have done. I infer that CV's recall is so good because he's recalling not what happened, but the story he needs to stick to - hence the professor's point.

So here we have something interesting then.

1. Initially, CV tells the police that SJL was expected round at 18:00 to pick up her stuff. She had called that morning to arrange this. According to AS, the last phone call that SJL is thought to have made from her office was to arrange this.

2. When CV gave these details to the police in his first interview he presumably knew that the media were reporting that (a) SJL went out at lunch time that day (b) she went out to meet Mr Kipper at SR (c) she never came back to the office after.

3. So now let's assume CV harmed her (we don't know that he did of course, this is a theory). When he speaks to the police he needs to say that SJL was due to the pub AFTER the time that she disappeared, because if the police believe she went missing as a result of her encounter at SR, it's important to establish that she was nowhere near the pub because she wasn't expected until later.

4. I believe the police did not encounter CV saying at this stage that people rang him at the pub, and I believe that they didn't get a piece of paper with a phone number of a woman who rang him. There were two officers who interviewed him, it would have been a massive deal, they would have remembered and noted it.

5. A year later, when the case is reviewed, it's likely (and I don't know this for sure, can anyone confirm it?) that CV was aware that SJL had another appointment in her diary for 18:00 that day because that was reported in the media (is this true?) So if that is the case, SJL can't have been coming to the pub then. He has to make it clear that SJL was nowhere near the pub all day, and that others (not him) are involved in her disappearance, so he makes up phone calls about SJL that allow him to say that she was not there and that he was there and available to answer the phone (notice that it was CV who answered the pub phone for these two calls and not his partner. Did the police interview her and ask her if she recalled CV mentioning these calls to her? Because that is the logical thing to do, no? If CV did take those calls, and he was in the pub with his partner, he would surely have told her, because if SJL did turn up as the callers thought she would, his partner would need to be aware of the special instructions to "keep her there" and "call Sarah".)

My only issue with this is that it's a very convoluted way for CV to add some murkiness to the events of the day SJL disappeared. He could have stuck to his story and said that she said she was coming at 18:00, that's all he knew. He didn't really have to distance himself from being around SJL at lunchtime because the Mr Kipper story had grown legs and was the only line of enquiry. Maybe he really is/was someone who got muddled up over things and generally mixes days up. But given the evolution of SJL's disappearance into a major national news story, it is very odd to me that CV didn't make more of these very odd events he describes, that would have been very significant. He is hinting at there being a wider conspiracy to kidnap SJL.

Unless of course there is a simple explanation, and during the day that everyone was out looking for SJL, someone told DL or someone that SJL had planned to go to the pub to pick her stuff up and DL or someone phoned up in a panic saying, if she does show up there, get her to call me. CV gave that info to the police, who dismissed it at the time because they knew the story was about DL or another friend calling in search of SJL, not anything sinister.

 

[WestLondoner]

@ Konstantin

Yes, I think your 1 to 5 is pretty accurate. Spot on actually. On Monday morning, KF arranges an SJL visit that evening. The stocktake proceeds. At her office, SJL then gets a request to view at 6pm. This is a strong buying signal, meaning commission, meaning it takes priority. She calls the PoW to rearrange the visit, and this time speaks to CV. The stocktake's over, the pub has not opened, KF has gone off somewhere for the afternoon, CV has read the diary and concluded that he can probably get some sort of a quickie off SJL in return for giving her back the diary. He's not planning on killing her. He just gets what he wants, and if there's a fuss later, he denies everything. Only CV and SJL know the visit has been rearranged.

She arrives, she dies, we don't know how. All CV knows on the afternoon of 28/7/1986 is that probably the last arrangement anyone knows of is the one SJL made with KF, i.e. she was due at 6pm. So he hides the body, dumps her car, and returns. It's possible that he is the James Galway lookalike who hailed a cab near the dump site and said he'd seen a couple having a ruck. This second-hand sighting is the only evidence for SJL being at Stevenage Road. We don't know if CV in 1986 was a James Galway lookalike.

To his amazement, the police are round the very same evening. The 37SR / Mr Kipper story was not yet out as early as that Monday evening. The police press conference was on Tuesday morning, and that's when the police decided that SJL had been seen at 37SR. CV just keeps his story simple: she never turned up for her 6pm. KF will corroborate that 6pm is when she was expected. As you've said, he needs the police to think that whatever happened to her has happened elsewhere, and much earlier.

Bizarrely he says nothing of any of this to the permanent landlord when he returns from holiday.

By the time he's reinterviewed a year later, he has more information. He's seen the press coverage obsessing about Mr Kipper at SR. He's also seen SJL's desk diary in the press with, at the bottom of the page, the little-noticed 6pm viewing. This last explodes his claim the previous year that she was coming to the pub at 6.

So he changes his story. He needs to have been nowhere near SR all day and she needs to have been coming that afternoon sometime, because she obviously was not coming at 6pm as he had previously said. So suddenly, mysterious others were somehow aware of her movements and calling up about her - calls he took because he was at the pub and nowhere near SR, no sir not me no way. So if any evidence surfaces that she was headed towards the PoW, it was these mysterious others who intercepted her. He said nothing about these calls in 1986, because at that point, he didn't know there needed to have been such calls.

As soon as he finished his stint at that pub, and by 1987, CV would have been in an exposed position if she's still hidden there. He can't now get back in to hide or remove her. If the pub's ever searched, she's going to be found. The story about calls is thus perhaps his attempt to establish a narrative that others knew she was going there. Others might have done it.

This false trail is not necessary if CV hid her on the railway embankment. She could have been put there by anybody who had access in 1986 via the back not just of the PoW, but of any adjoining building. So he is not at much risk if she's found there now. But if she's found under the pub floor, well, it can really only be CV who put her there.

It's high risk, because an important witness changing his story ought to set off alarm bells. Maybe CV's just not bright enough to realise that. But the police aren't very bright either, because they just assumed that his original account was right and the new one was in error, so they went with the old one and never wondered why it might have changed.

As Terry says above, if you read through the discussion in these threads, you understand the reasons for the tactical omissions from DV's account. Hence the above is what happened and why, and I don't even think the railway embankment needs to be searched. CV's story change tells us she's under the floor.

 

[Konstantin]

The story about calls is thus perhaps his attempt to establish a narrative that others knew she was going there. Others might have done it.

This is an interesting point.

There were other weird things with CV's description to DV of what happened that niggled at me but I haven't really thought about them until now.

First, all these events happened an awful long time ago. Yet CV is able to recall that he went out for a specific takeaway on the evening when he found the diary and postcard and chequebook. (I wonder if the postcard was stuck in the diary as a sort of bookmark?). He is possibly adding details to his story here to make himself sound more plausible? Or this stuck in his mind because he told the police, and so he recalls explaining this in detail to them. Although, if he has such good recall, I struggle to explain how he failed to tell the police the first time around that there were two mysterious phone calls to the pub regarding SJL on the day she disappeared.

If I worked somewhere and someone had left some lost property there and was planning to come pick it up, I would find it a bit odd if I got two other phone calls from people asking after that person (even given that, when SJL disappeared, no one had mobile phones so of course no one could have just called SJL to ask where she was). I'd remember that, and then if I were later that day questioned by the police about the disappearance of this person, I would definitely say, hang on, something weird happened today regarding her--and tell them about the calls.

Another detail. If someone were phoning around trying to see if SJL had gone to the pub, let's say DL or a friend of SJL trying to locate her that afternoon. SJL made her plan to go to the pub that day literally that morning. She only found out that her stuff was there that same morning. So for someone else to have known she was planning to go to the pub, SJL herself would have had to have phoned them (on a landline, no mobiles then) to tell them of said plan. Sturgis didn't know about the pub or it would have been floated as an idea of where SJL might have gone. But in that case, that means someone else out there would have known, that morning, certainly by 12:40 when she left, that SJL was due at the pub that afternoon. If that was an innocent friend of SJL's they would have presumably raised this with the police when SJL went missing, saying that she told them she was going there. No one did.

So that leaves (1) CV is lying and making up this person and call, meaning he has a reason to do that;

(2) CV is a decent guy who is muddled in his head and created both a muddled memory of when the calls happened and a false or muddled memory of telling the police about that call in his first interview. It could be that he is muddled because DL called him later/the next day desperately checking if SJL had turned up at the POW. But then DL or a female friend of SJL had to have found out from someone that SJL was expected at the pub, which either would have to mean SJL told the caller before she left Sturgis (and we know that can't be the case) OR they found out from the police later that same evening or the next day that SJL was expected at the POW at 18:00 on the day she disappeared, and called the POW that night to check if she had somehow turned up there at some point (this is possible in my view) but if that were the case, it doesn't explain why the police simply didn't figure this simple explanation out and explain away CV's story that way. If this is what happened, it's entirely unremarkable so why did they flag it as a weird anomaly? It also does not explain why CV created a false/muddled memory of telling the police a year before, unless he DID tell them but what he actually told them was that a woman, who the police realized immediately had been DL, had called him later on the evening of SJL's disappearance after she found out from the police SJL was expected there earlier that day (i.e. the call did NOT occur during the day SJL went missing) and the police just didn't report that CV said DL called because it's fundamentally not interesting or significant. Again if this were the case, when the police who reinterviewed CV told the two officers who originally interviewed him, they would have said, yes, he told us a woman rang but we looked into it and it was just DL calling after she was told SJL had been planning to go there, no mystery here; or

(3) CV is telling the truth, and there is a mysterious nefarious female out there who was involved in a plot to harm SJL and found out about the pub visit because SJL told her before she left Sturgis, but this makes no sense to me at all.

Most likely, we are looking at (1) or some version of (2) if both the police and CV are hopeless and have memories and reasoning abilities of goldfish.

 

[Terryb808]

@ Konstantin

Yes, I think your 1 to 5 is pretty accurate. Spot on actually. On Monday morning, KF arranges an SJL visit that evening. The stocktake proceeds. At her office, SJL then gets a request to view at 6pm. This is a strong buying signal, meaning commission, meaning it takes priority. She calls the PoW to rearrange the visit, and this time speaks to CV. The stocktake's over, the pub has not opened, KF has gone off somewhere for the afternoon, CV has read the diary and concluded that he can probably get some sort of a quickie off SJL in return for giving her back the diary. He's not planning on killing her. He just gets what he wants, and if there's a fuss later, he denies everything. Only CV and SJL know the visit has been rearranged.

She arrives, she dies, we don't know how. All CV knows on the afternoon of 28/7/1986 is that probably the last arrangement anyone knows of is the one SJL made with KF, i.e. she was due at 6pm. So he hides the body, dumps her car, and returns. It's possible that he is the James Galway lookalike who hailed a cab near the dump site and said he'd seen a couple having a ruck. This second-hand sighting is the only evidence for SJL being at Stevenage Road. We don't know if CV in 1986 was a James Galway lookalike.

To his amazement, the police are round the very same evening. The 37SR / Mr Kipper story was not yet out as early as that Monday evening. The police press conference was on Tuesday morning, and that's when the police decided that SJL had been seen at 37SR. CV just keeps his story simple: she never turned up for her 6pm. KF will corroborate that 6pm is when she was expected. As you've said, he needs the police to think that whatever happened to her has happened elsewhere, and much earlier.

Bizarrely he says nothing of any of this to the permanent landlord when he returns from holiday.

By the time he's reinterviewed a year later, he has more information. He's seen the press coverage obsessing about Mr Kipper at SR. He's also seen SJL's desk diary in the press with, at the bottom of the page, the little-noticed 6pm viewing. This last explodes his claim the previous year that she was coming to the pub at 6.

So he changes his story. He needs to have been nowhere near SR all day and she needs to have been coming that afternoon sometime, because she obviously was not coming at 6pm as he had previously said. So suddenly, mysterious others were somehow aware of her movements and calling up about her - calls he took because he was at the pub and nowhere near SR, no sir not me no way. So if any evidence surfaces that she was headed towards the PoW, it was these mysterious others who intercepted her. He said nothing about these calls in 1986, because at that point, he didn't know there needed to have been such calls.

As soon as he finished his stint at that pub, and by 1987, CV would have been in an exposed position if she's still hidden there. He can't now get back in to hide or remove her. If the pub's ever searched, she's going to be found. The story about calls is thus perhaps his attempt to establish a narrative that others knew she was going there. Others might have done it.

This false trail is not necessary if CV hid her on the railway embankment. She could have been put there by anybody who had access in 1986 via the back not just of the PoW, but of any adjoining building. So he is not at much risk if she's found there now. But if she's found under the pub floor, well, it can really only be CV who put her there.

It's high risk, because an important witness changing his story ought to set off alarm bells. Maybe CV's just not bright enough to realise that. But the police aren't very bright either, because they just assumed that his original account was right and the new one was in error, so they went with the old one and never wondered why it might have changed.

As Terry says above, if you read through the discussion in these threads, you understand the reasons for the tactical omissions from DV's account. Hence the above is what happened and why, and I don't even think the railway embankment needs to be searched. CV's story change tells us she's under the floor.

Great logic regarding SJL still being under the floor in the void. However, the floor was taken up and lowered after SJL disappeared.

So CV would have needed to make a very good job of concealing her for the work men not to notice.

I believe DV said to get to her would require some digging and in the Christmas interview he said he wasn’t concerned that someone might destroy the forensic evidence which is so important.

I’d say that before the floor was lowered you’d be able to dig and conceal a body. With the floor now lowered you’ll most likely need to take the floor up to complete a meaningful forensic examination.

Given the timeline we’re looking at it’s probably not possible to conceal SJL under the floor in the void on the Monday afternoon. If the PoW was closed all day and didn’t reopen until Tuesday CV would have no problem with this task.
Only his partner would be aware because you just can’t conceal this from them.

Logically the PoW would have reopened on Monday evening, so that means less time for CV and more chance of someone finding SJL.
I’ve wondered about the evasive cellar man DV could not get hold of. Does he know what happened and if he does, why is he keeping quiet?

 

[WestLondoner]

Good points both.

@ Konstantin - the simplest explanation for me is usually the likeliest. CV's story a year later was that he did mention these calls at the time to the two police officers who arrived, and that he gave them the phone number. They had no memory of this. The simplest explanation is that it didn't happen, because the simplest story CV could tell was that she was expected at 6pm. KF would have backed him up here; she just never showed. The story got more elaborate when he realised it needed to be, and when he realised that she could not possibly have intended to be there at 6.

What looks like CV's possible mistake is exactly this excessive detail. You'd remember a lot about being close to the biggest story you'll ever be close to. But that you went for a Chinese takeaway the night before? I can barely remember anything that happened in 1986. I certainly can't remember what takeaways I ate.

A year later, he would IMO have been better advised to say that she was going to 'just pop in from work' and never turned up. This would have muddied the waters beautifully, without being inconsistent. 'From work'? What did that mean? Did SJL mean 'on my way home from work at about 6' (impossible), or did she mean 'out from and then back to work' (any time that PM)? CV can then say he doesn't recall where the idea of a firm 6pm visit came from. I wish I could be more helpful, officer.

@ Terry - DV seems pretty adamant that there's a corpse-sized and -shaped heap of rubbish under the floor. He also suggests that the floor was somehow lowered from above without disturbing what was underneath. I have no idea how you'd do that, but the 1987 vintage can of lager does sort of support this; if 1987 beer cans are still there undisturbed, what else is?

The shape of the rubbish could be a red herring (or Kipper, indeed). It could be that shape because the builders left a smallish hole in the floor of that size, then tipped all their rubbish through it just before putting down the last planking to finish the floor. That would produce a single heap, rather than a scatter, and it's what the slob builders did when they fitted the bath in my flat.

It gets a bit macabre at this point. I have been wondering whether the underfloor space was the hasty immediate hiding place, from which SJL was then moved. To do so would be smart, because if she's found on the embankment, anyone could have put her there; whereas if she's found in your pub, you put her there. It would also be risky, because you'd have to do it unobserved, including by your own partner, while running a pub - which is a seven-day-a-week job.

She is perhaps dug into the dirt that is underneath all floors somewhere. I struggle to see how CV has the time or inclination to do this, though. It might prevent discovery during building works, but if the pub's ever searched properly she'll still be found. Faffing around under the floor with a shovel is going to attract attention.

I'm almost at the point of thinking DV should just crowdsource a dig and wade in, like Professor Bull suggests in his book. Yes it would wreck the forensics, but the police have no intention of investigating this properly anyway, so what forensics are there to wreck?

 

[Terryb808]

Good points both.

@ Konstantin - the simplest explanation for me is usually the likeliest. CV's story a year later was that he did mention these calls at the time to the two police officers who arrived, and that he gave them the phone number. They had no memory of this. The simplest explanation is that it didn't happen, because the simplest story CV could tell was that she was expected at 6pm. KF would have backed him up here; she just never showed. The story got more elaborate when he realised it needed to be, and when he realised that she could not possibly have intended to be there at 6.

What looks like CV's possible mistake is exactly this excessive detail. You'd remember a lot about being close to the biggest story you'll ever be close to. But that you went for a Chinese takeaway the night before? I can barely remember anything that happened in 1986. I certainly can't remember what takeaways I ate.

A year later, he would IMO have been better advised to say that she was going to 'just pop in from work' and never turned up. This would have muddied the waters beautifully, without being inconsistent. 'From work'? What did that mean? Did SJL mean 'on my way home from work at about 6' (impossible), or did she mean 'out from and then back to work' (any time that PM)? CV can then say he doesn't recall where the idea of a firm 6pm visit came from. I wish I could be more helpful, officer.

@ Terry - DV seems pretty adamant that there's a corpse-sized and -shaped heap of rubbish under the floor. He also suggests that the floor was somehow lowered from above without disturbing what was underneath. I have no idea how you'd do that, but the 1987 vintage can of lager does sort of support this; if 1987 beer cans are still there undisturbed, what else is?

The shape of the rubbish could be a red herring (or Kipper, indeed). It could be that shape because the builders left a smallish hole in the floor of that size, then tipped all their rubbish through it just before putting down the last planking to finish the floor. That would produce a single heap, rather than a scatter, and it's what the slob builders did when they fitted the bath in my flat.

It gets a bit macabre at this point. I have been wondering whether the underfloor space was the hasty immediate hiding place, from which SJL was then moved. To do so would be smart, because if she's found on the embankment, anyone could have put her there; whereas if she's found in your pub, you put her there. It would also be risky, because you'd have to do it unobserved, including by your own partner, while running a pub - which is a seven-day-a-week job.

She is perhaps dug into the dirt that is underneath all floors somewhere. I struggle to see how CV has the time or inclination to do this, though. It might prevent discovery during building works, but if the pub's ever searched properly she'll still be found. Faffing around under the floor with a shovel is going to attract attention.

I'm almost at the point of thinking DV should just crowdsource a dig and wade in, like Professor Bull suggests in his book. Yes it would wreck the forensics, but the police have no intention of investigating this properly anyway, so what forensics are there to wreck?

From the point of view that it would solve the case and bring closure you’re right.
DV has invested a lot of money in his book and needs (IMO) to get a return on this. Again (IMO) the best way to move forward and get his money back is via a TV documentary.
If he’s right then it’s glory all the way, and very much egg on the faces of the Met.
If he’s wrong (and I’m very much supportive of his narrative) as he’s said it’s egg on his face.
During lockdown the PoW went into liquidation and was purchased by a group concern. Immediately after purchase the directors all changed to be extensively London based.
They retained (when I checked) the landlord and staff that were so helpful to DV. However, I can’t see this being the case now and the only way to get access would be via the Met, or a commercial arrangement (TV deal).
As has been said before in this thread “who wants to be associated with a dead body under your dining room floor”.

 

[WestLondoner]

All roads do rather lead back to getting the plod to do their job properly.

DV could try to crowdfund a dig under the floor, but there's no point raising the money to do so until he's got agreement upfront from the current owners for such a dig to proceed. I can't think why they'd give it. It's at minimum disruptive, and at worst,, their pub becomes another 10 Rillington Place or 25 Cromwell Street. They would be beset by ghouls wanting to look at it, and who's going to want to eat there? They'll probably end up having to demolish it.

For all we know, those conversations have already happened, and DV has had the brush-off. The only party the owners will allow in to dig are the police, and the police don't want to. So sorry Mr V, but no dig. Have a nice day.

Hence we are back to trying to persuade the police. Those plods supposedly still on the case appear to be total idiots, so you go to their boss, or to her boss (Khan), or ultimately to the Home Secretary, I guess.

The more one thinks of CV's 1987 account of 28/7/1986, the more unlikely it seems. In 1986 he just plays it dumb. The police turn up for the diary (do we know how they knew about it?) and CV just says Oh yes a diary...yes, we've got one of those...Suzy who? No, I've not heard any news today...she's missing? Well, we've not seen her. Have we, Karen love? When were she coming? Later wan't it?

If he really had had calls that same day from people wanting to know where SJL was, how could he not have mentioned these either to KF that day, or to MH, the permanent landlord, when he got back? In any case wouldn't the police have immediately asked KF, then and there, if these were all the calls that had come in - or if there had been any more such calls, that she had taken and that maybe CV didn't know about?

It's hard enough to understand how CV never mentioned any of this to MH even if his original account was accurate. OK, there had been a fleeting police visit, but SJL was still a huge story - and CV didn't even mention their pub's part in it?? Yet what would be even weirder is if there had also been this flurry of calls asking about SJL, implying somebody else was apparently trying to track her down - and still CV says nothing about this to MH. It's the most exciting thing ever to have happened at the PoW and nobody says a dicky bird?!

 

[Terryb808]

All roads do rather lead back to getting the plod to do their job properly.

DV could try to crowdfund a dig under the floor, but there's no point raising the money to do so until he's got agreement upfront from the current owners for such a dig to proceed. I can't think why they'd give it. It's at minimum disruptive, and at worst,, their pub becomes another 10 Rillington Place or 25 Cromwell Street. They would be beset by ghouls wanting to look at it, and who's going to want to eat there? They'll probably end up having to demolish it.

For all we know, those conversations have already happened, and DV has had the brush-off. The only party the owners will allow in to dig are the police, and the police don't want to. So sorry Mr V, but no dig. Have a nice day.

Hence we are back to trying to persuade the police. Those plods supposedly still on the case appear to be total idiots, so you go to their boss, or to her boss (Khan), or ultimately to the Home Secretary, I guess.

The more one thinks of CV's 1987 account of 28/7/1986, the more unlikely it seems. In 1986 he just plays it dumb. The police turn up for the diary (do we know how they knew about it?) and CV just says Oh yes a diary...yes, we've got one of those...Suzy who? No, I've not heard any news today...she's missing? Well, we've not seen her. Have we, Karen love? When were she coming? Later wan't it?

If he really had had calls that same day from people wanting to know where SJL was, how could he not have mentioned these either to KF that day, or to MH, the permanent landlord, when he got back? In any case wouldn't the police have immediately asked KF, then and there, if these were all the calls that had come in - or if there had been any more such calls, that she had taken and that maybe CV didn't know about?

It's hard enough to understand how CV never mentioned any of this to MH even if his original account was accurate. OK, there had been a fleeting police visit, but SJL was still a huge story - and CV didn't even mention their pub's part in it?? Yet what would be even weirder is if there had also been this flurry of calls asking about SJL, implying somebody else was apparently trying to track her down - and still CV says nothing about this to MH. It's the most exciting thing ever to have happened at the PoW and nobody says a dicky bird?!

One other more unlikely possibility is that CV is telling the truth about the calls. He had the mysterious Sarah’s phone number and when SJL appear he tried to “keep her there”.
In the struggle she died and CV is left with a body to get rid of.

Now he does one of two things:

• Calls Sarah and spills the beans about what happened, to which he’s told in no uncertain terms that if he brings her into this mess, he’ll end up the same as SJL.
• CV keeps quiet and covers up what’s happened.

Either way the results the same, SJL was disposed of by CV and is likely to be in the cellar of the PoW.

Timing is an issue here because CV said the calls were during the late afternoon, he’d have needed to have been called before 1.00pm for this to work.

This would mean SJL told the mystery callers where she was going and that it was them she intended to meet up with.

New to this whole scenario is the tennis date after work. If correct SJL was likely to be going home to collect her tennis kit.

As this was still in her flat we have to assume she never made it home. So if CV is telling the truth (first police interview), she never got to the PoW either.

Conclusion, she was kidnapped as she got to her car.

If we think about the lack of CCTV back then and the quiet location her car was parked in, it’s not impossible.

In the news today was footage of a young lady who was kidnapped. The perpetrator ran across the road, picked her up and put her in his van.
Without this video footage (as in 1986) it’s likely we’d be faced with little to go on.

Point being that it’s possible that SJL was car jacked and no one saw it.

As you’ve pointed out DV’s theory needs to be proven one way or another if progress is to be made.