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

[Terryb808]

What was very disappointing was the last TV doc that involved DW the criminologist just followed the JC did it line.
DW is an excellent criminologist and was made aware of the PoW alternative. Such a shame that this was not at least looked at as a another option.
I’m guessing that some pressure was applied to keep things inline with the Mets narrative.
It just shows what an uphill struggle DV is having with his more realistic theory.

 

[WestLondoner]

DW the criminologist just followed the JC did it line.
DW is an excellent criminologist and was made aware of the PoW alternative.

That's extraordinary if so. You don't even need to dismiss the JC theory to see that searching the one unsearched place she intended to go makes sense.

The JC theory relies entirely on one witness who first never claimed to have seen SJL, then later claimed then retracted having seen her being bundled into a car, then thought DR, the Antwerp BMW owner, looked exactly Mr Kipper. JC is weedy, thin-faced, and thirtyish, DR was chubby, round-faced and fortyish.

Of the two, the one that's outlandish, speculative and without evidence isn't the PoW theory, it's the JC theory.

 

[Terryb808]

That's extraordinary if so. You don't even need to dismiss the JC theory to see that searching the one unsearched place she intended to go makes sense.

The JC theory relies entirely on one witness who first never claimed to have seen SJL, then later claimed then retracted having seen her being bundled into a car, then thought DR, the Antwerp BMW owner, looked exactly Mr Kipper. JC is weedy, thin-faced, and thirtyish, DR was chubby, round-faced and fortyish.

That’s what’s so disappointing, if you take a look at DW’s other work it’s very detailed and takes an objective view on the evidence.
He’s come up with some excellent narratives on other cases with evidence to support them.
In the SJL doc there was none of this, it was a reiteration of JC did it.

 

[WestLondoner]

What's also mystifying is that when the police appealed - fourteen years after the fact - for more witnesses to an abduction in Shorrolds Road, they seemed very keen on the bloke who had somehow remembered that he had seen a couple rowing in a BMW on that day (GOK how).

BBC News | UK | Lamplugh police confident of arrest

If they thought that was SJL, they should have eliminated JC at that point because in July 1986 he had half a red Sierra. They about this car because they traced it to a scrapyard and forensicated it. The only way that supposed sighting could be taken as pointing to JC is if the police are clowns who forgot this and also forgot that he didn't acquire a BMW until the following year.

 

[WestLondoner]

"Sarah" must have known SJL rather well to know all this and be so concerned for her to call, and so, given in this implausible narrative she is a friend of JC, she must have been terrified when CV came out with his evidence saying she had called, since "Sarah" knew that she had given CV her number, making her very easy to trace, and hence JC would have been revealed as well. Yet CV has no issues having this story of a potential link with very dangerous people

This is a really good point, and one that exposes CV's revised later account of what happened as, probably, fiction. If there really were people looking for SJL at the pub, and he really had written their numbers down, then whoever made SJL disappear would need to make sure those numbers and that witness also disappeared.

It is likelier that CV made the whole thing up once he realised what the police knew and thought, then told the police that that had been his account all along and that they'd got muddled. Because he's a pub manager and not Professor Moriarty, he wasn't smart enough to realise that this story is so unlikely it actually incriminates him. Luckily for him, neither are the police.

 

[Terryb808]

This is a really good point, and one that exposes CV's revised later account of what happened as, probably, fiction. If there really were people looking for SJL at the pub, and he really had written their numbers down, then whoever made SJL disappear would need to make sure those numbers and that witness also disappeared.

It is likelier that CV made the whole thing up once he realised what the police knew and thought, then told the police that that had been his account all along and that they'd got muddled. Because he's a pub manager and not Professor Moriarty, he wasn't smart enough to realise that this story is so unlikely it actually incriminates him. Luckily for him, neither are the police.

Didn’t the police decide (eventually) that Sarah was SJL forced to make the call and that the policeman was JC.
Amazing how you can make things fit a completely wrong narrative and effectively eliminate a legitimate suspect at the same time.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Random question re diary.
Has anyone discovered what was written under the scribble above 142 wardo? also are we sure what it says below, people say it's 142 wardo bike contract but does it say that? i'm not sure it does

 

[Terryb808]

Random question re diary.
Has anyone discovered what was written under the scribble above 142 wardo? also are we sure what it says below, people say it's 142 wardo bike contract but does it say that? i'm not sure it does

It’s on the cover of AS’s book, I’ll take a look, but I’m not great with handwriting.

 

[TimFisher1965]

It’s on the cover of AS’s book, I’ll take a look, but I’m not great with handwriting.

the top entry is scribbled out, I want to know what was under the scribble and does the bit say 142 Wardo bike contract or something else. I assume as this at the top she wrote it down first did she scribble over it because she wanted nobody to see it?

 

[Terryb808]

the top entry is scribbled out, I want to know what was under the scribble and does the bit say 142 Wardo bike contract or something else. I assume as this at the top she wrote it down first did she scribble over it because she wanted nobody to see it?

Don’t know if it’s possible to determine this from a photo, you probably would from the original.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Don’t know if it’s possible to determine this from a photo, you probably would from the original.

Another thought to that end Terry, do the diary, personal effects still exist? and who has them? I am probably not the only person who wonders what else is in the work diary that could link to this page.

 

[Terryb808]

the top entry is scribbled out, I want to know what was under the scribble and does the bit say 142 Wardo bike contract or something else. I assume as this at the top she wrote it down first did she scribble over it because she wanted nobody to see it?

Hi Tim, I've enlarged the part you are interested in, the bit she's scribbled over looks like another address, the first two digits look like 60. the rest is very difficult to make out, if its an address maybe we could all take a look at this and pool our resources.
What does everyone else think this part says, it could be important?

 

[Terryb808]

Another thought to that end Terry, do the diary, personal effects still exist? and who has them? I am probably not the only person who wonders what else is in the work diary that could link to this page.

Yes the desk diary could have info that has been overlooked by the police, especially since they focused totally on JC. However, whoever has these items (and its probably the Met) mortals like us would never be given access.
I'd guess even DV has not seen them.

 

[Konstantin]

Didn’t the police decide (eventually) that Sarah was SJL forced to make the call and that the policeman was JC.
Amazing how you can make things fit a completely wrong narrative and effectively eliminate a legitimate suspect at the same time.

I've heard this as a theory that's been suggested, but not sure if it was raised by the police.

In any case, it doesn't make sense to me. It comes from the fact that JC got Shirley Banks, the victim he abducted and murdered, to call into her work the morning after he took her to say she was not coming in as she was sick. So it was suggested maybe JC did this with SJL and got her to call into the pub. But the two cases would not be remotely comparable in my view.

First, it made some logical sense for JC to get SB to call in sick as it would stop her office from raising the alarm if they noticed she was missing, called her house, the police would have been called that morning. What would having SJL pretend to be a different person calling the pub looking for SJL do? If JC wanted to stop SJL's workplace raising the alarm she was missing he'd just have got SJL to call Sturgis and say she had been taken ill and was going home to rest. Calling the pub looking for herself does nothing to put anyone off the scent that SJL was missing. The pub would not care less whether SJL came on time, or not, she was not an employee, she was someone who would pop round at some point to grab some items. Also JC forcing SJL to call the pub and say what CV claims was said just raises suspicion if anything.

It's one thing for JC to force SB to call her employer and just say hi i'm unwell today, and another thing entirely for him to force SJL to call a pub, to talk to someone she doesn't know--anyone of the staff could have answered--and pretend to be a totally different person, have a detailed conversation about keeping SJL there, which sounds bizarre, with that stranger, give a phone number, etc. I can't see how you could force someone to do that, realistically. It's a hypothesis that makes no sense, has no purpose. And JC would have known she worked for Sturgis if he were Mr Kipper, and even if he wasn't and just happened to bump into her and abduct her, she was carrying a Sturgis key fob with her car keys on it (even if she wasn't holding the house keys). Why not get her to call her office if he wanted to force her to phone someone? How did JC get hold of the pub phone number? He got the info out of SJL about where she was going, and nipped to get a phone book? Called directory enquiries (which could incriminate him if the calls were traced?)

The most likely scenarios for those phone calls are:
1. CV made them up as discussed
2. CV got some calls but they didn't happen when he recalled them happening, but were people looking for SJL later that evening, when the police did get involved, and they did know she was supposed to go to collect her stuff because two officers went around to the PoW on the Tuesday morning to get the stuff from CV. And CV recalls in his chat to DV that he was surprised things happened so fast (I bet he was...)

 

[Terryb808]

I've heard this as a theory that's been suggested, but not sure if it was raised by the police.

In any case, it doesn't make sense to me. It comes from the fact that JC got Shirley Banks, the victim he abducted and murdered, to call into her work the morning after he took her to say she was not coming in as she was sick. So it was suggested maybe JC did this with SJL and got her to call into the pub. But the two cases would not be remotely comparable in my view.

First, it made some logical sense for JC to get SB to call in sick as it would stop her office from raising the alarm if they noticed she was missing, called her house, the police would have been called that morning. What would having SJL pretend to be a different person calling the pub looking for SJL do? If JC wanted to stop SJL's workplace raising the alarm she was missing he'd just have got SJL to call Sturgis and say she had been taken ill and was going home to rest. Calling the pub looking for herself does nothing to put anyone off the scent that SJL was missing. The pub would not care less whether SJL came on time, or not, she was not an employee, she was someone who would pop round at some point to grab some items. Also JC forcing SJL to call the pub and say what CV claims was said just raises suspicion if anything.

It's one thing for JC to force SB to call her employer and just say hi i'm unwell today, and another thing entirely for him to force SJL to call a pub, to talk to someone she doesn't know--anyone of the staff could have answered--and pretend to be a totally different person, have a detailed conversation about keeping SJL there, which sounds bizarre, with that stranger, give a phone number, etc. I can't see how you could force someone to do that, realistically. It's a hypothesis that makes no sense, has no purpose. And JC would have known she worked for Sturgis if he were Mr Kipper, and even if he wasn't and just happened to bump into her and abduct her, she was carrying a Sturgis key fob with her car keys on it (even if she wasn't holding the house keys). Why not get her to call her office if he wanted to force her to phone someone? How did JC get hold of the pub phone number? He got the info out of SJL about where she was going, and nipped to get a phone book? Called directory enquiries (which could incriminate him if the calls were traced?)

The most likely scenarios for those phone calls are:
1. CV made them up as discussed
2. CV got some calls but they didn't happen when he recalled them happening, but were people looking for SJL later that evening, when the police did get involved, and they did know she was supposed to go to collect her stuff because two officers went around to the PoW on the Tuesday morning to get the stuff from CV. And CV recalls in his chat to DV that he was surprised things happened so fast (I bet he was...)

I think CV said “he was surprised things happened so fast, she’s an adult not a child”.
Don’t know about everyone else, but I’m surprised he knew just how quickly the police responded to missing persons.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Hi Tim, I've enlarged the part you are interested in, the bit she's scribbled over looks like another address, the first two digits look like 60. the rest is very difficult to make out, if its an address maybe we could all take a look at this and pool our resources.
What does everyone else think this part says, it could be important?

I blew up the page to the max I could and it says "6a, Wyfold" which is a few streets from Shorrolds about 500 metres.
Anyone have any thoughts?

I checked this to see if it is a legit address and its definitely is but why cross it out and write the wardo thing underneath?

 

[Konstantin]

I blew up the page to the max I could and it says "6a, Wyfold" which is a few streets from Shorrolds about 500 metres.
Anyone have any thoughts?

I checked this to see if it is a legit address and its definitely is but why cross it out and write the wardo thing underneath?

It's very close to Wardo and to Stevenage road too. Probably 6A was a flat she was involved in selling, i can't find out if it was for sale at or just before she went missing though. I guess all the properties would have been in a small radius from the office.

On another topic, this is a photo on Getty claiming to be 29th July which shows the Shorrolds Road door wide open.

Crime Murder Suzi Lamplugh July 1986 Missing girl in Fulham London 37... News Photo - Getty Images

 

[Terryb808]

I blew up the page to the max I could and it says "6a, Wyfold" which is a few streets from Shorrolds about 500 metres.
Anyone have any thoughts?

I checked this to see if it is a legit address and its definitely is but why cross it out and write the wardo thing underneath?

That’s interesting as it’s only 0.6 miles (4 mins by car) from Stevenage Road. I wonder if the police bothered to work out this address.
It would certainly have added weight to their theory that SJL went to Stevenage Road after SR.
It’s odd that SJL seems to have taken the trouble to try and cover this up and not just cross it out.

 

[TimFisher1965]

I thoug

That’s interesting as it’s only 0.6 miles (4 mins by car) from Stevenage Road. I wonder if the police bothered to work out this address.
It would certainly have added weight to their theory that SJL went to Stevenage Road after SR.
It’s odd that SJL seems to have taken the trouble to try and cover this up and not just cross it out.

I thought the same, so what do we think it says underneath? Is it 142 wardo bike contract or something else?

 

[Konstantin]

I thoug

I thought the same, so what do we think it says underneath? Is it 142 wardo bike contract or something else?

yes that
if it was a house for sale it could mean she needed to arrange for the contract to be couriered over ie by bike