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

[asyousay]

The POW does need to be checked but I’m not convinced CV is the answer. The fact the Lamplugh family still have no interest in his book after it’s release and it generated a lot of interest to me is a sign they think he is simply using their tragedy to sell books.


IMO

 

[TimFisher1965]

I take all the points on board and it is completely fair to say that there is no proof re CV, however, if we say actual proof then there is no proof she went to Shorrolds Road, no proof she went to Stevenage Road, no proof Kipper is real, no proof she took the keys. Everything the police and the family think is true is based on suppositions, dodgy sightings and assumed erroneous lines of enquiry. If we take the facts we can only say for certain she arrived at the office about 8.45am and left it again at 12.30pm - 12.40pm and her car was found at 10.01pm that is all we actually know for sure. Everything else has to be filled in with good deductive reasoning and on that score I think DV has been been far more thorough than the police from what I have seen.

Take one person central to the story AL, it was widely reported he had spend Friday night at the POW and Mossop's restaurant with SL but then was blanked by SL on the weekend. Although he was standing next to the parents as the loyal boyfriend talking to the the press on the Tuesday. He has stated on documentaries that the possessions were "taken" on Friday night and it was a sour ending to the eve then when interviewed by DV said most of this was untrue and that he had never been to the POW and it never happened that way? DV (and some of us before his book came out) always believed the stuff was lost (not stolen) on the Sunday night so what in this account is a "fact"? I do not think any of this can be taken as a fact instead 35 plus after the fact we have to work it out by removing the rubbish.
DV interviewed the people who were at the POW on the Sunday night and also spoken about it to AL and has established that is more than likely that the possessions were lost at the pub on Sunday night around 10.15pm to 10.30pm something not recognised by anyone else. Yet its on all the documentaries it happened on Friday, the latest one on Sky Crime assumes that the bank rang her and she was ringing the bank to cancel the chequebook but there is no proof of who rang who just assumptions because nobody in the police had the gumption to get all the phone logs and prove who rang who and establish a timeline which also would prove that nobody called "kipper" rang for a viewing (basic????) It makes me so annoyed when I see JD on documentaries saying things like "I believe he had access to a black BMW" " I believe JC frequented the bars and pubs of Fulham" really those are fact are they? how did he get the money having been out for 3 days? where did he get it? its a joke that this is stated on documentaries by a policeman. Go to court and present that as evidence and see how far you get, I believe..........ok and proof? well I don't have any just a strong belief?? also JC fits the MO, so do lots of people? Its left to us to work out what is proof and what is not.

95% of this case is opinion because we simply do not have the facts. If we had the phone logs, the diaries, definite proof of when the possessions were handed into the police and witnesses who told the truth and did not change their mind we could solve it. We do not lack the brains to solve it we lack the facts to join the dots in the very muddied waters created by poor police work and unreliable witnesses. If I was a policeman I would want the people on this forum to help solve it every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[TimFisher1965]

The POW does need to be checked but I’m not convinced CV is the answer. The fact the Lamplugh family still have no interest in his book after it’s release and it generated a lot of interest to me is a sign they think he is simply using their tragedy to sell books.


IMO

If the Lamplughs read the book and see his interviews they would see quite clearly he has not bad mouthed her or trashed her name he wants the truth and has been respectful to the family. He is not making money he has spent money he wants to solve the case as do we.

 

[Crusader21]

Remember, sadly the over-riding consideration re the Lamplugh family today, is that JC is our man.

I'd go as far as saying for the Lamplugh family now to even acknowledge that JC may not have murdered SL would be a slight on the memory of DL.

Bottom line for me, is this is yet another failure on solving this case once and for all...

 

[TimFisher1965]

Remember, sadly the over-riding consideration re the Lamplugh family today, is that JC is our man.

I'd go as far as saying for the Lamplugh family now to even acknowledge that JC may not have murdered SL would be a slight on the memory of DL.

Bottom line for me, is this is yet another failure on solving this case once and for all...

I agree I think her memory untarnished is key and for the family I do understand that and respect them but it can still be solved.

 

[WestLondoner]

In a way, it is the same problem now as with SJL. Her mother wanted to manage her posthumous reputation and did so by compromising the investigation fatally. Here we are again with the family once more wanting to protect a deceased member's reputation - perhaps.

In their shoes I probably wouldn't want people crawling all over this again and again. But it ought to be obvious that unless the rather dim JC has somehow committed the perfect crime, he didn't do it. If he had, there would have been evidence by now.

The problem with this case is the absence of what one might call obvious criminal activity. There's zero evidence of an abductor so that is impossible to sustain as a hypothesis, but it's also unfathomable how SJL came to fatal harm collecting a diary from a pub.

 

[TimFisher1965]

I think abduction in broad daylight is implausible simple because someone would have seen something. I think an”incident” at the pub is far more likely on the basis nobody would have seen it happen. It has to be said though that her getting into a car with someone she knew is probably more likely than these two scenarios but I still think she went to the POW. I feel the wife knows “something” and that is the key

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes, there are major problems with any hypothesis.

The PoW theory requires the temporary management, or the cellarman, to have spontaneously killed SJL and hidden her on the premises, literally within an hour of assuming oversight of the pub. Which is weird, although CV's subsequent behaviour was pretty weird - failing to mention SJL at all to the returning landlord, for example.

The abduction scenario pretty much requires the abductor to be an acquaintance, in order that the abduction not look like one. It needs SJL to step unobtrusively into an abductor's car, unremarked by any witnesses because nothing remarkable was going on. If she had been bundled forcibly into a car, how does that go unnoticed in broad daylight? The abduction hypothesis suffers from the problem that there's no evidence, from diaries, associates, etc, of any candidate to be the abductor.

This is the bit that clearly puzzles AS. SJL's car got to Stevenage Road somehow, but driven there by someone else. If she was forced into another vehicle elsewhere, maybe coshed and put in the back of a van, the abductor must have driven her car away then walked or cabbed it back to his own vehicle. If she was driven to Stevenage in her own car, she can't have got out the passenger door because it was left locked. She'd have had to exit across the driver's seat, which makes no sense. If she was being dragged across it, she would know she was being abducted and you'd think she'd open the passenger door herself. There is no evidence of any such struggle.

 

[TimFisher1965]

Yep lots of things to work out I think all we can do is remove what we know to be untrue and see what is left

 

[Terryb808]

Can I ask with more knowledge of London than I where exactly 43 Wardo Road is, I have a location, but I'm not sure its correct?

 

[TimFisher1965]

Can I ask with more knowledge of London than I where exactly 43 Wardo Road is, I have a location, but I'm not sure its correct?

About 500m south of shorrolds road and two streets away from wyfold road and one street away from findlay st where galway man was sighted all these streets are in a half mile circle

 

[TimFisher1965]

Can I ask with more knowledge of London than I where exactly 43 Wardo Road is, I have a location, but I'm not sure its correct?

do you wardo ave or wardo road ? I assumed wardo ave?

 

[Terryb808]

Can I ask with more knowledge of London than I where exactly 43 Wardo Road is, I have a location, but I'm not sure its correct?

I should have said 142 Wardo Road, I know where Wardo Ave is, but is this what's in SJL's desk diary?

 

[TimFisher1965]

I should have said 142 Wardo Road, I know where Wardo Ave is, but is this what's in SJL's desk diary?

I think its 142 Wardo Ave there isn't a wardo road in london, in her diary it says wardo (without ave) so i think it can only be that

 

[Terryb808]

I should have said 142 Wardo Road, I know where Wardo Ave is, but is this what's in SJL's desk diary?

There's reason for this, it links to the BW sighting of SJL, has nothing to do with DV and like everything else is ambiguous because SJL didn't write the full address.

 

[WestLondoner]

I don't think you can read very much into these streets being nearby. Fulham is London SW6, and if you plug that into Google Maps, you get this:

Google Maps

It's a pie slice shape 1.5 by 1.75 miles, which means it's impossible for two places to be more than 1.75 miles apart and both still be in Fulham proper. Basically, all streets in Fulham are near all other streets in Fulham. If you took out the areas without private residential property - shops, council housing, commercial areas - you'd probably find everywhere is closer together still.

 

[Terryb808]

I don't think you can read very much into these streets being nearby. Fulham is London SW6, and if you plug that into Google Maps, you get this:

Google Maps

It's a pie slice shape 1.5 by 1.75 miles, which means it's impossible for two places to be more than 1.75 miles apart and both still be in Fulham proper. Basically, all streets in Fulham are near all other streets in Fulham. If you took out the areas without private residential property - shops, council housing, commercial areas - you'd probably find everywhere is closer together still.

Well it’s just another one of my loose ends and going off at a tangent.
When I first put it into a search engine I got a Wardo Road near Wormwood Scrubs. And if I put the address into Google maps and asked for directions from Stevenage Road if would have been where BW said she saw SJL with a male passenger.
Now some time back in our thread (or maybe the one that was zapped) it concluded that if JC was responsible he’d need somewhere to keep SJL captive.
Like all the theories in this case they have no evidence to support them, if BW was actually correct in her account, and JC was involved (no matter how unlikely) then the area around this address look ideal.
Part of the discussion highlighted that the shared Ford Sierra may have been kept in a lock up.
While we generally feel DV has it right, he has no witnesses, it’s possible that the police put doubts in BW’s mind when they questioned her and this made her think she was wrong.
It’s just another possibility and one that only warrants consideration if the PoW draws a blank.

 

[asyousay]

I put a lot of faith in BW sighting and have always maintained it holds water. More so than a innocent man in a pub deciding on the spur to kill somebody and bury the body in the pub and then work the evening shift.

 

[Terryb808]

I put a lot of faith in BW sighting and have always maintained it holds water. More so than a innocent man in a pub deciding on the spur to kill somebody and bury the body in the pub and then work the evening shift.

I like to have an open mind, unfortunately the Mets complete focus on JC did it makes that difficult.
JD of the Met doesn’t help this by getting the facts completely wrong. One detective (Barley) who interviewed JC was absolutely convinced of his guilt.
He’s a seasoned and experienced detective with good judgment, he’s interviewed JC face to face and I’d expect him to have read the man and not be deceived.
As you say BW has (IMO) not been taken seriously, she after all was the only witness that actually knew SJL.
You can put a narrative together which fits BW’s sighting and fits the timeline of events perfectly.
However, like all of the narratives, it’s now built on conjecture and guesswork.
Sadly, the PoW DV theory holds (IMO) the only chance of locating SJL’s remains. If he’s wrong as AL said “ you’ll never find her, no one will”

 

[TimFisher1965]

I think we must take BW seriously because she is the only witness who knew SL personally. It’s tricky because if you search for her name on YouTube a clip is there where she is interviewed about it (not the crimewatch clip btw) she does come across as a but ditzy and not too clued up. However if she is right then the car cannot be at Stevenage Road meaning it’s possible WJ saw it at 12.45 but it wasn’t there from about 2.30. As I have said before the case is like a Rubiks cube get one set of facts line up then others do not fit. Open question who do we believe more WJ or BW ? If you discount WJ completely and SL never went there where was she between 12.30-40pm and 2.30pm - 2.45pm? The sighting is only about a mile from the sturgis office it seems odd and hard to reconcile. Thoughts?