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

[Cluesleuth]

If he has zero evidence then he's in the same boat as the Met with their JC fit-up. They have zero evidence for that, too.

It is, moreover, a particularly cynical demand for the police to make. The evidence that SJL actually went to the PoW should have been but was not gathered by the police themselves in July 1986. What is not in doubt is that SJL intended to go to the PoW to retrieve her cheque book and diary. Even the police have to own up to that, because they actually went there and retrieved it. But they never searched the PoW, or questioned the staff, or indicated to the public in their information appeals that it was a place she may have gone, or asked if anyone had seen her car being driven there, or in particular had seen it being driven away (perhaps by a male who looked like James Galway). That was the opportunity they missed to gather evidence. Instead they just asserted, quite falsely, that SJL had been seen at 37SR, and they did so the very next day. They had no witness for this at all. Not even HR said he had seen her; he just said he had seen a woman and the police made no attempt to consider who else that might have been.

They are now essentially saying that because they failed to seek evidence at the time they won't consider the PoW now, unless DV can somehow alter the past so that in fact the police did seek that evidence.

I dont think she even made it to the POW.

MOO

 

[asyousay]

I still personally believe she met somebody and her friend saw her in the car with a man going towards Hammersmith (I think).

 

[Cluesleuth]

Other people knew she was coming to the pub. Someone in the pub rang her bank and possibly others spoke to her to arrange the visit. Then there would be any of her work colleagues who were told or overheard where she was headed. It would be impossible for CV or anyone else to say she had no intention of coming there. So the next best thing to do would be to say she planned to, but never showed up (and for all we know that's what did happen).

The thing that is tricky about CV's account is that in July 1986 he claimed SJL wasn't coming over till after work, but never showed, because of course she disappeared at 12.40. The 6pm viewing in her desk diary proves she cannot have been intending to come after work, however, so the question is who knew she was coming at 12.40 and why was this not mentioned to the police?

I thought she had just told CV she would come to collect them later, no specific time was given?

 

[WestLondoner]

AIUI someone at the PoW rang her bank, her bank rang her and she rang the pub, twice. There would have been two calls because the 6pm viewing appointment was made during the morning, so the second call was to rearrange the visit. It doesn't follow that the same person at the pub picked up both times.

She couldn't just go and fetch her stuff because she's supposed to be at her desk unless conducting a viewing. That points to 'later' meaning 'after work' as the only possible time when she could go. The 6pm appointment mullers that, so she had to go right away.

 

[Terryb808]

So a question for people who think LE should bend over backwards for a man with not a single bit of evidence.

1) Should LE chase up every theory that people have that decided to walk into a police station and claim they know something?

2) if you think they should who exactly would fund the extra man power this would need to make work?

3) At what Line do the police say “ hold on we need evidence before we can proceed with this”

2) What if LE find nothing how is the cost and the general public going to feel at more resources wasted when it could be used elsewhere?

They’ve found nothing on every JC dig, all expensive, all funded by the tax payer.
No solid evidence prompted these, just JC winding up the police.

 

[Crusader21]

I still personally believe she met somebody and her friend saw her in the car with a man going towards Hammersmith (I think).

She wouldn't have meet up with anyone intentionally, as she'd no bag with her.

Also wouldn't she been in danger of being rumbled by big Sturgis boss? Seen by BW 2.45pm after conducting the Mr Kipper viewing at 12.45!

No, everything points to nipping up to PoW, calling home for her kit, grabbing a sandwich and then back to work .....

 

[shadwell]

I thought she had just told CV she would come to collect them later, no specific time was given?

I don’t know, but unless the pub was shut (and deserted) in the evening time wouldn’t be a major issue; SJL could have stopped by any time before closing to pick up her stuff. So a 6pm viewing wouldn’t necessarily be an issue.

 

[Terryb808]

That makes sense


The problem is unless it is CV and it is the POW then realistically this is just never going to be solved I don’t think which is super frustrating.


It’s so frustrating to think a woman can simply vanish off the streets of London and nobody saw a thing. It would be like if this happened in any major city you just expect with so many people walking around they would of seen something.


ETA - I forgot to add At Lunch time as well - so even more people out and about

This is spot on, if it’s not CV, and JC dies without admitting anything the case will never be solved.
I feel sorry for the Lamplugh family, they’ve lived with this and deserve closure.

 

[asyousay]

AIUI someone at the PoW rang her bank, her bank rang her and she rang the pub, twice. There would have been two calls because the 6pm viewing appointment was made during the morning, so the second call was to rearrange the visit. It doesn't follow that the same person at the pub picked up both times.

She couldn't just go and fetch her stuff because she's supposed to be at her desk unless conducting a viewing. That points to 'later' meaning 'after work' as the only possible time when she could go. The 6pm appointment mullers that, so she had to go right away.

But that’s just assuming that’s what she did - it’s actually a lot more logical she would just go later on when she got home as the pub is on her way home. Why would she go out of her way when she is so busy at work when she goes past there on the way home from work?

This just makes her day even more complicated

 

[Terryb808]

But that’s just assuming that’s what she did - it’s actually a lot more logical she would just go later on when she got home as the pub is on her way home. Why would she go out of her way when she is so busy at work when she goes past there on the way home from work?

This just makes her day even more complicated

Doesn’t it depend on what’s in the diary, how personal the content is and that she may not have wanted people reading it.

 

[asyousay]

Doesn’t it depend on what’s in the diary, how personal the content is and that she may not have wanted people reading it.

Why would she care if a strange person reads it?

It’s not like her boyfriend found it. CV doesn’t know her and what’s he gonna do with the details call the News of the world?. I can understand completely if she had left it at her parents house or a boyfriends but a random no mark it just doesn’t add up. IMO

Isn’t this another DV theory that the diary was quite detailed in her private life?

 

[shadwell]

Doesn’t it depend on what’s in the diary, how personal the content is and that she may not have wanted people reading it.

Possibly, but if CV picked up the diary on Sunday night, by 12.45pm on Monday would it not already be too late anyway?

 

[shadwell]

Random question: did BW know SJL socially at all, or was it purely through work?

 

[WestLondoner]

But that’s just assuming that’s what she did - it’s actually a lot more logical she would just go later on when she got home as the pub is on her way home. Why would she go out of her way when she is so busy at work when she goes past there on the way home from work?

This just makes her day even more complicated

She was playing tennis at 7pm, so if she left at 5.30 she could stop off on her way home. By 12.40 she has a 6pm viewing in her diary, which realistically now leaves no opportunity to go that day.

The idea that the diary contains salacious details of her personal life came from the police. They know perfectly whether it does or does not, but they assert to DV that he has to prove it does for its retrieval to have been so important to her.

This can only mean that it contains nothing much. The police assumption is apparently that as this is the only possible reason she'd be anxious to get it back, and it's not in fact salacious, she wasn't in that much of a paddy to get it back. Therefore she didn't go to the PoW, and a further reason that justifies not searching the place. The point of the diary could, however, be simply that it contained a 'phone number she needed right away. Suppose she wanted to scratch or rearrange the 7pm tennis because of the 6pm viewing, for example, and the contact number was in the diary. So it does not follow at all that the only reason to want it back was that its contents were 'salacious'.

 

[asyousay]

She was playing tennis at 7pm, so if she left at 5.30 she could stop off on her way home. By 12.40 she has a 6pm viewing in her diary, which realistically now leaves no opportunity to go that day.

The idea that the diary contains salacious details of her personal life came from the police. They know perfectly whether it does or does not, but they assert to DV that he has to prove it does for its retrieval to have been so important to her.

This can only mean that it contains nothing much. The police assumption is apparently that as this is the only possible reason she'd be anxious to get it back, and it's not in fact salacious, she wasn't in that much of a paddy to get it back. Therefore she didn't go to the PoW, and a further reason that justifies not searching the place. The point of the diary could, however, be simply that it contained a 'phone number she needed right away. Suppose she wanted to scratch or rearrange the 7pm tennis because of the 6pm viewing, for example, and the contact number was in the diary. So it does not follow at all that the only reason to want it back was that its contents were 'salacious'.

How do we know she wasn’t going to cancel her tennis lesson and was simply murdered before she got that chance?


She obviously didn’t make a habit of making up fake appointments and skipping out of work so I struggle with the fact she makes up a fake appointment and she just happens to be murdered the same day she does that.


moo

 

[shadwell]

I think it's strange because DV said he and AL had several phone calls before that so AL must have had a measure of where DV was coming from prior to meeting him? DV must have touched a nerve about something? but what exactly was it?

His words you will never find anything out and you will never find her are very strange and a tad sinister, what exactly did he mean?

There are lots of people to talk to that could still tie up some loose ends, the question is who could do this? I am still amazed that DV does not get the credit for finding out all that he has. Setting aside the POW cellar he found out about the stock check and that the permeant landlord was away but tracked them all down and discovered the facts. Stephanie Flowers and Hindle in a relationship, the office row on Monday, Keith Perry around on the day, one set of keys etc etc this fills in so many gaps to the timeline. But there is more than can be done.

I have always believed that SL lost her stuff on the Sunday night and said so before DV's book came out.
My reasons are that IF SL did call AL it does not seem to have been from her parents or her own flat so as the POW was 200M from her door this makes sense (if we accept it happened, we only have AL word for this right) that she phoned from here and dropped the stuff at this point. Any scenario that CV somehow nicked it seems very unlikely. How did he know her? how would he get away with it? I think CV story about the time and the place seems very plausible.

Her possessions being found by CV at around the same time match this likely scenario as the phone box was 20 feet from the door right by the tables CV said he found the stuff. He would have seen them the moment he stepped outside. The fact he found them suggests to me that they had been dropped moments before. He may had literally missed seeing SL by a minute or two any longer and someone would have handed them in or nicked them.

SL had seen AL on Friday, worked on Sat am, went to a party on Sat with friends, windsurfing on Sunday again with friends and to her parents later until around 9pm we believe. NOBODY on record has at any time said SL mentioned her possessions were lost to anyone over the weekend why? because she had not lost them yet. Even her flatmate Nick Bryant did not mention it and he saw SL briefly on Monday morning.

What does this all mean? it means that its very probable that SL did not realise her stuff was gone until she sorted to go to work. BUT here is my point, we could still ask Nick Bryant, James Calvert, Sarah Hough (who drove her on sat and Sunday) and anyone who was at the party or windsurfing if she mentioned losing her stuff. Zero people saying it does not prove it but as we have so little to go on we need to take each point to as near a certainty as is possible and see what remains as "very likely" or "probable". I believe a zero recollection of SL mentioning her stuff gone plus CV account makes it almost certain.

I am completely baffled as to why AL said one thing on a documentary then something completely different to DV? I suspect as others have said here he was presenting very much the image that DL wanted, maybe he thought those details did not matter? 36 years later its only the details that can probably piece it together apart of course from a search of the POW.

I read in AS book that a 28 year old policewoman was in charge of reading both SL work diary and her "salacious" personal diary to check the names in it for interviews. I wonder if she could be found and interviewed?

Last thing a couple of SL documentaries one which contained the interview with AL seem to have vanished from YouTube, anyone know where these can still be seen?

LOL is that KP’s real name? Is his middle name Ian?

 

[asyousay]

I know nobody else agrees but I still would have the boyfriend in the frame. We know LE did a poor job investigating the case and we know Suzy was having issues with him and from all accounts cheating on him.


Now her cutting out of work to clear the air with him as he is being a pest I can why she would do that and if she did make up a fake appointment as it would be a complete embarrassment if work found out that she is was cheating on her boyfriend. It was the 80’s so I’m sure she wouldn’t want that getting out IMO


Then add in his weird reaction in the book

MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

I know nobody else agrees but I still would have the boyfriend in the frame. We know LE did a poor job investigating the case and we know Suzy was having issues with him and from all accounts cheating on him.


Now her cutting out of work to clear the air with him as he is being a pest I can why she would do that and if she did make up a fake appointment as it would be a complete embarrassment if work found out that she is was cheating on her boyfriend. It was the 80’s so I’m sure she wouldn’t want that getting out IMO


Then add in his weird reaction in the book

MOO

This is an interesting point. I can't fault the logic at all and the only reason to disagree is that the plod cleared AL at the time. However, this is the same plod who didn't solve the case, so maybe as you suggest they didn't clear him properly.

 

[Crusader21]

You tube vid that may be of interest to some ....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Cluesleuth]

Why would she care if a strange person reads it?

It’s not like her boyfriend found it. CV doesn’t know her and what’s he gonna do with the details call the News of the world?. I can understand completely if she had left it at her parents house or a boyfriends but a random no mark it just doesn’t add up. IMO

Isn’t this another DV theory that the diary was quite detailed in her private life?

I think someone had eyes on the diary that weekend and some of the content was shared with another/others.
In my opinion one of those persons was greatly upset and angry by what they learnt and planned on going to confront SJL Monday.
I think the call to the POW by a female called Sarah was an attempt to warn her, after learning SJL had not been there yet she gave the landlord a tel number and asked him to tell SJL to call her when she arrived desperate to speak/warn SJL Sarah asked the landlord to keep her talking and tell SJL he couldnt find the diary and chq book.

We know SJL had a friend called Sarah and its my opinion that SJL had told her or she had learnt that she had lost her diary and chq book and where it had been found and plans to collect it.
I think the caller posing as a policeman was another desperate attempt by a male associated to Sarah to check again if SJL had arrived at the pub and by saying he was a policeman would underline the importance of the calls.

Unfortunately SJL never made it to the POW as the confronter had already made his move.
We know DH was obsessed with SJL they had never fully broken up.
We know he had finnished teaching sailing in Corsica the day before SJL went missing. (Skipper- suntanned)
We know he didnt have an alibi and wasnt seen for days after despite her disappearance appearing in the National Press.

Described as softly spoken but intense in the AS book I think DH warrants a closer look.

These are my opinions only