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

[Pinkizzy]

YES, suzy was going to pick up her missing items on her way home after the 6pm viewing with joanna at 43 wadermar.

If SL hadn't noticed her diary was missing since Sunday, waiting until 6pm on Monday wouldn't have made much difference

 

[Konstantin]

The diary is an interesting one:

AL states lost on Friday. He had dinner with Suzy in a restaurant in Putney followed by PoW.

A female friend of SJL (can't recall name) says Sunday.

JC is reported to have been in the PoW on Friday evening.....yes PoW

Sinister Theory 1.....AL wanted to find out who else SLJ was seeing. 'Removed' items when at Worthing on the Sunday (27th) and deliberately left them at PoW after all had left for landlord to find. Says lost on Friday to distance himself from taking them and creating suspicion of further involvement.

Even More Sinister Theory 2.....JC takes them on Friday evening at POW. He watches all leave PoW on Sunday evening and leaves for landlord to find.

Alternatively she may just have mislaid them which is the most realistic scenario

Where was the report that JC was in the POW on the Friday? DIdn't he have a curfew that meant he had to be back in his hostel by a certain time at night? Could he have really gone to a pub? It wasn't too near his prison hostel was it?

The interesting thing about the diary loss is that the items do seem to have been dropped at the POW since there was more than one item, it is more likely they fell out of her bag together. A more criminally minded person would, had they lifted them, just keep the chequebook because it had value. A postcard is just junk and a diary might be a good laugh if it's salacious but how salacious can a small pocket diary be?

My thinking is she was at the POW for a time on the Sunday. I don't think they can be lost on the Friday as CV who found them surely would not have gotten there on Friday night and had the pub have to pay him for 2 days more when he wasn't needed til the Sunday...?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Indeed!

Had I have known SL and say, saw her in Putney that lunchtime, I wouldn't have bothered the police as evidently they were only interested in sightings in SR!

There lies the conundrum. If the question was "have you seen Suzy in Fulham/Putney/Hammersmith" then many well meaning folk would have responded, many believing they had seen her when they hadn't or confused with a previous day.

This would risk overwhelming the incident room and the important sightings would have been hidden in the overwhelming response.

The police will have reviewed if they'd had no sightings in Shorrolds Road.

As it happens they received three witnesses with corroborating information....a male and a vehicle i/c of a woman with a description matching Suzy.

From this they had a description of the male and a vehicle description and subsequently an artists sketch and a photo fit.

Being specific about Shorrolds Road was the right call as information was so limited.

 

[Konstantin]

DV rejects evidence by wafting his hand and not giving a coherent argument as to why he rejects it. As I have said before the police are looking it a whole, the rest of us have about 10% of the pie.

A few things here. I agree that we only have a very small piece of the pie and so there will be things that are missing from the public domain that could very well be crucial in understanding what happened or didn't happen and why JC is in the frame.

I think DV's efforts to challenge the idea that Suzy went to Shorrolds Road are worth something in that she did plausibly have somewhere else to go and there are some oddities around her diary entry for the viewing. His posing of an alternative theory is interesting and it does no harm to consider it but again, like us he has a small piece of the full investigative pie.

I do think that he is setting up a narrative and a story in his book, which is to set up the idea that CV could be a suspect including by presenting him as "being odd" in his speech and demeanor. There are some areas that I am less convinced about, in particular I am not convinced by his "she didn't take the keys" theory because his evidence that she didn't can't really be checked and I don't think the police, and the Sturgis staff, would have made such a basic error. There was nothing to cover up here by Sturgis pretending she took the keys knowing she can't have. The "well the door didn't look damaged" argument isn't really very convincing because if it were a single Yale lock it would be easy to open without really damaging the door. Or the locks could be changed (agreed the Sturgis owner says he can't remember htat happening but it was decades ago... come on).

 

[Konstantin]

There lies the conundrum. If the question was "have you seen Suzy in Fulham/Putney/Hammersmith" then many well meaning folk would have responded, many believing they had seen her when they hadn't or confused with a previous day.

Which I think is probably what happened with her friend who saw her at a rather later time in the afternoon. If Suzy was really there at that time, her lunchtime viewing of Shorrolds would not have covered her absence, and this would be very strange indeed. If you abduct someone in broad daylight you are not going to be driving round with them for all to see in the local area where folks know her.

 

[Terryb808]

No, of course I haven't had access to access to the investigation. I would not be discussing it if I had.

Whilst evidential opportunities were lost in the original investigation, there were three independently corroborated witness statements placing a female matching SJL in Shorrolds Road at the time of the appointment. Two independent witnesses state the woman was with a male, as described. That these were in Shorrold Road has to be taken with significant reliability and certainly in lieu of any other credible witness testimony.

Other independent witnesses have placed SJP's vehicle in Stevenage Road, so this can be considered reliable.

The acquaintance who said they recognised SJL driving in Fulham Palace Road is well intentioned but unreliable.

Any witnesses that came years later cannot be relied upon. If they have genuine cause to remember and can explain why they didn't come forward earlier then their account may be considered more credible.

Witness accounts are notoriously unreliable but when independent witnesses are confirming that someone matching a description was seen in a certain place at a certain time, then their value is greatly increased.

Finally, I have faith in the detective abilities of Jim Dickie in performing a thorough review and following any reasonable lines of enquiry that hat not been explored earlier.

If Jim Dickie had authorisation from the Met Police to say Cannan was the one and only suspect then I have complete confidence in that assessment.

Suspicions based on what it's and the smallest of inconsistencies in peoples statements and irritation with work colleagues are not reason to denounce what we do know and jumping to wild conclusions.

The bottom line is the police have carried out the investigation, they have access to all the evidence obtained, they have ruled people out and the only one waving red flag is JC. He just can't be nailed down because there is no body or crime scene, just a wealth of circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient to reach the high bar for charge and ultimately conviction.

I think it is important for folk to navel gaze and ask why they they reject JC as the only suspect based on evidence but find other suspects where the evidence does not support it.

DV rejects evidence by wafting his hand and not giving a coherent argument as to why he rejects it. As I have said before the police are looking it a whole, the rest of us have about 10% of the pie.

Anyone questioning witnesses thirty-six years later expecting that their account will be reliable is sadly mistaken. The passage of time, external influences, the way memory works will all have a significant impact.

I totally agree with the fact that re-interviewing witnesses 36 years after the fact has limited value, however, occasionally they remember a small detail that is important.
I’m not eliminating JC, however, you said above that witnesses that come forward many years after the event and didn’t do so back in 1986 are of very limited value.
On this basis the new witnesses that came forward 14 years after SJL disappeared really can’t add anything of value. I note that you didn’t comment on the PoW landlady who appeared in a TV documentary saying JC was a regular and only appeared recently. So this is of no real value at all.
The witnesses who saw a man & woman outside 37 Shorrolds Road never 100% confirmed that the woman they saw was Suzy Lamplugh, therefore, this does not place her in Shorrolds Road.
There are other possibilities for these two people, and it stands up just as well as saying they saw Suzy Lamplugh in Shorrolds Road. If you’ve followed the threads you’ll know that my interest is simply to close this for the family. A loss like this is painful and as you get older yourself tends to play more on your mind.
My view is simple:
1. SJL either kept an appointment or was abducted by JC and possibly ended up in the Grand Union Canal.
2. She went straight to the PoW and never left, ending up on the railway embankment.
3. She did get to Shorrolds Road and was abducted professionally to make sure she kept quiet.
The police can possible confirm options 1&2, but IMO have absolutely no chance with option 3.
I know the answer to the canal, it was dredged as part of another investigation, however, can you be sure that team looked in the right place, I think not.
I also know that the canal is dredged approximately every 5 years and back in 1986 dredging debris was deposited at a convenient location at the side of the canal. But now it has to be removed and disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
So to forward this case options 1&2 should be looked at, as pointed out by others, these two locations have not been searched properly.

 

[lee sumner]

It seems odd that the name alone would place him so prominently on the incident room whiteboard for just that reason. Did he resemble the phofit of KIPPER? I noticed a MR 'L' Under one of the photofits would this relate to him as well.

leslie skipper was on holiday when suzy went missing. he was not in the uk on the 28th july 1986.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I totally agree with the fact that re-interviewing witnesses 36 years after the fact has limited value, however, occasionally they remember a small detail that is important.
I’m not eliminating JC, however, you said above that witnesses that come forward many years after the event and didn’t do so back in 1986 are of very limited value.
On this basis the new witnesses that came forward 14 years after SJL disappeared really can’t add anything of value. I note that you didn’t comment on the PoW landlady who appeared in a TV documentary saying JC was a regular and only appeared recently. So this is of no real value at all.
The witnesses who saw a man & woman outside 37 Shorrolds Road never 100% confirmed that the woman they saw was Suzy Lamplugh, therefore, this does not place her in Shorrolds Road.
There are other possibilities for these two people, and it stands up just as well as saying they saw Suzy Lamplugh in Shorrolds Road. If you’ve followed the threads you’ll know that my interest is simply to close this for the family. A loss like this is painful and as you get older yourself tends to play more on your mind.
My view is simple:
1. SJL either kept an appointment or was abducted by JC and possibly ended up in the Grand Union Canal.
2. She went straight to the PoW and never left, ending up on the railway embankment.
3. She did get to Shorrolds Road and was abducted professionally to make sure she kept quiet.
The police can possible confirm options 1&2, but IMO have absolutely no chance with option 3.
I know the answer to the canal, it was dredged as part of another investigation, however, can you be sure that team looked in the right place, I think not.
I also know that the canal is dredged approximately every 5 years and back in 1986 dredging debris was deposited at a convenient location at the side of the canal. But now it has to be removed and disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
So to forward this case options 1&2 should be looked at, as pointed out by others, these two locations have not been searched properly.

Lots of points Terry.

1. Agreed that it wasn't confirmed it was SJL in Shorrolds. Three witnesses though. One sees her alone waiting at 37 at the relevant time. Two see her O/S or near Shorrolds with a male. No one came forward to say is was Josephine Bloggs with Joe Bloggs in Shorrolds, not Suzy, thereby ruling out SJL and Kipper. In the absence of anything better you have to develop that. Not forgetting that other lines of enquiry will be being followed up too.

2. Witnesses that come forward years later may have useful information. If it is known not to be in the public domain but is very specific, unusual or independently corroborates or expands on something already known then it may be considered of good evidential value.

In CID training it has been known to bring home how variable and unreliable eye witnesses are. Without being forewarned man bursts into training room with a gun shouting the odds, making threats etc. Runs out after ten seconds. Task: Each write independent eye witness statement with as much detail as possible. Result: Woeful....and they are experienced police officers. Now a composite from all the statements would probably give a clear idea of what really happened and the description. Independent corroboration is good

3. Former landlady, years later, worked in lots of pubs, served lots of customers.....1/10 and I'm being generous....unless something particularly memorable happened and then I'm digging down to find out why so long before getting in touch. This info they have may be a composite of info from others, MSM, books, imagination and not first hand.

4. FWIW I think he abducted her, possibly killed her then. Tied her up/gagged her in the back of his car. He then went to a pre-planned location to either hold her hostage or a well known location to dispose of her. He may have driven her well out of London to somewhere he was very familiar with.

Helll JC didn't randomly drive SB to the Quantock Hills and leave her in Dead Woman's Ditch....he knew where he was taking her.....not everything is as random as it would appear. People are creatures of habit, revert to type.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Ian Simms died this weekend, he abducted + killed Helen McCourt and left her at a secret location

 

[Pinkizzy]

Lots of points Terry.

1. Agreed that it wasn't confirmed it was SJL in Shorrolds. Three witnesses though. One sees her alone waiting at 37 at the relevant time. Two see her O/S or near Shorrolds with a male. No one came forward to say is was Josephine Bloggs with Joe Bloggs in Shorrolds, not Suzy, thereby ruling out SJL and Kipper. In the absence of anything better you have to develop that. Not forgetting that other lines of enquiry will be being followed up too.

2. Witnesses that come forward years later may have useful information. If it is known not to be in the public domain but is very specific, unusual or independently corroborates or expands on something already known then it may be considered of good evidential value.

In CID training it has been known to bring home how variable and unreliable eye witnesses are. Without being forewarned man bursts into training room with a gun shouting the odds, making threats etc. Runs out after ten seconds. Task: Each write independent eye witness statement with as much detail as possible. Result: Woeful....and they are experienced police officers. Now a composite from all the statements would probably give a clear idea of what really happened and the description. Independent corroboration is good

3. Former landlady, years later, worked in lots of pubs, served lots of customers.....1/10 and I'm being generous....unless something particularly memorable happened and then I'm digging down to find out why so long before getting in touch. This info they have may be a composite of info from others, MSM, books, imagination and not first hand.

4. FWIW I think he abducted her, possibly killed her then. Tied her up/gagged her in the back of his car. He then went to a pre-planned location to either hold her hostage or a well known location to dispose of her. He may have driven her well out of London to somewhere he was very familiar with.

Helll JC didn't randomly drive SB to the Quantock Hills and leave her in Dead Woman's Ditch....he knew where he was taking her.....not everything is as random as it would appear. People are creatures of habit, revert to type.

She's probably buried near Norton Barracks

 

[Cluesleuth]

Lots of points Terry.

1. Agreed that it wasn't confirmed it was SJL in Shorrolds. Three witnesses though. One sees her alone waiting at 37 at the relevant time. Two see her O/S or near Shorrolds with a male. No one came forward to say is was Josephine Bloggs with Joe Bloggs in Shorrolds, not Suzy, thereby ruling out SJL and Kipper. In the absence of anything better you have to develop that. Not forgetting that other lines of enquiry will be being followed up too.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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.

<modsnip> The police followed where the evidence took them. Admittedly they made some early errors with the photo, using the Fiesta for the reconstruction and releasing the name 'Kipper'. The review in 2000 will certainly have picked up incomplete/new valid lines of enquiry. They had no allegiance to the original investigation....they were professional, thorough and had integrity.

The DV fan club have fallen for a wild hypothesis based on the fact that CV and his good lady appeared a little odd to him. Interestingly AL walked out on him. Either they are all in it together or DV it the sort of chap whose interview style needs some work.

When the police recovered the items from PoW they will have made an assessment of the landlords explanation and demeanour etc and likely asked to have a look around. It would be rude to refuse and would certainly get ones name on the little whiteboard in the incident room. He will have been checked out and eliminated, which is why the police aren't jumping at DV's one man crime busting venture.

<modsnip>

 

[Whitehall 1212]

She's probably buried near Norton Barracks

I know it well. In 1986 it was an abandoned barracks. It was developed in the mid 90's into a new housing estate. The original gatehouse was turned into flats. The remaining undeveloped land behind the gatehouse is now home to a cricket club and rifle club.

I don't think she is there. I think JC took GP there on a trip from Bristol to Birmingham via the M5 with intent to make her his next victim.

The dialogue as reported leads me to think that the journey prompted JC to bring up SJL.

The area most familiar to him was north Birmingham, where most or all of his previous offending occurred.... many rapes and sexual assaults in mid-late 70's were never solved. House for sale, speculative knock at the door, lone female at home!

 

[Cluesleuth]

Lots of points Terry.

1. Agreed that it wasn't confirmed it was SJL in Shorrolds. Three witnesses though. One sees her alone waiting at 37 at the relevant time. Two see her O/S or near Shorrolds with a male. No one came forward to say is was Josephine Bloggs with Joe Bloggs in Shorrolds, not Suzy, thereby ruling out SJL and Kipper. In the absence of anything better you have to develop that. Not forgetting that other lines of enquiry will be being followed up too.

Agreed it was not confirmed it was SJL at Shorrolds Rd. The witnesses saw a female so we have to be careful that we do not just assume it was her.
After taking the witness statements and a discription of the female they saw wouldnt the police have shown them a photo of SJL and asked is this the woman you saw?

I have no doubt the sightings in Shorrold and Stevenage rd happened, but I do question who actually carried out those viewings. It was far from a usual day in the office that day and we know viewings were being carried out by staff who weren't normally expected to do them. I am not saying anyone did anything wrong, it could have been a solution that suited all parties with viewings and lunch breaks arranged to suit everyone in the office.
This is a screen shot from the crimewatch reconstruction and where I dont not know if the originial office staff took part in it I think it does shows the that male and females at the time had very similiar style looks hair, clothing.
If this screenshot had presented to the witnesses I wonder how many witnesses would have likened it to the female and male in Shorrolds rd?

I think we can agree that SJL could not be in 2 places at the same time.

By WJ's account SJL' car was in Stevanage rd at 12.40pm if thats correct then SJL drove straight to Stevenage Rd where I think she had agreed to meet someone she knew. I think the focus should have been on Stevenage rd


I think @shadwell made a good point about the Fiesta in Stevenage rd. - Causing an obstruction someone may have tried the door and finding it open released the handbrake and pushed it enough to be out of the way.

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

Just my opinion

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Agreed it was not confirmed it was SJL at Shorrolds Rd. The witnesses saw a female so we have to be careful that we do not just assume it was her.
After taking the witness statements and a discription of the female they saw wouldnt the police have shown them a photo of SJL and asked is this the woman you saw?

I have no doubt the sightings in Shorrold and Stevenage rd happened, but I do question who actually carried out those viewings. It was far from a usual day in the office that day and we know viewings were being carried out by staff who weren't normally expected to do them. I am not saying anyone did anything wrong, it could have been a solution that suited all parties with viewings and lunch breaks arranged to suit everyone in the office.
This is a screen shot from the crimewatch reconstruction and where I dont not know if the originial office staff took part in it I think it does shows the that male and females at the time had very similiar style looks hair, clothing.
If this screenshot had presented to the witnesses I wonder how many witnesses would have likened it to the female and male in Shorrolds rd?

I think we can agree that SJL could not be in 2 places at the same time.

By WJ's account SJL' car was in Stevanage rd at 12.40pm if thats correct then SJL drove straight to Stevenage Rd where I think she had agreed to meet someone she knew. I think the focus should have been on Stevenage rd


I think @shadwell made a good point about the Fiesta in Stevenage rd. - Causing an obstruction someone may have tried the door and finding it open released the handbrake and pushed it enough to be out of the way.

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

Just my opinion

I don't doubt that detectives were doing house to house enquiries in Shorrolds Road initially and quite possibly surrounding and other key roads (Stevenage and Whittingstall etc) showing the photo of SJL (wrong one unfortunately) and asking if they had seen her on or after Monday 28th July 1986, or anyone acting suspiciously in the area. We know what Suzy looks like.....we are trying to get a description of anyone she was seen with or who was acting suspiciously.

People think he police just do a press conference and release a photo. It would have been a lot more pro-active and targeted that that, even for the investigation team of 1986 as they were basic then and still are now.

I think it is critical to get independent statements from each of the employees in the Estate Agents, in work or not, covering not only their movements that day, but of course SJL's mood, anything she said about problems in or out of work, her phone calls, letters, deliveries, things out of the ordinary, unsettling situations in the days and weeks before, people she mentioned, overly keen or disgruntled clients etc. These statements take time as as investigator as you have to use cognitive memory techniques to try squeeze out every last bit of detail that could be relevant.

My thoughts are that SJL may have driven straight to Stevenage Road and met someone.....but is presents to many 'why's'? Alternatively, the timing for the first sighting in Stevange Road is incorrect and it was more 13:40 when SJL's car was first seen. The sighting of the vehicle at 14:00 was by a London cabbie.....they are pretty switched on so quite possibly correct. So with the most obvious is there SJL goes to Shorrolds for 12:45 or earlier as she always is, hence seen waiting outside address alone (witness). Kipper meets her O/S 37 SR. He has already met SJL, he's charming but different, she's interested/curious. He asks to meet again at lunchtime Monday, as he has to leave London for a short while (business). SJL agrees and accounts for her absence as a viewing (important to be seen to go there....for effect) JC rocks up with bubbly and suggests walk in park/by river. They drive separately to Stevenage Road area......MOO

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Agreed it was not confirmed it was SJL at Shorrolds Rd. The witnesses saw a female so we have to be careful that we do not just assume it was her.
After taking the witness statements and a discription of the female they saw wouldnt the police have shown them a photo of SJL and asked is this the woman you saw?

I have no doubt the sightings in Shorrold and Stevenage rd happened, but I do question who actually carried out those viewings. It was far from a usual day in the office that day and we know viewings were being carried out by staff who weren't normally expected to do them. I am not saying anyone did anything wrong, it could have been a solution that suited all parties with viewings and lunch breaks arranged to suit everyone in the office.
This is a screen shot from the crimewatch reconstruction and where I dont not know if the originial office staff took part in it I think it does shows the that male and females at the time had very similiar style looks hair, clothing.
If this screenshot had presented to the witnesses I wonder how many witnesses would have likened it to the female and male in Shorrolds rd?

I think we can agree that SJL could not be in 2 places at the same time.

By WJ's account SJL' car was in Stevanage rd at 12.40pm if thats correct then SJL drove straight to Stevenage Rd where I think she had agreed to meet someone she knew. I think the focus should have been on Stevenage rd


I think @shadwell made a good point about the Fiesta in Stevenage rd. - Causing an obstruction someone may have tried the door and finding it open released the handbrake and pushed it enough to be out of the way.

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

Just my opinion

I don't doubt that detectives were doing house to house enquiries in Shorrolds Road initially and quite possibly surrounding and other key roads (Stevenage and Whittingstall etc) showing the photo of SJL (wrong one unfortunately) and asking if they had seen her on or after Monday 28th July 1986, or anyone acting suspiciously in the area. We know what Suzy looks like.....we are trying to get a description of anyone she was seen with or who was acting suspiciously.

People think the police just do a press conference and release a photo. It would have been a lot more pro-active and targeted than that, even for the investigation team of 1986. House-to-house enquiries, building up a good understanding of the missing persons life from friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances (now including forensic interrogation of IT devices and social media), search of home address, identifying those with possible motive and either eliminating them or making them persons of continued interest are the bread and butter of investigating many serious crimes then, and still are now.

I think it is critical to get independent statements from each of the employees in the Estate Agents, in work or not, covering not only their movements that day, but of course SJL's mood, anything she said about problems in or out of work, her phone calls, letters, deliveries, things out of the ordinary, unsettling situations in the days and weeks before, overly attentive/keen or disgruntled clients. These statements take time as an investigator as you have to use cognitive memory techniques to try squeeze out every last bit of detail that could be relevant.

N.B. if staff were engaging in un-authorised practices/operating beyond their remit/covering viewings of properties not in their personal portfolio then this could be relevant to where SJP went. I hope correct information was given. Additionally, I read somewhere that 37 Shorrolds Road had been re-developed and was unoccupied. Sole agents with new builds and unoccupied refurbished properties may hold more than one set of keys!

My thoughts are that SJL may have driven straight to Stevenage Road and met someone.....but is presents to many 'why's'? Alternatively, the timing for the first sighting in Stevenage Road is incorrect and it was more 13:40 when SJL's car was first seen. The sighting of the vehicle at 14:00 was by a London cabbie.....they are pretty switched on so I'd suggest reliable.

So a working hypothesis, I would suggest, is that SJL goes to Shorrolds Road directly for 12:45 or earlier as she always is, hence seen waiting outside address alone (witness). JC meets her O/S 37 SR. He has previously met SJL, he's charming but different, she's interested/curious.

He previously asked (phoned her at work on Saturday....two days before?) to meet again at lunchtime Monday, as he has to leave London for a short while (business). SJL agrees and accounts for her absence as a viewing (important to be seen to go there....for effect) JC rocks up with bubbly and suggests walk in park/by river. They drive separately to Stevenage Road area......

Poor parking, door open, handbrake off, seat back....who knows? Maybe she is pre-occupied with meeting JC and knowing she's bunking off work (sacking offence), could be seen by someone she knows (hence parking at the far end of Stevenage Road), adrenaline rush with the risk/excitement. Maybe she dropped keys on floor and pushed seat back to retrieve them....who knows?

MOO.

 

[Terryb808]

<modsnip> The police followed where the evidence took them. Admittedly they made some early errors with the photo, using the Fiesta for the reconstruction and releasing the name 'Kipper'. The review in 2000 will certainly have picked up incomplete/new valid lines of enquiry. They had no allegiance to the original investigation....they were professional, thorough and had integrity.

The DV fan club have fallen for a wild hypothesis based on the fact that CV and his good lady appeared a little odd to him. Interestingly AL walked out on him. Either they are all in it together or DV it the sort of chap whose interview style needs some work.

When the police recovered the items from PoW they will have made an assessment of the landlords explanation and demeanour etc and likely asked to have a look around. It would be rude to refuse and would certainly get ones name on the little whiteboard in the incident room. He will have been checked out and eliminated, which is why the police aren't jumping at DV's one man crime busting venture.

<modsnip>

I’m certainly not a paid up member of the DV fan club, and am totally objective (to the point of being painful).
I’ve learned over the years to question everything anyone tells you as not to results in embarrassment.
AS makes the point in his book that the detectives that interviewed CV felt uneasy about him. This point although not overly emphasised, was obvious l.
One year on CV was interviewed again and his story had changed, he introduced the two phone calls (Sarah & the policeman), saying he gave Sarah’s phone number to the officer that interviewed him the first time.
Now being objective and knowing how much pressure would have been on these officers at the time I can’t see them loosing such an important bit of info.
I personally trust the integrity of the officer and feel CV is lying.
This was dismissed and the officer blamed for loosing the info, unfair I feel.

 

[Cluesleuth]

My thoughts are that SJL may have driven straight to Stevenage Road and met someone.....but is presents to many 'why's'? Alternatively, the timing for the first sighting in Stevange Road is incorrect and it was more 13:40 when SJL's car was first seen. The sighting of the vehicle at 14:00 was by a London cabbie.....they are pretty switched on so quite possibly correct. So with the most obvious is there SJL goes to Shorrolds for 12:45 or earlier as she always is, hence seen waiting outside address alone (witness). Kipper meets her O/S 37 SR. He has already met SJL, he's charming but different, she's interested/curious. He asks to meet again at lunchtime Monday, as he has to leave London for a short while (business). SJL agrees and accounts for her absence as a viewing (important to be seen to go there....for effect) JC rocks up with bubbly and suggests walk in park/by river. They drive separately to Stevenage Road area......MOO

I dont see too many whys at all SJL went straight to Shorrolds road to meet someoneone she had arranged to meet someone.
I dont believe SJL was the female waiting outside the Stevanage rd property, as I suggested before Shorrolds, Stevanage and possibly other viewings were being carried out by another female Sturgis employe resembling SJL's appearance (hair colour /clothing).
If what we are led to believe is true and a female and male in the Sturgis office were in a relationship and usually spent their lunchtimes together this would have proved difficult on Monday unless they combined viewings they had agreed to cover with their lunch breaks.
We know the male had recently celebrated a birthday had which may account for a male carrying a bottle of champagne outside Shorrolds and a couple seen later drinking champagne in the park.

re JC the police suspect.
The champagne I agree could fit with his MO but one witness in Shorrolds reports a fiesta with possibly someone sat in it if as I suspect the male and female Sturgis employee were travelling between viewings together then this could have been a reason why the female would decline the champagne gift from or an invitation to share it over lunch from the viewer Mr KIPPER.

possibly a lucky escape for her, a surprise I would suspect for JC if he had expected SJL to turn up for the viewing.
If SJL was being pestered by someone she named Mr kipper and made her feel uncomfortable in my opinion it would have been completely understandable that she would have asked someone else to do the viewing for her.
If you believe JC the police suspect then its possible he caught up with SJL later I have looked around the area of the grand canal walk sighting of a male ditching a large item into the canal, as JC was working for a theatrical props company I thought the location of the Gillette Building Studios a theatre company is located nearby so is the Sky Studios so he may have visited these in the past. Also worth of note if the self storage units that sit alongside the cananl with an access gate directly onto canal path.

These are my opinions only of a possible senario

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I’m certainly not a paid up member of the DV fan club, and am totally objective (to the point of being painful).
I’ve learned over the years to question everything anyone tells you as not to results in embarrassment.
AS makes the point in his book that the detectives that interviewed CV felt uneasy about him. This point although not overly emphasised, was obvious l.
One year on CV was interviewed again and his story had changed, he introduced the two phone calls (Sarah & the policeman), saying he gave Sarah’s phone number to the officer that interviewed him the first time.
Now being objective and knowing how much pressure would have been on these officers at the time I can’t see them loosing such an important bit of info.
I personally trust the integrity of the officer and feel CV is lying.
This was dismissed and the officer blamed for loosing the info, unfair I feel.

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to.

When officers visited CV initially, they should have taken a statement, including the detail of any phone call CV had with SJL, together with his movements, his access to vehicles, and who was with with at the relevant times....particularly if they were uncomfortable with him for any reason.

Background checks should have been done although as a licensee he should have subject to some checks to be licenced.

If CV wasn't properly eliminated at the time then the review of 2000 should have picked up on this and actioned it.

What I would say is though is that someone's unusual demeanour is not enough for arrest, but should always promote additional investigation. Some people act guilty because the situation makes them feel that way.....going through the green gate at arrivals when you only have your sandwiches and a toothbrush!

 

[Pinkizzy]

I dont see too many whys at all SJL went straight to Shorrolds road to meet someoneone she had arranged to meet someone.
I dont believe SJL was the female waiting outside the Stevanage rd property, as I suggested before Shorrolds, Stevanage and possibly other viewings were being carried out by another female Sturgis employe resembling SJL's appearance (hair colour /clothing).
If what we are led to believe is true and a female and male in the Sturgis office were in a relationship and usually spent their lunchtimes together this would have proved difficult on Monday unless they combined viewings they had agreed to cover with their lunch breaks.
We know the male had recently celebrated a birthday had which may account for a male carrying a bottle of champagne outside Shorrolds and a couple seen later drinking champagne in the park.

re JC the police suspect.
The champagne I agree could fit with his MO but one witness in Shorrolds reports a fiesta with possibly someone sat in it if as I suspect the male and female Sturgis employee were travelling between viewings together then this could have been a reason why the female would decline the champagne gift from or an invitation to share it over lunch from the viewer Mr KIPPER.

possibly a lucky escape for her, a surprise I would suspect for JC if he had expected SJL to turn up for the viewing.
If SJL was being pestered by someone she named Mr kipper and made her feel uncomfortable in my opinion it would have been completely understandable that she would have asked someone else to do the viewing for her.
If you believe JC the police suspect then its possible he caught up with SJL later I have looked around the area of the grand canal walk sighting of a male ditching a large item into the canal, as JC was working for a theatrical props company I thought the location of the Gillette Building Studios a theatre company is located nearby so is the Sky Studios so he may have visited these in the past. Also worth of note if the self storage units that sit alongside the cananl with an access gate directly onto canal path.

These are my opinions only

MG was the estate agent for 123 Stevenage Rd, it makes sense to send a junior to organise the viewing for an interested client