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

[Cluesleuth]

Re phonecalls to and from Sturgis, why didn't the managers check the itemized phone bill?

The police must have surely?

 

[lee sumner]

The only primary evidence is the Sturgis diary entry regarding Mr Kipper and SJL's vehicle. The witness statements from Shorrolds Road provide credibility that SLJ did go there....from more than one independent witness....and that she was in the company of a smartly dressed male carrying a bottle of champagne with a ribbon around it. At the time a well known chain of off-licences were involved in such a promotion. A sketch and photofit resulted from these sightings.

What evidence do you have to disprove this? You have none! However, for some unknown reason you are wedded to an abstract idea based on nothing more than supposition with no material evidence to support it.

You make wild claims regarding the police investigation and how the police carry out their duties when you do not have the professional insight or experience to validate them.

Two clear examples of this are:

1. The only people considered as suspects were her acquaintances in Fulham that day

Everyone is treated as a witness, not a suspect, unless there is clear evidence that would give rise to suspicion. If this had been the case then the police would have arrested and interviewed them under caution, searched their cars, properties, places if work and seized items of potential evidential value etc. SJL's acquaintances were not treated in this way because they weren't suspects! This applied in 1986.

2. They did not ascertain whether any sex offenders had recently been released nearby, nor consider people who were no acquaintances, nor consider people not in Fulham

As a matter of course known offenders, whose MO of abduction, sexual offences or murder would have been identified and asked to account for their movements at the material time and provide alibi's. This is the grind of just such an investigation.

My promary concern is that some people will read what you post and believe it to be a statement of fact, which it is most certainly not. It is just the fanciful thoughts of one individual who is unable to provide any material evidence for SLJ going to the PoW, let alone coming to any harm there.

i agree. i like the way you think. i dont believe suzy went to the POW.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Can you explain why you have moved away from the official line of the police that the keys were still missing. This is the Crimewatch reconstruction of that day it was screened in Oct 1986. The presenter makes a point of saying that the facts have been obscurred by rumour and gossips and the reconstruction is based entirely what IS known.

Sup Det Nick Carter (26.19) says she took the keys to number 37 and they have never been found this is some twelve weeks after her disappearance and the police still maintain she took the keys. You have pointed out numerous times the thoroughness of the investigation wouldnt you agree that as a matter of routine the police would have searched the office as a whole, the keyboard, SJL's desk,her bag and the desks of other members of staff to ascertain that a key was in fact missing..

“Believe nothing, question everything, assume nothing.”​

KR said she saw SJL take the keys and the details.

Would it be reasonable to assume if the police had found the keys to be still in the office then police would not assume that SJL had forgotten the key in error and the investigation would not have proceeded so quickly in the direction it did in the first days and weeks

Start video at 17.38. Key discussed at 26.19

As I understand it there was doubt that crept in as to whether SJL had taken the keys to 37 Shorrolds Road.

Initially the police said that SJL had taken the keys. Had they confirmed this or assumed this? Was KR mistaken?

The keys were found at Sturgis. Were there more than one set at Sturgis? Agents generally only hold one set of keys to a property.....there may be exceptions, this could have been one.

Did SJL take the only set of keys and were they later returned after being found, maybe by a member of the public? If so maybe it didn't occur to Sturgis staff check for SLJ and raise the alarm earlier, get details of the finder and where they were found. Reason someone may cover up I'd say!

Have one or more members of staff not told the entire truth of the circumstances because they feared getting into trouble? I hope the police really dug down to ascertain the veracity of their statements and why they may provide misleading information.

I am of the view that SJL did go to Shorrolds Road, where she met her abductor. I'm not convinced that the police confirmed SJL had taken the keys. There was only one statement that said this, that of KR....had KR assumed or said what she felt she should? Was she young, naive and not aware of the need for absolute truth?

The matter of the keys were an investigation within an investigation. Was there genuine error or other factors involved?

Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate that any staff member of Sturgis were directly involved in SJL's disappearance.

 

[WestLondoner]

As I understand it there was doubt that crept in as to whether SJL had taken the keys to 37 Shorrolds Road.

Initially the police said that SJL had taken the keys. Had they confirmed this or assumed this? Was KR mistaken?

The keys were found at Sturgis. Were there more than one set at Sturgis? Agents generally only hold one set of keys to a property.....there may be exceptions, this could have been one.

Did SJL take the only set of keys and were they later returned after being found, maybe by a member of the public. If so maybe it didn't occur to Sturgis staff check for SLJ and raise the alarm earlier, get details of the finder and where they were found. Reason someone may cover up I'd say!

Have one or more members of staff not told the entire truth of the circumstances because they feared getting into trouble? I hope the police really dug down to ascertain the veracity of their statements and why they may provide misleading information.

I am of the view that SJL did go to Shorrolds Road, where she met her abductor. I'm not convinced that the police confirmed SJL had taken the keys. There was only one statement that said this, that of KR....had KR assumed or said what she felt she should? Was she young, naive and not aware of the need for absolute truth?

The matter of the keys were an investigation within an investigation. Was there genuine error or other factors involved?

Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate that any staff member of Sturgis was directly involved in SJL's disappearance.

Have you read any of the books on this case? Definitely a better idea than making assumptions.

 

[RichardKimble]

Have you read any of the books on this case? Definitely a better idea than making assumptions.

As it been explained how police entered the building Suzi was alleged to have been showing Kipper around if she had the keys ?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Re phonecalls to and from Sturgis, why didn't the managers check the itemized phone bill?

If they had, in 1986, BT would only have been able to provide records of outgoing calls.

 

[WestLondoner]

As it been explained how police entered the building Suzi was alleged to have been showing Kipper around if she had the keys ?

No. They don't know how they got in.

‘Well, we assumed she did have the keys.’ Ryan let out a sigh before continuing. ‘Because her manager went round to 37 Shorrolds Road and knocked on the door on the day to see if she was there.’
‘So how did the police’s own scenes of crime officer get inside 37 Shorrolds Road to forensicate the property the next day with the key, if Suzy had disappeared, taking that key with her?’
‘We, er, don’t know where those keys came from,’ Ryan admitted awkwardly...
‘So,’ Ryan started, sounding a little defeated, ‘you’ve got that bit too. We don’t know where the keys came from,’ he conceded. ‘So yeah, the…so we don’t know where the… so…’ Ryan stumbled over the end of his sentence, seemingly unsure how to finish it.

Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 241). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

The 1986 police assumed in effect that there were two sets of keys, that she had disappeared with one, and that they were using the other. It does not appear to have occurred to anyone to check to see if this was correct. Had they done so they'd likely have found that there was one set and they had it, so no viewing.

DV established via MG and KP that while they can't remember after 36 years how many sets they had on the 37SR fob specifically, all sets would be kept on the same fob, because this was standard Sturgis procedure for all keys at all times. Whoever had any of the keys had all of them.

 

[WestLondoner]

DS carter said suzy took the keys, but DV says she did not take the keys. i believe carter.

If she took the keys then how did the police get in?

 

[Pinkizzy]

I cant remember Ryan, who is Ryan?

 

[Cluesleuth]

I am of the view that SJL did go to Shorrolds Road, where she met her abductor. I'm not convinced that the police confirmed SJL had taken the keys. There was only one statement that said this, that of KR....had KR assumed or said what she felt she should? Was she young, naive and not aware of the need for absolute truth?

But thats not true is it Det Sup Carter did confirm she took the keys and did it on National TV

I posted the Crimewatch programme featuring the reconstruction where the police wanted to dispell rumours and gossip that obscurred the facts and in that programme Det Sup Nick Carter said says SJL took the keys. Perhaps you could check it out again.

Why would you throw doubt on a witness account of someone in the Sturgis office in the physical presence of SJL.

In my opinion young people are most reliable in recounting events and tell it as it is.
MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

I cant remember Ryan, who is Ryan?

Det. Supt Stuart Ryan, the man who said he was now in overall charge of Suzy’s case at the Met.

Videcette, David. FINDING SUZY: The Hunt for Missing Estate Agent Suzy Lamplugh and 'Mr Kipper' (p. 239). DNA Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But thats not true is it Det Sup Carter did confirm she took the keys and did it on National TV

I posted the Crimewatch programme featuring the reconstruction where the police wanted to dispell rumours and gossip that obscurred the facts and in that programme Det Sup Nick Carter said says SJL took the keys. Perhaps you could check it out again.

Why would you throw doubt on a witness account of someone in the Sturgis office in the physical presence of SJL.

In my opinion young people are most reliable in recounting events and tell it as it is.
MOO

Yes he did and I don't have any tangible reason to doubt it.

There was discussion later that a set of keys to 37 SR were found at Sturgis. I was merely throwing out some possible explanations if this was indeed the case.

The main thrust of my original post was that irrespective of whether SJL had the keys or not, I believe she went to 37 Shorrolds Road where she met her abductor/killer.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Why would you throw doubt on a witness account of someone in the Sturgis office in the physical presence of SJL.

In my opinion young people are most reliable in recounting events and tell it as it is.

Because experience has taught me to ask myself why a witness may be unreliable and to ask questions to confirm the veracity of what they say or expose their unreliability.

In a work situation there are many dynamics and sometimes practices, which staff would not wish to reveal. This has to be a consideration when taking witness statements. It's nothing personal

 

[Cluesleuth]

DBM

 

[WestLondoner]

But thats not true is it Det Sup Carter did confirm she took the keys and did it on National TV

Yes he did:

"when she left the company she took keys to the property, to #37, on this distinctive yellow fob...we still haven't found that"

 

[Whitehall 1212]

If she took the keys then how did the police get in?

Most likely by using their experience of how to enter locked doors. Maybe it was a subtle as slipping the lock with a readily available item (very useful when I lock myself out), having to break a window or force an external door.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Because experience has taught me to ask myself why a witness may be unreliable and to ask questions to confirm the veracity of what they say or expose their unreliability.

In a work situation there are many dynamics and sometimes practices, which staff would not wish to reveal. This has to be a consideration when taking witness statements. It's nothing personal

In my opinion that sounds like a bit of a Cop Out

 

[Cluesleuth]

Most likely by using their experience of how to enter locked doors. Maybe it was a subtle as slipping the lock with a readily available item (very useful when I lock myself out), having to break a window or force an external door.

I do agree with you on this

 

[Whitehall 1212]

In my opinion that sounds like a bit of a Cop Out

How can being thorough and not taking things at face value be a cop out? Quite the opposite I would say!

 

[WestLondoner]

Most likely by using their experience of how to enter locked doors. Maybe it was a subtle as slipping the lock with a readily available item (very useful when I lock myself out), having to break a window or force an external door.

Did anyone do any of those things?