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

[Whitehall 1212]

Did anyone do any of those things?

I have no idea....but entering locked premises is a problem that police have to overcome regularly. There are a number of possible options, depending on the circumstances.

I do wonder if SJL may have picked up the wrong keys, believing they were for 37 SR.

Maybe such an error was identified later, hence the keys to 37 SR reappearing!

For some reason the original Ch Supt leading the enquiry doesn't fill me with confidence in the two television appeals I've seem him on

 

[Terryb808]

Did anyone do any of those things?

Depending on the type of lock it’s not difficult to open and leave no damage.
This is definitely an option, however, if they had this skill why did they break down the door to SJL’s flat (Sweeney style).

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Depending on the type of lock it’s not difficult to open and leave no damage.
This is definitely an option, however, if they had this skill why did they break down the door to SJL’s flat (Sweeney style).

Not all bobbies are blessed with brains....but most have a size 10 boot or bigger.

Joking aside. As it was a possibility that SJL was held captive or had come to harm there, then forcing entry was an entirely appropriate action.

First principle of policing: The protection of life and property.....in that order.

 

[WestLondoner]

Why speculate on how the police might have got in, when we actually know how they got in? They've told us: they got in using keys.

What they don't know is where they got those keys.

If they started from the assumption that SJL took the only Sturgis set to 37SR, it would indeed be puzzling that they somehow got in with another set of keys of unknown origin. They could of course infer that if they've still got the "missing" keys SJL never had them. But that tosses the whole hypothesis that she ever went to SR into the bin. This would be a major egg on face moment given that from 10 the next morning and ever since, the police have been asserting she was seen there.

The male and female seen outside were probably MG and SF, who went there to look for her.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

But that tosses the whole hypothesis that she ever went to SR into the bin.

This is a perfect example of how some folk make a leap in assessing the evidence and conclude that a = b, when if looking objectively one can see that 'b' is not dependent on 'a'.

This becomes even more likely, when a person wants to disregard the only evidence as it doesn't support their unevidenced narrative.

That SJL may not have been in possession of keys to 37 SR, be it she didn't take the keys or took the wrong keys, does NOT undermine the evidence from the diary and witnesses in Shorrolds Road.

You so desire DV's theory re the PoW to be correct, that it totally clouds your perspective, in spite of there being absolutely no tangible evidence for it.

 

[WestLondoner]

Which other set of keys taken by SJL by mistake went missing?

Why did the police say at 10am next day she had been seen at 37SR, when she had not?

It's important to be familiar with the facts, the evidence, and the timeline. Superficial TV documentaries are no good for this; what is needed is to read the books and find out what did happen, not what should have happened.

I am personally confident that if you do this, you'll find many of questions answered and your assumptions corrected.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Which other set of keys taken by SJL by mistake went missing?

Her own but they werent taken by mistake..

 

[Cluesleuth]

What we are finding is that all the evidence is contradictory. Which ever way you turn you will enevitably come back to the office this is where absolute clarity is needed to move forward.

 

[shadwell]

Have one or more members of staff not told the entire truth of the circumstances because they feared getting into trouble?

We know that NH failed to disclose his relationship with SF to police and was called back to explain this omission. Between this and suggestions of a ‘wrong key’ scenario I do wonder whether there was something going on in the office that morning.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

We know that NH failed to disclose his relationship with SF to police and was called back to explain this omission. Between this and suggestions of a ‘wrong key’ scenario I do wonder whether there was something going on in the office that morning.

My gut feeling is that there may have been omissions by one or more of the staff, you have identified one. There seems to be confusion about events and keys etc. I would not expect perfect recall, particularly for what at the time would have been considered benign, before SJP was missing.

How much opportunity did staff have to get the 'party line' straight before the police took witness statements? If they were covering up some bad office practice then this could have impacted on the police understanding of the events that led up to SJL's disappearance.

For me the confusion regarding the keys highlights that the office picture needs to be clearly identified.

 

[Cluesleuth]

For me the confusion regarding the keys highlights that the office picture needs to be clearly identified.

What I would say that yes negotiators have their own clients but they offer the same properties and that in itself creates competition but in order that an office runs effectively everyone liases with each other.
If you didnt you could have 4 negotiators all turning up with thier clients at the same property on the same day at the same time. It just doesnt work like that.

Its my opinion that everyone knew where everyone else was going or intended to go that day, wether they were being completely honest with each other well thats a different question.
MOO

 

[Terryb808]

What we are finding is that all the evidence is contradictory. Which ever way you turn you will enevitably come back to the office this is where absolute clarity is needed to move forward.

The problem with this is the police didn’t have absolute clarity back in 1986 and now 36 years later you’ll not be able to establish it. Time just completely clouds peoples memories and will only result in more confusion.

 

[Terryb808]

My gut feeling is that there may have been omissions by one or more of the staff, you have identified one. There seems to be confusion about events and keys etc. I would not expect perfect recall, particularly for what at the time would have been considered benign, before SJP was missing.

How much opportunity did staff have to get the 'party line' straight before the police took witness statements? If they were covering up some bad office practice then this could have impacted on the police understanding of the events that led up to SJL's disappearance.

For me the confusion regarding the keys highlights that the office picture needs to be clearly identified.

I fully agree with this, this was a high profile case and no one in the Sturgis office would want to be found lacking in any way.
Sadly you’ll not get to the truth now, too much water has passed under the bridge as they say.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The problem with this is the police didn’t have absolute clarity back in 1986 and now 36 years later you’ll not be able to establish it. Time just completely clouds peoples memories and will only result in more confusion.

That is true and eye witness evidence can soon fade and be disrupted by other external influences. However, time can prompt people to disclose something that they weren't comfortable in doing at the time. Allegiances, loyalties and situations change, and new evidence can be revealed.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Its my opinion that everyone knew where everyone else was going or intended to go that day, wether they were being completely honest with each other well thats a different question.

This is just the reason why their individual statements had to be the facts that pertained to them as individuals.....what they did, where they went, what they saw, what they heard, what they knew. Definitely not a pre-arranged non-contentious version.....but warts and all, even though there may have been a vested, possibly commercial/career, interest in not revealing certain facts.

 

[Cluesleuth]

This is just the reason why their individual statements had to be the facts that pertained to them as individuals.....what they did, where they went, what they saw, what they heard, what they knew. Definitely not a pre-arranged non-contentious version.....but warts and all, even though there may have been a vested, possibly commercial/career, interest in not revealing certain facts.

Remember this office was set up my a military person they would have set out certain procedures, 'by the book' so Im bewildered that there wasnt a system which I thought to be pretty standard practice in the 1980's A 'viewing book' a 'Key book' and an office diary which was kept on the managers desk.

The Viewings book and entries would made on the viewing day.
Usually had the date the name of the property, the viewers name/tel number the time of the viewing and wether it was A/C accompanied or not then the negoiators initials.
The Key book was the similar and was filled in when a negotiator/ surveyor/ or tradesman estimating for works to be done took the key out of the office the only difference with the key book was that the time was required to be logged out when the key left the office and a simple tick box when it was returned.

At any time anyone in the office would have access to the books and could if needed check if someone who was out of the office was on a viewing, and similarly if a key hadnt been returned to the office.

This wasnt a system that was meant to log every working minute of a negotiator but to maintain the smooth running of an office.

If a system like this wasnt in place an police you can imagine the huge task the police had in front of them.
MOO

 

[Pinkizzy]

@TimFisher1965 claimed that JC was the only Sturgis employee who was wiilling to discuss office matters

We should contact him

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Remember this office was set up my a military person they would have set out certain procedures, 'by the book' so Im bewildered that there wasnt a system which I thought to be pretty standard practice in the 1980's A 'viewing book' a 'Key book' and an office diary which was kept on the managers desk.

The Viewings book and entries would made on the viewing day.
Usually had the date the name of the property, the viewers name/tel number the time of the viewing and wether it was A/C accompanied or not then the negoiators initials.
The Key book was the similar and was filled in when a negotiator/ surveyor/ or tradesman estimating for works to be done took the key out of the office the only difference with the key book was that the time was required to be logged out when the key left the office and a simple tick box when it was returned.

At any time anyone in the office would have access to the books and could if needed check if someone who was out of the office was on a viewing, and similarly if a key hadnt been returned to the office.

This wasnt a system that was meant to log every working minute of a negotiator but to maintain the smooth running of an office.

If a system like this wasnt in place an police you can imagine the huge task the police had in front of them.
MOO

As you say, if used as it was meant then it would facilitate the office running smoothly.

It's a manual system of the time. It's not fool proof and would not prevent all genuine error and would allow for misuse if anyone was so inclined.

Quite rightly the default position for employees is that that they are trusted and the vast majority are trustworthy. These days with various legislation in place, companies are obliged to perform due diligence, restrict access to information and have more robust systems in place.

However, poor supervision, poor culture and the abuse of power in the workplace can soon lead to systems that are corrupted and an 'either you are in or you are out' dynamic. I am not saying for one moment that this was the case at Sturgis but even if there was some minor shenanigans going on this could lead to some economy with the truth, which could affect an aspect of the investigation.

 

[WestLondoner]

Remember this office was set up my a military person they would have set out certain procedures, 'by the book' so Im bewildered that there wasnt a system which I thought to be pretty standard practice in the 1980's A 'viewing book' a 'Key book' and an office diary which was kept on the managers desk.

The Viewings book and entries would made on the viewing day.
Usually had the date the name of the property, the viewers name/tel number the time of the viewing and wether it was A/C accompanied or not then the negoiators initials.
The Key book was the similar and was filled in when a negotiator/ surveyor/ or tradesman estimating for works to be done took the key out of the office the only difference with the key book was that the time was required to be logged out when the key left the office and a simple tick box when it was returned.

At any time anyone in the office would have access to the books and could if needed check if someone who was out of the office was on a viewing, and similarly if a key hadnt been returned to the office.

This wasnt a system that was meant to log every working minute of a negotiator but to maintain the smooth running of an office.

If a system like this wasnt in place an police you can imagine the huge task the police had in front of them.
MOO

What you describe is pretty much how it worked everywhere. A mate of mine worked in a West London estate agency (Faron Sutaria) for three years from about 89. He'd worked at a bank counter but got bored and wanted to try something else.

It was an incredibly throat-cutting environment. He had no office mates, just duplicitous rivals. There was one set of keys to each property and you had to book them and sign them out via the manager, who watched you sign them out and back in. This was to ensure that two agents, who were at all times in competition with each other, couldn't turn up at the same property at the same time with rival buyers. It also made it harder for a rival to 'lose' or hog a set of keys to thwart bookings by other agents.

Where there were multiple bids for a property, they all had to be shown to the vendor, but the manager decided which was pushed as the agency's 'recommended' bid. Usually, not always, this was the highest bid, but sometimes if the highest bidder was a known flake, the manager would pick a lower one and warn the vendor off.

DV describes this process happening on SJL's office that morning.

If your buyer wasn't advanced as the 'best' to the vendor, you could try to get him / her to gazump the buyer who had been recommended by upping the bid above the others.

I was aware of the practice of gazumping in 1989 but wasn't aware, until my mate told me, that if you were gazumped on a property, that had almost certainly been organised by another employee of the same agency.

Whoever brought the buyer who exchanged on the property got 15% of the agency's commission, which at the time was either 2 or 2.25%. The agency kept the rest. Everyone else got nil. If you had a buyer bidding £130,000 for a property and it went to your colleague's client bidding £132,000 for it, your colleague would get paid £396 for that sale. You would get zilch. If you sold one such property a week, which was a typical target, you'd make about £20,000 a year on top of your basic. This at the time was by design not enough to live on - so you had to sell.

My buddy lasted about three years and packed it in because it was so epically vicious. He gave me two interesting pieces of advice when next I sold. One was never do joint agency because then neither agency will bother doing viewings in case the place is about to be offered on via the other one - waste of time. The other was don't list with an agency who's too far away. If the agency's in Notting Hill they'll never show anyone your flat in e.g. Little Venice; it's too far and they'll have no others to show you nearby to make best use of the time out of the office.

SJL mentioned at the party she went to on the Saturday that she was expecting a £3,000 commission. This sounds like she was in line for her share of property sales totalling about a million pounds, presumably payable at month-end that Thursday.

 

[Cluesleuth]

We know that NH failed to disclose his relationship with SF to police and was called back to explain this omission. Between this and suggestions of a ‘wrong key’ scenario I do wonder whether there was something going on in the office that morning.

DV also made us aware that NH had disclosed to him there had been an argument between himself and SJL over a property that morning. MG spoke up and said I dont remember that, That struck me as odd as its an open office and raised voices would have been heard.
When more than one negotiators had buyers for a property it would be up to MG to decide who was the best buyer.
This demonstrates the competiveness of the property business particularly when a negotiators income relies heavily on commission and you have to meet a monthly target.
You can Imagine the rush to secure your buyer the property before another colleague does theirs.

Perhaps you have to become a little careful with who you let know you are showing a property to.
Perhaps you say you are showing one property when you are at another property.
Perhaps you have to get your buyer to up his price in effect gazumping the other negotiators offer, you would need to get on with this PDQ which would mean a meeting to discuss the situation get a higher offer, poss quick exchange date which work better in lieu of the other buyer.

Im not suggesting this what happened, merely pointing out how certain situations can cause upset between work colleagues and from buyers who feel upset, that they are being asked to pay more for a property that they have already agreed a fair price for and a decision has been made to accept the same offer from another buyer. Likewise the other offerer who would now be gazumped would be equally upset. These situations can cause a lot of anger in people and confrontation does happen.

Needles to say I would be interested to know the address of the property that the argument was over.

these are just my opinions