UK UK - Suzy Lamplugh, 25, Fulham, 28 Jul 1986 #3

[Jenesaisquoi]

In answer to a comment on a previous post about wearing of wristwatches, I was definitely still wearing a wristwatch as late as 1999.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Right, although she was out of contact with her entire social circle without it. If she needed to make or cancel any other arrangement by phone, she would need the thing back ASAP.

A colleague of mine once lost his Time Manager, which was a sort of Filofax, and it took him weeks to reassemble everything in it.

Nobody wants their personal data floating around a pub, cheque book, contact numbers, other private info.

I'd feel uneasy and keen to nip in to retrieve it ASAP, as opposed to the laid back 'I can get it any time' response that some people estimate.

It's not a huge mission, takes no time, the pub has reliable known opening hours, so it doesn't require forward planning and agreeing with anyone. Personally, if that were me, I'd be itching to go fetch at the first opportunity arising.

 

[Konstantin]

In answer to a comment on a previous post about wearing of wristwatches, I was definitely still wearing a wristwatch as late as 1999.

I love wristwatches!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I love wristwatches!

I feel positively undressed without one.....

 

[WestLondoner]

The "salacious diary" concept comes from DV, who describes his meeting with Stuart Ryan (possibly a pseudonym) of the Met. DV went to meet him along with his researcher, Caroline, and presents his case to Ryan.

DV sets up the meeting to show that the police are not interested in pursuing his theory. There are several themes that DV raises in the description of this meeting, mostly to do with the points he is making to underpin his POW theory. He also describes the conversation in such a way that makes Ryan look like he is not familiar with the facts of the case (or the facts as DV sees them-- he describes Ryan as "sounding a little defeated...he stumbled over the end of his sentence, seemingly unsure how to finish it..." DV describes the meeting in a way that suggests he thinks the police want to dismiss him, cover up what he has found.

It's a long description but here is the bit that is relevant to DV setting up this "salacious" concept.

DV first says he could have searched the POW himself, using the exact same techniques etc as the police but the reason he didn't was because SJL's sister asked him to share his findings with the Met.

"But as we tried to seek an explanation for this, Ryan's tone changed. He began to suggest that our investigation had fallen short of achieving anything, despite his admissions so far to the contrary.

It simply wasn't good enough, he said, that we were suggesting Suzy's remains could be under the dining room floor of the POW. In order to be able to say this, he claimed, we'd have to provide him with a motive for why whoever had killed her there had chosen to do it.

'There are key bits that you cannot answer in your hypothesis,' he chided. 'There are key bits in our investigation, which is public record, which you cannot account for in your hypothesis'- he smiled-'which knocks your hypothesis down completely'

'It's not a hypothesis,' I mumbled. A hypothesis is something more than a wild guess but less than a well established theory.

[Ryan talks about Suzy's car at this point, there is a lot of this chapter about whether there was a second house viewing that day]

"This letter makes it clear exactly... that we are not opening the investigation in terms of your hypothesis. If you identify the POW pub as a possible location,' Ryan continued imperiously... 'We will make it quite clear that from a police point of view that is, that it's inaccurate and unfounded'...but if you get the golden thread which suddenly changes everything"

So it wasn't unfounded, it was incomplete. And Ryan was now offering us some investigative advice.

[My note-- I think that DV is spinning this a bit. I think he's saying it's unfounded, but is trying to soften the blow a bit.]

"THe golden thread would be something like, was she seen going into the pub at 3 o clock that day?... was she actually seen going into that pub? Because we know for a fact, from CV and KF, that the pub was busy"

[So here DV has massively buried his lede. We learn that the relief landlord and his wife were interviewed, and that the pub was open that afternoon and busy. Except DV has an answer for this-- of course they would say that because (he implies, they are guilty innit?]

"That's what they've told you?" Caroline asked.

"We know that for a fact from them"

{this goes on a while longer then Ryan again says DV would need to provide a proper motive for the events]

"You would need to provide a proper motive for the incident rather than just was it because there was something salacious in her diary and she didn't want someone to take it and therefore she's tried to get it back and there's been an argument and someone's killed her"

It was a bizarre comment...we had never once speculated about the content of Suzy's personal pocket diary.

[...]

We knew that the police had somehow come into the possession of Suzy;s lost property from the pub after her disappearance....apart from the police and those at the pub we hadn't spoken to anyone who really knew she had even lost those items."

End quotes.

1." the police had somehow come into the possession"-- it's documented in AS that they went around to the pub the morning after she disappeared. THis is a bit disingenuous tbh. It's clear that others were aware about the POW because the police knew about it right off the bat. Ergo, she told someone, most likely her colleagues. This is not hard to work out. THe pub was so incidental to the disappearance story and it's decades later and her colleagues probably are not allowed to talk about what they reported to the police, but most likely they just cannot remember this.

2. DV is literally accusing the pub staff of involvement in Suzy's disappearance and death. He does need a motive and that is the diary, it is implied throughout his book. So the police officer here is not giving away secret evidence of the diary really being salacious, DV is jumping on this comment to make it seem like... ooooh the diary was salacious, ergo now we have a motive for the killing.

But yeah, he buries the lede. The relief landlord AND his wife were interviewed at the time and confirmed the pub was busy that afternoon. Open. And busy.

Is not DV's point that that's what they would say regardless - I.e. everything the police think they know about the PoW, they got from CV (who, interestingly, denies KF knew anything about this)? They'd either say it because it was true because nothing happened, or to conceal whatever did happen.

I still find it unfathomable that police would search 123SR but not the PoW. We have no idea if she actually arrived there, but it is the best attested of all the places she could have been going.

 

[Cherwell]

Nobody wants their personal data floating around a pub, cheque book, contact numbers, other private info.

I'd feel uneasy and keen to nip in to retrieve it ASAP, as opposed to the laid back 'I can get it any time' response that some people estimate.

It's not a huge mission, takes no time, the pub has reliable known opening hours, so it doesn't require forward planning and agreeing with anyone. Personally, if that were me, I'd be itching to go fetch at the first opportunity arising.

If I realised where I'd left it and as far as I knew it might still be there, I wouldn't rest until I'd got it back.
But if I'd been reassured that someone had got it and was keeping it safe for me, then I wouldn't feel the same urgency. I'd have called in after work on my way home.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

They'd either say it because it was true because nothing happened, or to conceal whatever did happen.

When police are looking for suspects then they identity possible motive

Most murder victims are known to their killers....more than a passing acquaintance.

The police have the 'diary', they know what's in it. They would have identified if there was anything that could have been used to blackmail SJL by a finder.

Obviously the police were more than satisfied that CV had no motive to have harmed SJL even if she had come to collect her diary.

I still find it unfathomable that police would search 123SR but not the PoW.

I have endeavoured more than once to explain the need for reasonable grounds to apply for a search warrant and how 123SR and the PoW are entirely different in terms of their respective locations and the consequential grounds for search.

It should not be unfathomable as it's a logical process of:

1. 123SR, car found opp indicating abandoned in a hurry, property marketed by Sturgis. Quite possibly the owners accommodated a voluntary search.

2. PoW. No indication that SJL had been there or in the immediate vicinity. This could apply to the Tennis Club, SJL's local shop or anywhere else she may have gone that day. Without some concrete info that she was there....no grounds!

You can take a horse to water......

 

[Pinkizzy]

I feel positively undressed without one.....

I wear a smartwatch

 

[asyousay]

Yes I completely understand why the POW was not searched.


CV from all accounts was honest and forthcoming when questioned. He didn’t raise any red flags.


MOO

 

[ruby925]

When police are looking for suspects then they identity possible motive

Most murder victims are known to their killers....more than a passing acquaintance.

The police have the 'diary', they know what's in it. They would have identified if there was anything that could have been used to blackmail SJL by a finder.

Obviously the police were more than satisfied that CV had no motive to have harmed SJL even if she had come to collect her diary.



I have endeavoured more than once to explain the need for reasonable grounds to apply for a search warrant and how 123SR and the PoW are entirely different in terms of their respective locations and the consequential grounds for search.

It should not be unfathomable as it's a logical process of:

1. 123SR, car found opp indicating abandoned in a hurry, property marketed by Sturgis. Quite possibly the owners accommodated a voluntary search.

2. PoW. No indication that SJL had been there or in the immediate vicinity. This could apply to the Tennis Club, SJL's local shop or anywhere else she may have gone that day. Without some concrete info that she was there....no grounds!

You can take a horse to water......

I am not saying the POW should have been searched, but it is not the same as the Tennis Club or her local shop. The POW was holding her belongings and evidently there were phone calls re that situation, so SLJ was due to go to the POW to pick up her belongings. No evidence has emerged (as far as I can see) that SLJ was due to go to a shop, no evidence or tennis partner that would place her at the tennis club.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I wear a smartwatch

Me too

 

[Whitehall 1212]

I am not saying the POW should have been searched, but it is not the same as the Tennis Club or her local shop. The POW was holding her belongings and evidently there were phone calls re that situation, so SLJ was due to go to the POW to pick up her belongings. No evidence has emerged (as far as I can see) that SLJ was due to go to a shop, no evidence or tennis partner that would place her at the tennis club.

I understand what you are saying, but my point is that there is no evidence that SJL actually went to the PoW.

The police were confident with CV as a witness/finder of the property.

Now for the police to suddenly go against all the information they had and decide that SLP had been to the PoW on Mon 28th July 1986, they would need some credible evidence to dis-believe CV and demonstrate that SJL had been there or in the immediate vicinity

This would then make CV a possible suspect and his experience with the police would have been very different.

Some shout "Police Corruption" but in the next breath are advocating for a police service that acts beyond the powers given to them.....search anywhere on a whim.

Our police are far from perfect but what we have in the UK is far, far better than even our nearest neighbours.

 

[WestLondoner]

Yes I completely understand why the POW was not searched.


CV from all accounts was honest and forthcoming when questioned. He didn’t raise any red flags.


MOO

Or to put it another way, he was plausible!

Peter Sutcliffe was pretty plausible too...he was interviewed nine times and nobody was troubled by him, either...

The issue with DV's theory is that he goes from 'she was probably going to the PoW' to 'she arrived, was killed and is hidden there, and I cannot explain why'. I was bemused by this when I read his book. You can see why he thinks she went there and that there's a hiding place for a body, but you can't see how she walks in alive and ends up dead.

His corpse-sized and -shaped heap of rubbish could be there because builders tossed junk in there through a small remaining gap, then laid the final floorboards. It's also not clear that the hiding place is undisturbed if the floor height has been changed. How do you lower a floor without looking underneath it?

This stuff isn't fatal to his case but it is hard to understand. There is probably more to DV's case than he has published. Even if not, if SJL was in fact heading there but never actually arrived, then it still raises a huge question mark over the assumptions that it was she who was seen outside 37SR, etc. If she never arrived, how far did she actually get?

 

[Pinkizzy]

I am not saying the POW should have been searched, but it is not the same as the Tennis Club or her local shop. The POW was holding her belongings and evidently there were phone calls re that situation, so SLJ was due to go to the POW to pick up her belongings. No evidence has emerged (as far as I can see) that SLJ was due to go to a shop, no evidence or tennis partner that would place her at the tennis club.

SJL told her boss she was due to go shopping that day

 

[Cherwell]

SLP, SLJ, SJL ..... wouldn't it be simpler if we all referred to her as Suzy?

 

[WestLondoner]

SLP, SLJ, SJL ..... wouldn't it be simpler if we all referred to her as Suzy?

Ooh, I dunno. It's quite instructive if people with an opinion on the case aren't actually familiar with key facts of it, such as, er, her name. It can tell you how much weight to attach to those opinions.

She's the only party referred to by 3 initials so it makes her easy to pick out.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

In answer to a comment on a previous post about wearing of wristwatches, I was definitely still wearing a wristwatch as late as 1999.

People don't wear wristwatches any more? Well, I'm still wearing one! Also definitely, someone gifted me an expensive sports / diving watch in the late 90s and it was definitely a 'thing' - people wanted nice watches.

 

[ruby925]

Ooh, I dunno. It's quite instructive if people with an opinion on the case aren't actually familiar with key facts of it, such as, er, her name. It can tell you how much weight to attach to those opinions.

She's the only party referred to by 3 initials so it makes her easy to pick out.

Sorry I mis-typed..unkind to say my opinion has no value because of that?

 

[WestLondoner]

Sorry I mis-typed..unkind to say my opinion has no value because of that?

Only if you do it literally all the time

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Peter Sutcliffe was pretty plausible too...he was interviewed nine times and nobody was troubled by him...

You are fundamentally incorrect @WestLondoner!

The late DC Andrew Laptew of WYP interviewed Sutcliffe and did express his serious reservations in intelligence reports and personally to the SIO. He was not content with his alibi or explanation of his movements.

This was a detective with the experience to know when something is not right. It cannot be quantified and it may more akin to pseudo-science but I believe that a 'Coppers Nose' or plain intuition is a valid sub-conscious assessment of a situation based on past experience.

The appalling status quo at West Yorkshire Police in the 1970's in concert with the the inadequate means to investigate such a large investigation led to Sutcliffe being at large for far too long.

There was a whole scale review by Lawrence Byford following the shocking failure. This led to to massive changes in how police investigated serious crime and also the introduction of HOLMES to manage the vast amounts of information obtained during major investigations.