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

[WestLondoner]

As the garage owner did not have the car keys, he couldn't have moved the car except by pushing it, which he could not have done from the driver's seat. If you need to move a car with the handbrake off, you would either push from the back, or open a door and push on the windscreen pillar. As it is, it appears the garage owner did none of these things, as he was evidently able to squeeze in past the car.

As with so much of the case I bet this turns out to be inconclusive. If AL is actually 6' and JC is 5'10" we're no further forward. Interesting point though.

 

[Pinkizzy]

If he left it with the handbrake off and didnt leave it in gear wouldnt there be a possibilty that it could move forward or backwards again?

Was the car in gear? We know the brake was down.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Was the car in gear? We know the brake was down.

Thats one of the details I have a question mark over. I accept you could move it by pushing it with the hand brake off and the gear in neutral, lets say you could knock it out of gear into neutral. but after youve moved it how do make sure it wouldnt roll backwards or forwards again without putting the handbrake (which we know wasnt done) or putting it into gear wouldnt you need to depress the clutch to put it back into a gear?

 

[WestLondoner]

All this points to the car not moving after it was dumped.

 

[Terryb808]

All this points to the car not moving after it was dumped.

Agree, it all points to that, according to AS the police took measurements to record the seat position and if I’ve not remembered this incorrectly used AL to get a feel for the drivers height.
This must have been very uncomfortable for AL, he must have felt that they thought he was the person who abandoned her car.
The police will know the seat position and if it was all the way back, if not all the way back, they’ll have an idea of the perpetrators height.

 

[WestLondoner]

It's interesting that they would use AL to test out the seat position. If they wanted to know what height of person this seat position suits, they'd surely just get a selection of WPCs and PCs in heights from 5'6" up to say 6'3", which is 10 officers, and have them all try it for size in order.

Making AL do it would make AL quite nervous indeed. It would me. And if it does happen to fit AL, it doesn't tell you whether it fits men of nearly the same height equally well. I wonder if there's some formula for deducing a driver's height, like there's one for working a car's speed from the skid marks when it crashed?

So it does become quite interesting to establish JC's height. Also MG's, to understand whether his height fits HR's description better than JC's does.

 

[Cluesleuth]

It's interesting that they would use AL to test out the seat position. If they wanted to know what height of person this seat position suits, they'd surely just get a selection of WPCs and PCs in heights from 5'6" up to say 6'3", which is 10 officers, and have them all try it for size in order.

Making AL do it would make AL quite nervous indeed. It would me. And if it does happen to fit AL, it doesn't tell you whether it fits men of nearly the same height equally well. I wonder if there's some formula for deducing a driver's height, like there's one for working a car's speed from the skid marks when it crashed?

So it does become quite interesting to establish JC's height. Also MG's, to understand whether his height fits HR's description better than JC's does.

Perhaps make an enquiry with Ford, but to be accurate you would have to know wether the seat was set all the way back or at an adjustment in between

 

[Pinkizzy]

We should ask Jen Jarvie to look into the case

 

[WestLondoner]

Perhaps make an enquiry with Ford, but to be accurate you would have to know wether the seat was set all the way back or at an adjustment in between

There's bound to be a Ford Owners Club forum online somewhere. Fiestas all had the same floopan whether 1.1L or 1.6 XR2. The latter are regarded as rising classics so I guess there's an owner of one out there who could tell what height you need to be for the all the way back position to be comfortable.

I think it is AS who reports all the way back. It is obviously important to know because it affects the driver height as you say.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Agree, it all points to that, according to AS the police took measurements to record the seat position and if I’ve not remembered this incorrectly used AL to get a feel for the drivers height.
This must have been very uncomfortable for AL, he must have felt that they thought he was the person who abandoned her car.
The police will know the seat position and if it was all the way back, if not all the way back, they’ll have an idea of the perpetrators height.

They surely had AL in the frame when asking him to do this ‘test’?

 

[Cluesleuth]

They surely had AL in the frame when asking him to do this ‘test’?

Well he was with her when on the Friday night when on video he said they had suspected that her diary and cheque book had been taken and he was supposed to have been meeting her on the Sunday night when the diary and cheque book was found by the POW landlord.
MOO

 

[WestLondoner]

It's so often the boyfriend / husband that you routinely eliminate him first. He'd need to account - and others to vouch - for his whereabouts between 12.40 and 23.30, when he first spoke to the police. According to AS, it took eleven statements from others to eliminate him conclusively. So it presumably took quite some time.

The problem with eliminating "the" boyfriend in SJL's case is that there was not just the one, there were at least four, totting up those mentioned by AS as current beaux.

 

[Crusader21]

I wonder will any statements or appeals be made regarding the 36th anniverasy tomorrow?

We're also fast approaching the first anniversay of the publication of DVs book. I think DV expected some sort of movement in this case after it's publication - a search, an arrest. I wonder will he mark the year with a statement, blog article or something .....

 

[Crusader21]

As always you have to feel for SLs remaining family at this time. Years and years of missed family occasions, coupled with not knowing what happened that day.

I'm reminded of Mike Barley's comments that they (the police), did all all they could to provide closure, but in the end there was a sense of letting the Lamlugh family down.

Incredibly sad ....

 

[asyousay]

I wonder will any statements or appeals be made regarding the 36th anniverasy tomorrow?

We're also fast approaching the first anniversay of the publication of DVs book. I think DV expected some sort of movement in this case after it's publication - a search, an arrest. I wonder will he mark the year with a statement, blog article or something .....

DV was a cop so he wouldn’t of been that naive in thinking he was going to rock up and make claims with not a single bit of evidence and they was all going to March down to the POW and case solved.


I am fascinated that people still think he is on to something. He has had years to gain evidence which clearly he hasn’t or we wouldn’t still be talking about the POW.

MOO

 

[Crusader21]

Out of interest, can the Sturgis staff all be ided?

 

[WestLondoner]

DV was a cop so he wouldn’t of been that naive in thinking he was going to rock up and make claims with not a single bit of evidence and they was all going to March down to the POW and case solved.


I am fascinated that people still think he is on to something. He has had years to gain evidence which clearly he hasn’t or we wouldn’t still be talking about the POW.

MOO

The problem I think is that as DV was about 11 in 1986, he wasn't in a position to gather evidence at the time. Therefore he can only work with whatever he can gather now, and what the police did gather at the time. The police do not look like plain dealers in their response to him because they dismiss anything he has surfaced now as unreliable because too long after the fact, while expressing no such reservation about 14-year-old TV-prompted hearsay that points to JC; and the evidence they say DV needs to produce is evidence they, not DV, should have gathered at the time themselves.

So essentially, they're dismissing what he has given them on the basis of one standard that they don't observe themselves, and on the basis of their own omissions 35 years ago, as though both of these somehow invalidate his thinking, but not their own. But they sought no witnesses as to SJL's movements in 1986, focusing entirely on placing her at 37SR. Witnesses such as BW, who despite this came forward with sightings that undermine this narrative, were simply dismissed or explained away - which is not the same as explained.

Consequently, the only way to establish now if SJL went to the PoW is to search it and see if she's still there. The police apparently think JC drank there, so that's their in, should they choose. At any rate it remains inexplicable that they were so incurious about what happened at the last place two witnesses said she was going. MH, the regular landlord, was not interviewed even though he was there that morning. He only found out a year later from the police that they had been, when they came back looking for CV. CV had not said a word. It could all be innocent, but that is weird.

You're clearly persuaded by the abduction hypothesis, and I certainly agree with you that it's a highly likely one and the the only real alternative. I differ maybe in that I am as unpersuaded as the CPS is of any JC involvement. The possibility she went to the PoW on the errand two people say she was running and that her colleagues knew about does not to me seem so outlandish it can just be ignored. I can't think why you'd search WJ's house, but not that pub.

 

[ruby925]

sorry, this bit in error...

The problem I think is that as DV was about 11 in 1986, he wasn't in a position to gather evidence at the time. Therefore he can only work with whatever he can gather now, and what the police did gather at the time. The police do not look like plain dealers in their response to him because they dismiss anything he has surfaced now as unreliable because too long after the fact, while expressing no such reservation about 14-year-old TV-prompted hearsay that points to JC; and the evidence they say DV needs to produce is evidence they, not DV, should have gathered at the time themselves.

So essentially, they're dismissing what he has given them on the basis of one standard that they don't observe themselves, and on the basis of their own omissions 35 years ago, as though both of these somehow invalidate his thinking, but not their own. But they sought no witnesses as to SJL's movements in 1986, focusing entirely on placing her at 37SR. Witnesses such as BW, who despite this came forward with sightings that undermine this narrative, were simply dismissed or explained away - which is not the same as explained.

Consequently, the only way to establish now if SJL went to the PoW is to search it and see if she's still there. The police apparently think JC drank there, so that's their in, should they choose. At any rate it remains inexplicable that they were so incurious about what happened at the last place two witnesses said she was going. MH, the regular landlord, was not interviewed even though he was there that morning. He only found out a year later from the police that they had been, when they came back looking for CV. CV had not said a word. It could all be innocent, but that is weird.

You're clearly persuaded by the abduction hypothesis, and I certainly agree with you that it's a highly likely one and the the only real alternative. I differ maybe in that I am as unpersuaded as the CPS is of any JC involvement. The possibility she went to the PoW on the errand two people say she was running and that her colleagues knew about does not to me seem so outlandish it can just be ignored. I can't think why you'd search WJ's house, but not that pub.

I remember the publicity re Suzy's disappearance, her face was everywhere, always accompanied by the reference to Mr Kipper. I find it unbelievable that the staff in the POW were not talking about it as there was that link to her belongings and that the permanent pub landlord was not briefed about it on his return.
Incidentally, when I sold my property a year later, I was not present for any viewings as I felt vulnerable directly as a result of the SJL case. For those of you not around at the time, SJL's disappearance/abduction was a huge news story, shocking because of the circumstances and then no real leads, no body etc...everyone knew about it.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I remember the publicity re Suzy's disappearance, her face was everywhere, always accompanied by the reference to Mr Kipper. I find it unbelievable that the staff in the POW were not talking about it as there was that link to her belongings and that the permanent pub landlord was not briefed about it on his return.
Incidentally, when I sold my property a year later, I was not present for any viewings as I felt vulnerable directly as a result of the SJL case. For those of you not around at the time, SJL's disappearance/abduction was a huge news story, shocking because of the circumstances and then no real leads, no body etc...everyone knew about it.

Can I ask did you use Sturgis estate agents?

 

[asyousay]

Right so I was gonna make a post knocking DV and his lack of action but I have decided to be more productive here.



He obviously can not just produce a body. But the police have told him to put up or shut up.

So if any of you was DV what steps would you now take to get around a lack of evidence??