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

[Konstantin]

and @Observe_dont_Absorb @Terryb808

I note that my two requests for the source link for the information about the landlord having no idea that SJL's property was found outside his pub, have gone unanswered.

This is a trend of statements being made without any links to substantiate the claim and it is misleading.

The source for all this is DV's book. DV writes the book by reproducing conversations he had with various witnesses. It is not possible to tell from the book whether this is from memory or if he had made recordings although if he made recordings it appears that he started to record the encounter from the start.

DV showed up at the home of the permanent landlord, who he calls MH, unannounced i.e. his visit was out of the blue. He describes how MH's wife answers the door and tells him that MH is in the shower. When MH comes out of the shower, he immediately refers to SJL i.e. he has sussed that DV's visit is because of this case.

I'm going to type out some of the interview so we can see both what DV says and how he says it.

"I'm sorry this is completely out of the blue. And I'm sorry to get you out of the shower. I'm a writer. I understand you used to run the PoW pub in Putney?"

"That's correct"

"It's taken me an awful long time to track you down. I've got a few questions to ask you and they're going to seem very strange. and..."
"Not if they're about Suzy Lamplugh they're not!" he said loudly.
In the background, Caroline let out a faint gasp. We had the right man.
"Yes they are. How did you..."
"The strangest thing is the police never came back to me," he replied, cutting me off--stopping me in my tracks.
We had walked unannounced into this man's house and he knew the very thing I was here to ask him about after nearly 33 years <....>he'd blindsided us with an apparent complaint about a police investigation from more than thirty years ago"

So that is how DV sets up his meeting with MH. His main points are-- it took him a long time to track down MH, MH immediately knows what he is there for (although why else would a total stranger show up in his home regarding his former association with the PoW?) and he frames MH's remarks as "an apparent complaint" about the police investigation.

 

[WestLondoner]

The source for all this is DV's book. DV writes the book by reproducing conversations he had with various witnesses. It is not possible to tell from the book whether this is from memory or if he had made recordings although if he made recordings it appears that he started to record the encounter from the start.

DV showed up at the home of the permanent landlord, who he calls MH, unannounced i.e. his visit was out of the blue. He describes how MH's wife answers the door and tells him that MH is in the shower. When MH comes out of the shower, he immediately refers to SJL i.e. he has sussed that DV's visit is because of this case.

I'm going to type out some of the interview so we can see both what DV says and how he says it.





So that is how DV sets up his meeting with MH. His main points are-- it took him a long time to track down MH, MH immediately knows what he is there for (although why else would a total stranger show up in his home regarding his former association with the PoW?) and he frames MH's remarks as "an apparent complaint" about the police investigation.

An excellent post that demonstrates perfectly why it helps to be familiar with the material.

 

[Konstantin]

I'm putting this in separate posts to avoid having one massive post!

DV goes on to talk to MH about his "strange questions" which are of course about SJL's missing items.

"Did you talk to the police originally?" I asked.

"I can't remember it all now..." He frowned. "The purse or bag or whatever it was that was found...I can't remember now. It was handed in by a member of staff." MH trailed off.

He knew that I wanted to ask him about lost property. It was what I had tried to talk to Adam Leegood about--the items Adam had half claimed were stolen on a documentary we'd watched. Though, manifestly, they hadn't been stolen, not if someone had handed them in to the pub management.
Our research had shown that the police recovered a pocket diary, a postcard and a chequebook from the POW pub in Putney, all belonging to Suzy, but there seemed to be some confusion as to when these items had been collected from the pub.

My note here -- AS is clear that the police sent two officers to attend the POW pub on the Tuesday morning after SJL disappeared to collect these items. I made the point earlier in the thread that this shows that someone had told the police right off the bat about these items, presumably because the police wanted to establish Suzy's plans and timeline for where she might have been going that day. And this also means that Suzy must have told someone probably one of her Sturgis colleagues about these events.

DV says the he had "been able to prove" that the police had collected the items (in fact AS talks about this). He then says, which I think is him editorializing and partly can't be true, since they obviously knew the items were at the pub and thus must have been told by someone:

But curiously they [the Met] seemed unconcerned about how the items had ended up at the pub or how and why the items were there, and that was what I wanted to talk to MH about. Who had rung the police to tell them that SJL's lost items were at the pub?

My note-- Suzy was on the phone to her bank and the pub from her office that morning, so given the timeline that the police knew by Tuesday morning before her disappearance was made public (right?), it's logical that someone from Sturgis knew about it and told them.

 

[Pinkizzy]

I'm putting this in separate posts to avoid having one massive post!

DV goes on to talk to MH about his "strange questions" which are of course about SJL's missing items.



My note here -- AS is clear that the police sent two officers to attend the POW pub on the Tuesday morning after SJL disappeared to collect these items. I made the point earlier in the thread that this shows that someone had told the police right off the bat about these items, presumably because the police wanted to establish Suzy's plans and timeline for where she might have been going that day. And this also means that Suzy must have told someone probably one of her Sturgis colleagues about these events.

DV says the he had "been able to prove" that the police had collected the items (in fact AS talks about this). He then says, which I think is him editorializing and partly can't be true, since they obviously knew the items were at the pub and thus must have been told by someone:


My note-- Suzy was on the phone to her bank and the pub from her office that morning, so given the timeline that the police knew by Tuesday morning before her disappearance was made public (right?), it's logical that someone from Sturgis knew about it and told them.

It must have been MG

 

[WestLondoner]

My note here -- AS is clear that the police sent two officers to attend the POW pub on the Tuesday morning after SJL disappeared to collect these items. I made the point earlier in the thread that this shows that someone had told the police right off the bat about these items, presumably because the police wanted to establish Suzy's plans and timeline for where she might have been going that day. And this also means that Suzy must have told someone probably one of her Sturgis colleagues about these events.

My note-- Suzy was on the phone to her bank and the pub from her office that morning, so given the timeline that the police knew by Tuesday morning before her disappearance was made public (right?), it's logical that someone from Sturgis knew about it and told them.

Agree with all that. SJL told colleagues she needed to collect stuff from the pub and had made arrangements to do so.

The temporary landlord then tells the police she never turned up, is the only person interviewed, and hides the fact from the permanent landlord.

So that's all right then.

 

[Konstantin]

I think a member of staff handed it in to my then wife" MH continued, though he was struggling to remember the exact details of the particular items in question. I was impressed he could remember this much. "We couldn't find anything in there, whatever it was, an address or anything"

DV then tries to get MH to remember if "he rang the police and they collected it off you". MH can't recall that happening (it was over three decades ago).

"We know the police were called," I agreed. "But why were they called--because you knew who SJL was and she'd gone missing?"
"Afterwards, yes"
"BUt you didn't know about it at the time, when the items were found?"
"No." He shook his head. "I think we'd asked, or somebody had asked around the pub, does anyone know this person. So that we could have contacted them"
<...>
MH explained that it was much later, on seeing some publicity about SJL's disappearance and her case, that he eventually made the connection between the lost property at the pub and SJL. He couldn't remember how he found this out.

<,...>

MH clarified that he had never been asked to give a written statement to the police about the items being found. However as the full time licensee of the pub who was present when the items had been lost he felt he should have done.
It seemed to me that the police had gone back to the POW in 1987 looking for CV, to take a statement from him <MY NOTE-- this is covered in the AS book which DV has definitely read>. They'd briefly spoken to the pub, alerting them that the lost property was connected to SJL. however, as a stopgap employee, CV was no longer there...MH had been left with the impression that the police were going to come back to him after they'd tracked down and spoken to CV and he felt aggrieved that they hadn't...

So I think MH clearly remembers there was something involving lost property but the rest of his memories about what happened around it are either hazy or he has forgotten completely, which I guess is understandable given the passage of so much time. I don't think we can really conclude from this that he wasn't told about it, he could equally have forgotten. And I am not dismissing the merits of DV's investigation here but DV is setting up this chapter and this conversation to lead us to the conclusion that the missing items of SJL's are (a) an important part of the investigation into her disappearance and (b) something that the police had overlooked. He concludes the chapter by saying:

It was something the police had dismissed, but the more we asked questions about it, the more intriguing it became.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The source for all this is DV's book. DV writes the book by reproducing conversations he had with various witnesses. It is not possible to tell from the book whether this is from memory or if he had made recordings although if he made recordings it appears that he started to record the encounter from the start.

DV showed up at the home of the permanent landlord, who he calls MH, unannounced i.e. his visit was out of the blue. He describes how MH's wife answers the door and tells him that MH is in the shower. When MH comes out of the shower, he immediately refers to SJL i.e. he has sussed that DV's visit is because of this case.

I'm going to type out some of the interview so we can see both what DV says and how he says it.





So that is how DV sets up his meeting with MH. His main points are-- it took him a long time to track down MH, MH immediately knows what he is there for (although why else would a total stranger show up in his home regarding his former association with the PoW?) and he frames MH's remarks as "an apparent complaint" about the police investigation.

Thanks @Konstantin

In terms of MH's response, I interpret it that he had previously been asked questions about SJL. My assumption would be that they were from the police, which would be supported by his comment that "they (the police) never came back to me".

This would not be unusual for the police, even today, and something that I find personally quite impolite and not encouraging the public to make contact when they have information in future.

If the police had satisfied themselves that the PoW line of enquiry was complete, that was it as far as they were concerned, unless anything else came to light. They wouldn't contact the witnesses and say "thanks for your help and we have all the information we need from you at this time".

There is no doubt that DV frames the responses in a particular way, in essence to lead the reader into a particular thought pattern of his choosing, and quite possibly one to support his PoW theory and everything about it being somewhat 'dodgy'.

Therefore, the onus is on the reader to listen to the contemporaneous record and to be very aware of the 'spin' that DV places on it. This also does not preclude the possibility that DV did not print the interviews in their entirety.

 

[Konstantin]

Agree with all that. SJL told colleagues she needed to collect stuff from the pub and had made arrangements to do so.

The temporary landlord then tells the police she never turned up, is the only person interviewed, and hides the fact from the permanent landlord.

So that's all right then.

Well, we don't know for sure if he hid that, to be fair. It was three decades later and the landlord's memories are clearly very hazy and he doesn't express that this was hidden from him at all. But he was the only one interviewed yes. At least there is nothing to suggest that his wife, who apparently did speak to Suzy on the phone around lunchtime, was interviewed. That would seem odd to me, since she must have been the last person Suzy is known to have spoken with. One woudl assume that would be of interest to know exactly what Suzy said?

 

[Konstantin]

Just to add. To be fair to DV, he does a good job of fleshing out some of what happened around Suzy's lost property.

He establishes that MH and wife were there when the property was found and that they then left the pub in the hands of a relief landlord and wife after the weekend, so by the time the police came to recover her lost property on the Tuesday he was not there.

That is something that one doesn't know from the AS book.

We also learn that no one in the pub knew who SJL was. Although "we asked around the pub" means what? Drinkers? Regulars? If the items were found around closing time then who would have been there to ask? Or he meant asked around on the Saturday/ Sunday if they were lost on Friday? I think these are interesting details to know as it might shed some light on Suzy's movements that weekend if they were left on Sunday.

The question here is whether any of this is relevant and to what degree. We also still don't have any idea when exactly the property was lost, whether on the Friday night or the Sunday night. We don't know when the relief landlord showed up for his duties, the Friday or Sunday.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

My note-- Suzy was on the phone to her bank and the pub from her office that morning, so given the timeline that the police knew by Tuesday morning before her disappearance was made public (right?), it's logical that someone from Sturgis knew about it and told them.

Either that or SJL had given the pub her work contact details, prompting the PoW to phone Sturgis on Tuesday morning when SJL didn't turn up to collect her property the evening before and prompting the prompt police attendance at the PoW.

Your assertion is more likely, assuming the Sturgis staff were aware and mentioned it to the police.

 

[Cluesleuth]

I'm putting this in separate posts to avoid having one massive post!

DV goes on to talk to MH about his "strange questions" which are of course about SJL's missing items.



My note here -- AS is clear that the police sent two officers to attend the POW pub on the Tuesday morning after SJL disappeared to collect these items. I made the point earlier in the thread that this shows that someone had told the police right off the bat about these items, presumably because the police wanted to establish Suzy's plans and timeline for where she might have been going that day. And this also means that Suzy must have told someone probably one of her Sturgis colleagues about these events.

DV says the he had "been able to prove" that the police had collected the items (in fact AS talks about this). He then says, which I think is him editorializing and partly can't be true, since they obviously knew the items were at the pub and thus must have been told by someone:


My note-- Suzy was on the phone to her bank and the pub from her office that morning, so given the timeline that the police knew by Tuesday morning before her disappearance was made public (right?), it's logical that someone from Sturgis knew about it and told them.

AS book pg 28
SJL made them all tea just after nine, and DF thought she seemed in a particulary good mood. She was was preoccupied with her missing cheque book, diary and postcard, first stopping the cheques with her bank and then (when she learned her belongings had been recovered) arranging to pick them up from the POW pub that evening.

In the course of the questioning Sturgis staff on the Monday I would think a number if not all the staff informed the police of SJL's conversation and calls re her lost items.

MG and AL was questioned at length that evening at the police station. You would think that AL was asked wether he knew about the loss of the items at that point too.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

Agree with all that. SJL told colleagues she needed to collect stuff from the pub and had made arrangements to do so.

The temporary landlord then tells the police she never turned up, is the only person interviewed, and hides the fact from the permanent landlord.

So that's all right then.

As before @WestLondoner......police will ask witnesses in major investigations not to mention that they have provided a witness statement or discuss what they said in their witness statement. This is important as to imply that that CV did not mention it to MH is disingenuous.

 

[Cluesleuth]

Just to add. To be fair to DV, he does a good job of fleshing out some of what happened around Suzy's lost property.

He establishes that MH and wife were there when the property was found and that they then left the pub in the hands of a relief landlord and wife after the weekend, so by the time the police came to recover her lost property on the Tuesday he was not there.

That is something that one doesn't know from the AS book.

We also learn that no one in the pub knew who SJL was. Although "we asked around the pub" means what? Drinkers? Regulars? If the items were found around closing time then who would have been there to ask? Or he meant asked around on the Saturday/ Sunday if they were lost on Friday? I think these are interesting details to know as it might shed some light on Suzy's movements that weekend if they were left on Sunday.

The question here is whether any of this is relevant and to what degree. We also still don't have any idea when exactly the property was lost, whether on the Friday night or the Sunday night. We don't know when the relief landlord showed up for his duties, the Friday or Sunday.

As you quite rightly point out we dont know if the lost items have any connection to the abduction itself. But I am interested to know
Why AL thought the items to have been stolen.
Did he and SJL eat alone that night
Were any of the other diners known to AL and SJL
Had SJL been in the presence of someone known to be light fingered
How did they walk, drive or take a taxi to on that Fri night

 

[Whitehall 1212]

"he rang the police and they collected it off you"

Leading question from DV rather than "what did you do to locate the owner"?

DV will have known better regarding questioning technique and just how framing a question in a certain can influence the answer. This is a massive red flag in DV's investigatory integrity.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Why didn't MH proactively contact the police to provide a written statement, rather than wait for them to call him?

 

[WestLondoner]

Why didn't MH proactively contact the police to provide a written statement, rather than wait for them to call him?

Because he didn't know the lost property related to a missing person? Which supports the idea that he didn't find out that it did until the bill rocked up a year later.

In 1986 all he knows is that there's been some lost property found. No biggie, happens a lot. No reason to contact the police. When the police show up a year later, that's when he finds out it was SJL's lost property.

Recall that CV insisted KF knew nothing about any of this. Quite odd...

 

[Konstantin]

AS book pg 28
SJL made them all tea just after nine, and DF thought she seemed in a particulary good mood. She was was preoccupied with her missing cheque book, diary and postcard, first stopping the cheques with her bank and then (when she learned her belongings had been recovered) arranging to pick them up from the POW pub that evening.

In the course of the questioning Sturgis staff on the Monday I would think a number if not all the staff informed the police of SJL's conversation and calls re her lost items.

MG and AL was questioned at length that evening at the police station. You would think that AL was asked wether he knew about the loss of the items at that point too.

Thanks for this!
Since she was making the calls about her stuff in an open plan office using a company phone and on company time (no issues with that of course) it's not surprising that she was chatty about this with her colleagues. So she knew her stuff had gone on the Monday and was concerned about it. But over the weekend hadn't apparently mentioned it. I wonder if that does mean she did lose it on the Sunday night not the Friday.

 

[WestLondoner]

Thanks for this!
Since she was making the calls about her stuff in an open plan office using a company phone and on company time (no issues with that of course) it's not surprising that she was chatty about this with her colleagues. So she knew her stuff had gone on the Monday and was concerned about it. But over the weekend hadn't apparently mentioned it. I wonder if that does mean she did lose it on the Sunday night not the Friday.

I think so. AL thought she must have lost it on the Friday because they were near there, as in next door, on Friday. It did not occur to him that she might actually have been at the PoW more recently than that. So his account was honest, but mistaken.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

@Konstantin


MH clarified that he had never been asked to give a written statement to the police about the items being found. However as the full time licensee of the pub who was present when the items had been lost he felt he should have done.
It seemed to me that the police had gone back to the POW in 1987 looking for CV, to take a statement from him <MY NOTE-- this is covered in the AS book which DV has definitely read>. They'd briefly spoken to the pub, alerting them that the lost property was connected to SJL. however, as a stopgap employee, CV was no longer there...MH had been left with the impression that the police were going to come back to him after they'd tracked down and spoken to CV and he felt aggrieved that they hadn't...

To provide some context, this is not entirely surprising in such a major investigation and particularly one that was overwhelmed with information at the time.

Mr Kipper and the appt in Shorrolds Road will have been the early and mid-term focus of investigation. The police collected the items from PoW on Tuesday 29th July. From the police perspective the items were known have been lost/found before SJL went missing. The police spoke with CV , who I assume told police that he was the relief landlord and that MH had left during the day on the day before (Monday). From this the police ascertained that if SLJ had come to the pub to collect as planned (around 18:00 on 28th) then he would have been responsible for the pub at the time.

It was a major error not to take a statement from CV at the time, although it would have been a good move to obtain one from CV and KF identifying who handed him the property (MH presumably) and what he told him to do with it, any conversations with SJL (KF - when/how long/contemporaneous record of conversation). They were not suspects but the general conversation with the statements could be used to identify any body language/hesitation that may introduce suspicion.

On the basis of the above I would have wanted a statement from MH about the circumstances of him finding the property and passing to CV and what he told him. This provides continuity for the movement of the property before the police took possession of it. How it came to be lost/stolen/misplaced before turning up at the PoW should also have been established.

This is very different to suggesting that something untoward befell SJL at the PoW, for which their is no evidence. It is a possibility that SJL's property was taken deliberately by someone and then came into the possession of the PoW in a way in which it would be found and returned. This should have been a line of enquiry to establish the facts.

 

[Pinkizzy]

Because he didn't know the lost property related to a missing person? Which supports the idea that he didn't find out that it did until the bill rocked up a year later.

In 1986 all he knows is that there's been some lost property found. No biggie, happens a lot. No reason to contact the police. When the police show up a year later, that's when he finds out it was SJL's lost property.

Recall that CV insisted KF knew nothing about any of this. Quite odd...

I can't remember whether the police took MHs written statement after a year