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

[Whitehall 1212]

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

Because few people, who have not worked in LE, would have the confidence to do so. Many have an underlying nervousness of involvement or mistrust in the police and/or would feel that they were wasting their time.

Additionally, the public focus was entirely on the Mr Kipper and 37 Shorrolds Road, which was not wrong. However, it can prevent people coming forward with information outside of the highly publicised element.

It must be pointed out though that other lines of enquiry will have been investigated by the team during the public focus on Mr Kipper and Shorrolds Road.

Just because it is not publicised does not mean it is not happening.

 

[Konstantin]

It was an error not to take a statement from CV at the time, I would want 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 (when/how long/contemporaneous record of conversation). They were not suspects but the conversation with the statement could be used to identify any body language/hesitation that may introduce suspicion.

According to AS, it seems CV was spoken to in some way by the two officers who attended the pub to collect the lost items on Tuesday 29/7. They then spoke to him again a year later during a review of the case. When they spoke with him again he told them that in his initial interview he told the two officers that there had been two phone calls to the pub enquiring after Suzy, one from a female who seemed to be a friend looking for her and one from the police looking for her. He claimed to have given the officers the female's phone number but they had no record of this. DV believes this to be very suspicious, however it was a year after the initial interview and since Sturgis colleagues at least knew she was planning to go to the pub the day she disappeared, it makes sense for someone to have called it looking for her. The police would have called the pub as well either to arrange to pick up the items or see if she was there. Honestly, I don't find his story suspicious. It's a bit muddled but people tell muddled stories.

CV told DV that he was the one to have found the property. He explained that he found it just outside the pub, which had a little outside drinking area comprising a picnic table and bench, the items were on the floor there all together. CV claims to recall finding the items after closing time when he stepped out to go to a take away as the bench was near the pub door/exit. He then would have handed them in to MH which makes sense as MH was still present. MH recalls the items being handed in by a member of staff. As the landlord MH would be in a better position to say if he knew the person who lost the items and to inform CV about the policy for handling them.

CV or his wife called Suzy's bank on the Monday, which must have been the Monday morning since the bank then called Suzy before she left the office around 12;30 to 12:40. DV from his interview with MH's now ex wife says that on that Monday morning a stock take was ongoing. Yet CV still had the time to call Suzy's bank that same morning.

According to AS it was CV's wife who last spoke to Suzy on the phone that morning to arrange with her when she could pick the items up and it seems that Suzy arranged this would be later that same day. The pub was very close by her home.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

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...

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

Source material for veracity, otherwise you could just be making it up or the memory is playing tricks with the passage of time!

 

[Whitehall 1212]

According to AS, it seems CV was spoken to in some way by the two officers who attended the pub to collect the lost items on Tuesday 29/7. They then spoke to him again a year later during a review of the case. When they spoke with him again he told them that in his initial interview he told the two officers that there had been two phone calls to the pub enquiring after Suzy, one from a female who seemed to be a friend looking for her and one from the police looking for her. He claimed to have given the officers the female's phone number but they had no record of this. DV believes this to be very suspicious, however it was a year after the initial interview and since Sturgis colleagues at least knew she was planning to go to the pub the day she disappeared, it makes sense for someone to have called it looking for her. The police would have called the pub as well either to arrange to pick up the items or see if she was there. Honestly, I don't find his story suspicious. It's a bit muddled but people tell muddled stories.

Thanks @Konstantin. I was familiar with the circumstances.

AS states that when Diana Lamplugh was first notified by MG that SJL was missing, one of her actions was to telephone a member of SJL's social set (DW). This quite possibly set off a chain reaction of calls between friends and either one of them who frequented the PoW with SJL or one of the Sturgis staff (who knew of the found property) phoned the PoW asking for 'Susannah', which was misheard as 'Susan'.

Similarly, the police will have spoken to family, friends, colleagues in the very early stages and ascertained the places where SLP went and made contact with them to ask if she was there/been seen.

That DV elevates these events into something is ridiculous. For an ex-detective to do it, who will be aware of how things operate and how such confusion can arise is beyond me. Although it probably makes for a jolly ripping yard with lashings of ginger beer.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

CV told DV that he was the one to have found the property. He explained that he found it just outside the pub, which had a little outside drinking area comprising a picnic table and bench, the items were on the floor there all together. CV claims to recall finding the items after closing time when he stepped out to go to a take away as the bench was near the pub door/exit. He then would have handed them in to MH which makes sense as MH was still present. MH recalls the items being handed in by a member of staff. As the landlord MH would be in a better position to say if he knew the person who lost the items and to inform CV about the policy for handling them.

The circumstances of the property being lost/stolen/mislaid and then 'found' outside the PoW is 'interesting'.

The items, personal diary, cheque book and a postcard are all items that could potentially provide information on someone's associations, particularly close personal ones, and where they had been.

If AL wanted to know who SJL had been meeting, places she'd been to recently or who was in contact with her then the items may be useful sources of information. Did he 'borrow' them without her knowledge and then 'return' them in a way that would be discreet? I understand that AL was part of the group that went windsurfing at Worthing on Sunday 27th but he was not at the PoW (officially) with SJL that evening!

Of course this would place significant suspicion upon AL, over and above his status as SJL's boyfriend. Am I right in thinking that his alibi was not easily come by? As a boyfriend the police would have been particularly vigorous in their enquiries to either implicate or eliminate him.

 

[Konstantin]

Of course this would place significant suspicion upon AL, over and above his status as SJL's boyfriend. Am I right in thinking that his alibi was not easily come by? As a boyfriend the police would have been particularly vigorous in their enquiries to either implicate or eliminate him.

Yes it took them a while to eliminate him as per AS but he was eliminated.

There was likely some tension between him and SJL given that, according to AS, it was well known among her friends that she planned to break up with him. He was her boyfriend but not a serious one (for her) and it does seem like she was seeing other people. They saw each other on the Friday night but AL claims they did not go into the POW. They did go to a restaurant close by it though.

And yes if you were going to rummage through someone's bag to try to grab stuff that might tell you what they'd been up to, chequebook (stubs), diary, and mysterious postcard (who from? or from a visit to somewhere?) would be interesting items to peruse.

 

[Cluesleuth]

According to AS, it seems CV was spoken to in some way by the two officers who attended the pub to collect the lost items on Tuesday 29/7. They then spoke to him again a year later during a review of the case. When they spoke with him again he told them that in his initial interview he told the two officers that there had been two phone calls to the pub enquiring after Suzy, one from a female who seemed to be a friend looking for her and one from the police looking for her. He claimed to have given the officers the female's phone number but they had no record of this. DV believes this to be very suspicious, however it was a year after the initial interview and since Sturgis colleagues at least knew she was planning to go to the pub the day she disappeared, it makes sense for someone to have called it looking for her. The police would have called the pub as well either to arrange to pick up the items or see if she was there. Honestly, I don't find his story suspicious. It's a bit muddled but people tell muddled stories.

CV told DV that he was the one to have found the property. He explained that he found it just outside the pub, which had a little outside drinking area comprising a picnic table and bench, the items were on the floor there all together. CV claims to recall finding the items after closing time when he stepped out to go to a take away as the bench was near the pub door/exit. He then would have handed them in to MH which makes sense as MH was still present. MH recalls the items being handed in by a member of staff. As the landlord MH would be in a better position to say if he knew the person who lost the items and to inform CV about the policy for handling them.

CV or his wife called Suzy's bank on the Monday, which must have been the Monday morning since the bank then called Suzy before she left the office around 12;30 to 12:40. DV from his interview with MH's now ex wife says that on that Monday morning a stock take was ongoing. Yet CV still had the time to call Suzy's bank that same morning.

According to AS it was CV's wife who last spoke to Suzy on the phone that morning to arrange with her when she could pick the items up and it seems that Suzy arranged this would be later that same day. The pub was very close by her home.

As I understood it CV had found the items on the way to collect a takeaway.
Ive only read suggestions that he found them on the pub doorstep or by the outdoor seating area on the thread?
If CV had found them on his way to the takeway then it opens things up to more possibilities. I understand he was Northern so could the takeaway have been an Indian one which is very popular up North. Looking at the map Mossops where AL and SJL were having a meal serves Indian food and has a takeaway option if they offered this in 1986 then this would make it about a 7 min walk from the POW. If the items were inadvertantly lost outside or nearby Mossops then it might have been reasonable to understand why AL had thought they had been stolen at the restuarant rather than some point on the way home particulary if they had retraced their steps and checked with the restaurant.
One thing that is also not clear is that was the stolen item assumption made by both AL and SJL having had a conversation between themselves of was it just AL's assumption after being told of the missing items by the police.

just thinking of all possibilities

 

[WestLondoner]

There certainly are ways to explain CV being a bit confused about what happened, but what is a bit weird is there supposedly being police phone calls on the Monday afternoon. The police weren't even informed until 18.45 and by 10 or 11 the next morning, when per AS they turned up to collect the stuff, they had already decided on the Kipper narrative. At what point they would have phoned is unclear, but it can't have been Monday. If they did phone it would be Tuesday and because someone at Sturgis had mentioned this when the staff were spoken to next day.

It is also very odd that CV tells DV that KF didn't know anything this. You wonder what 'this' and why not.

 

[Pinkizzy]

It would be interesting to hear KFs version of events - what she said to SJL during the final phone call and where the items were left for the pickup

 

[WestLondoner]

It would be interesting to hear KFs version of events - what she said to SJL during the final phone call and where the items were left for the pickup

And of course what the pickup time was changed to. If SJL said she was coming right over - no 37SR.

 

[Terryb808]

And of course what the pickup time was changed to. If SJL said she was coming right over - no 37SR.

It’s surprising that an effort has not been made by DV to follow up on this point.
Okay he was kicked back the first time, but try again.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Personally I think this was a cool calm collected and well planned abduction carried out by a group of individuals.

If you stay true to the witness accounts of people seen at Shorrolds and Stevenage rd's its points to more than one person.

this is very interesting, what motivations for doing this do you suspect could be included

 

[Cluesleuth]

It’s surprising that an effort has not been made by DV to follow up on this point.
Okay he was kicked back the first time, but try again.

Perhaps DV has avoided stating a time because he like us wasnt able to confirm if the pub was open at lunchtime.
Then again he had every opportunity to ask CV.. the question is did he?
It would be a huge setback if after years of work DV found out that the pub was open at lunchtime that day and the window of opportunity for something to have happened to SJL there had now gone.
MOO

 

[Cluesleuth]

this is very interesting, what motivations for doing this do you suspect could be included

A business deal gone bad.

 

[Pinkizzy]

A business deal gone bad.

Businesses have cash flow problems all of the time, I don't think its a reason to abduct someone

 

[WiseOwl]

The circumstances of the property being lost/stolen/mislaid and then 'found' outside the PoW is 'interesting'.

The items, personal diary, cheque book and a postcard are all items that could potentially provide information on someone's associations, particularly close personal ones, and where they had been.

If AL wanted to know who SJL had been meeting, places she'd been to recently or who was in contact with her then the items may be useful sources of information. Did he 'borrow' them without her knowledge and then 'return' them in a way that would be discreet? I understand that AL was part of the group that went windsurfing at Worthing on Sunday 27th but he was not at the PoW (officially) with SJL that evening!

Of course this would place significant suspicion upon AL, over and above his status as SJL's boyfriend. Am I right in thinking that his alibi was not easily come by? As a boyfriend the police would have been particularly vigorous in their enquiries to either implicate or eliminate him.

In AS's book he states that AL left his office twice that Monday to go to meetings. Unfortunately he doesn't say where or what time these meetings were.

Also AL made a call and left a message for Suzy at the Sturgis office that afternoon, but again it does not elaborate on what the message was about.

I have wondered if AL was the mysterious tennis player who (presumably) did not turn up on Monday evening - maybe that was why he phoned the office that day to tell Suzy he couldn't make it?

 

[Whitehall 1212]

In AS's book he states that AL left his office twice that Monday to go to meetings. Unfortunately he doesn't say where or what time these meetings were.

Also AL made a call and left a message for Suzy at the Sturgis office that afternoon, but again it does not elaborate on what the message was about.

I have wondered if AL was the mysterious tennis player who (presumably) did not turn up on Monday evening - maybe that was why he phoned the office that day to tell Suzy he couldn't make it?

Of course we have gaps in our knowledge, which the police will not. They will know the content of the message left by AL and more importantly they will be absolutely certain that AL's alibi checked out.....I believe it took nine different statements from people to account for his movements that day.

On another matter, AS says that SJL's bank accounts didn't show any income over and above what would be expected.

I hope the police checked to see if her bank account and credit cards transactions were consistent with spending for a 25 year old woman with a two bed flat, a mortgage and a lodger and not that they indicated low current a/c use, over-counter cash settlement of credit cards and limited trace of purchases, indicating cash purchase possibly from unknown sources?

I'm as sure as I can be that the answer lies in her off-screen activities, i.e. not family, Putney Set, established home friendships or work. Her discreet/secret life acquaintances are the key.

MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Perhaps DV has avoided stating a time because he like us wasnt able to confirm if the pub was open at lunchtime.
Then again he had every opportunity to ask CV.. the question is did he?
It would be a huge setback if after years of work DV found out that the pub was open at lunchtime that day and the window of opportunity for something to have happened to SJL there had now gone.
MOO

The pub wouldn’t necessarily have to be closed in order for something tragic to have happened.

The only surefire factor any murderer(s) need to get away with murder is for nobody to ever scrutinised them or search the location.

In that regard *if* anyone connected to the PoW did do something, they got very lucky and still are.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The pub wouldn’t necessarily have to be closed in order for something tragic to have happened.

The only surefire factor any murderer(s) need to get away with murder is for nobody to ever scrutinised them or search the location.

In that regard *if* anyone connected to the PoW did do something, they got very lucky and still are.

Have you ever smelt a decomposing body? The stench is overwhelming and sticks like glue!

To hide a body in a work place/public house with other staff accessing the private areas, without anyone noticing would be miraculous.

These factors need to be considered when making out that SJL met her fate in the PoW and is still there to this day.

 

[Whitehall 1212]

The pub wouldn’t necessarily have to be closed in order for something tragic to have happened.

The only surefire factor any murderer(s) need to get away with murder is for nobody to ever scrutinised them or search the location.

In that regard *if* anyone connected to the PoW did do something, they got very lucky and still are.

You talk about "something tragic" happening.

1. If there was an accident what is the likelihood that someone would not call the emergency services for assistance? You'd need to to have a very good reason no to.....only OCG's command the power and invoke enough fear to ensure that the vast majority of folk will keep quiet.

2. If the intention was to lure SJL to the PoW with evil intent, putting any possible motive to one side, then that would indicate involvement in organised crime. OCG's aren't generally keen on getting rumbled and tend to keep locations quite low key, e.g. industrial lockups away from sight and hearing

3. Spur of the moment blackmail scenario for the diary (was is that salcious?) or sexual assault which resulted in murder/manslaughter and concealment. Firstly it's on home turf, with staff and quite likely customers around (13:00ish on summers working day).

Successful concealment would need considerable fore-thought.....unplanned killing provides significant logistical problems with body disposal....they start getting grotty pretty quickly and one fly can lay enough eggs to produce swarms of flies before long.....seriously unpleasant.

Whilst in writing it may appear to some like a credible explanation, think of how many times you have come across such scenarios. Do any of these really have any genuine credibility?